House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
1. What recent progress he has made on apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-olds.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
The number of 16 to 18-year-olds starting apprenticeships in 2011-12 was 129,900, down by 1.4% on the previous year.
Julie Elliott
With youth apprenticeships down on last year and the demise of the professional careers service as most people recognise it, what are the Government doing to ensure that young people receive the correct advice on starting apprenticeships, and, in particular, the route to higher level qualifications that some apprenticeships can lead to?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady is quite right that we need to encourage all students to consider apprenticeships as a high quality alternative to the academic path. I commend the activity that Sunderland city council and Sunderland football club are under-taking to ensure that more young people in that great city consider apprenticeships as a viable role for the future. I should add that the recent diminution in the number of 16 to 19-year-olds taking apprenticeships was due significantly to the fact that we were reducing the number of low quality apprenticeships where the duration was shorter than a proper apprenticeship needs to be and the quality of tuition was less effective than a good apprenticeship needs to be, but there is still more to be done.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his Department’s success in raising the profile of apprenticeships and making them a genuinely attractive alternative to higher education? Will he join me in congratulating East Midlands Housing Group on its apprenticeships in my constituency, and on being an apprentice team of the year finalist this year?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the importance of construction and other sectors in helping to encourage more young people to consider apprenticeships. The Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock)—who sadly cannot be with us, Mr Speaker, because he is enjoying paternity leave—has I think done more than any other Minister, apart possibly from his immediate predecessor, to put apprenticeships on the map and to work with industry to raise the esteem in which vocational training is held.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State realise that many of us who believe passionately in apprenticeships are concerned that the people instructing apprentices should be of the highest order? What is this love affair between him and people who are unqualified working with apprenticeships and in schools?
Michael Gove
I absolutely agree that those working with apprentices need to have either the best qualifications or the best experience in the relevant sector, which is why we implemented the recommendations of Alison Wolf’s report. We have allowed lecturers in further education, who are qualified in that sector but were not previously able to work in schools, to work in schools. We will also implement the Richard review, which once more puts employers in control of assuring the quality of vocational qualifications, so that anyone who secures an apprenticeship can be confident that it will lead to a satisfying job.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
With youth unemployment at the 1 million mark, one would have thought that Ministers would do all they could to get young people into training and jobs, so why have the Government overseen a 12% reduction in young apprenticeships in the past six months alone, alongside a £165 million departmental underspend? Where is the determination to fix this crisis? Rather than writing eight-page letters and trying to become the pen pal of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), should the Secretary of State not be focusing on some policy work?
Michael Gove
Rather than writing eloquent questions and reading them out with the rounded vowels of a public school educated champion of vocational education, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman concentrate on what the Government have done. I also suggest that he refer back to the wonderful Westminster Hall debate, held with the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk, in which the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that under the previous Government vocational education was not good enough, that there were far too many low standard courses, and that the Wolf report and the Richard review have been the two best pieces of work on vocational and technical education undertaken in the past 25 years. If he looked back at what he said then, he would face a dilemma: does he eat the words he uttered in Westminster Hall, or does he acknowledge that the question he has just asked was nonsense from start to finish?
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
2. What assessment he has made of the likely effect of his funding proposals on rural schools.
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
Supporting successful rural schools is an important principle of our funding reforms. My Department has just concluded a review of funding arrangements for 2013-14, which included visits to North Yorkshire and several other rural authorities.
Miss McIntosh
Does the Minister accept that the pupil premium has not worked its way through to rural schools in perhaps the way he had hoped, and will he join me in helping North Yorkshire council to put in place fairer funding for rural schools, particularly those with many service children?
Mr Laws
The pupil premium has to be passed down properly to all schools, and before it existed, many young disadvantaged people were not getting any proper additional funding in many rural areas. My hon. Friend may wish to know that we also recently widened entitlement to the pupil premium to include pupils in families who had been entitled to free school meals at any time in the past six years. She will be pleased to know that as part of our recent funding review, we have introduced a sparsity factor of up to £100,000 that will allow local authorities to give extra money to schools in rural areas, and one of the big gaining authorities will be North Yorkshire.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Given that the Secretary of State has had meetings with devolved Education Ministers in Northern Ireland and Wales about other examination matters, will the Minister confirm whether the Secretary of State had discussions with them about the potential for rural schools, their potential closure and the need for them to be sustained?
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Last week, the chief inspector of schools said that Ofsted’s report on unseen children painted
“a striking new picture of disadvantage and educational underachievement”.
In his speech, he said that we needed new policies and approaches to deal with underachievement in rural and coastal areas. If those policies are to succeed, they will need to be financed. Will the Minister commit today to a redistribution to rural areas, so that allocations are fairer and more equal?
Mr Laws
We are committed to introducing a fairer national funding formula, and we hope to be able to say more about that once we are clear about the spending review announcements later this week. We also intend to ensure, through Ofsted and the accountability measures we publish, that schools in rural, coastal and other areas that may have small proportions of young people on free school meals or entitled to the pupil premium are still under intense pressure to narrow these gaps, which are as unacceptable in rural and coastal areas as they are in our inner cities.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
A small village primary school near Melksham in my constituency has grown over several years to serve more than 200 pupils in seven classes, five of them in temporary buildings. Will the Minister ensure that through the targeted basic need programme rural councils such as Wilshire’s will get the help they need to meet the growing primary school pupil population?
Mr Laws
We will certainly do that. The Government are spending more than double what the previous Government spent on capital to support new school places, and as my hon. Friend indicated, before too long we hope to announce the results of the targeted basic need programme, which will enable new schools to be established in areas of basic need, as well as the expansion of existing good and outstanding schools.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
3. What recent progress he has made on reform of the adoption system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
I am determined to reform the adoption system to reduce delay for children. One of our most pressing priorities is increasing the number of approved adopters. We have already launched the First4Adoption telephone and online service to provide information to all potential adopters and published the adoption passport, and we are bringing in a quicker two-stage adopter approvals process from 1 July.
John Glen
My constituent Helen Holgate is a respected and experienced foster carer, but she still tells me that there are considerable court delays during the concurrency process. What steps is the Minister taking to improve the concurrent care process so that children can be placed permanently and more swiftly with a loving family on a full-time, permanent basis?
Mr Timpson
First, I would like to pay tribute to Helen Holgate and all the other fantastic foster carers helping many vulnerable children in our country. We are working towards streamlining the approval process for foster carers. On court proceedings, through the Children and Families Bill, we are introducing fostering for adoption rules to ensure that children are placed earlier with prospective adopters, and with the work of the Family Justice Board, we are helping to strip out unnecessary delays in care proceedings. As a result, the average length of a care case has already been reduced from 57 to 42.2 weeks.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
What more does the Minister think local government should be doing to support foster carers who, according to the Fostering Network, feel unsupported and often take in children when they do not feel quite prepared to do so?
Mr Timpson
With the Fostering Network and many other fostering charities, we have developed some excellent training materials for foster carers, to provide them with the support that they need. This will make them feel confident that they are in control of the placement, with the day-to-day decisions such as whether children get their hair cut or go on a sleepover being delegated to them. This will also help the children to feel that they have a normal family existence while they are in a foster care arrangement.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
What more can be done under the reforms to encourage older people to adopt children?
Mr Timpson
One of the many myths surrounding adoption relates to the age of prospective adopters. We want anyone who is interested in adopting to come forward and use the new adoption gateway, which is the easy way of getting the information and advice that they need. We do not want to put people off adopting; we want to welcome them with open arms and do all that we can to support them in providing children with the homes they desperately need.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
4. What steps his Department is taking to support schemes to help non-resident fathers to learn parenting skills and engage with their children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)
The Children and Families Bill underlines our expectation that children normally benefit from the involvement of both parents. In addition, the early years teachers and early years educators qualifications that we are introducing this year and next year will include training in engaging parents in their child’s development and education.
Richard Harrington
One of the most interesting and inspiring constituency visits that I have made recently was to the Oxhey early years centre, which is run by a fantastic person called Helen Walsh. While I was there, I saw an excellent programme for non-resident fathers run by the Sunshine Children’s Centre in partnership with Watford football club. It brings together children and fathers who do not normally see their children to play, and helps the fathers with their parenting skills. Will the Minister confirm that the Government support this kind of thing? If she has time, perhaps she would like to come to Watford with me to see the centre.
Elizabeth Truss
I completely agree that what the Sunshine Children’s Centre in Watford is doing is excellent; it is a very good example of best practice. I am delighted that the centre is working in partnership with Watford football club, which is the team that my dad supports. Perhaps he would be keen to visit the centre. We recently put out our new children’s centre guidance, which puts much more focus on getting parents involved in their children’s development and upbringing and on supporting families to be emotionally resilient. This is absolutely the kind of thing we want to see more of.
Mr Speaker
It is a new departure for Members on the Treasury Bench to subcontract ministerial visits to their parents. Who knows what else is in store?
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
5. What consideration he has given to including life-saving skills in the physical education curriculum.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)
Our proposals for the new national curriculum were published for consultation earlier this year. They are based on the principle that the national curriculum should set out a body of essential knowledge that children should be expected to acquire in key subjects. We are considering the consultation responses, and considering the inclusion of life-saving skills.
Justin Tomlinson
I am conscious that we do not wish to be too prescriptive, but just two hours of training could enable help to be provided to those suffering the 60,000 cardiac arrests that take place outside hospital each year and give a real, tangible skill to those who wish to go into the sports and leisure industry.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and for bringing a delegation from the British Heart Foundation to meet me. It made a good case for the introduction of live-saving skills. I also know that 86% of teachers support training in those skills. However, we have to strike a balance in the national curriculum between the flexibility that we give to teachers and what we prescribe centrally. Those factors will go into our final decision making.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
On Friday, I visited Burnbush primary school in my constituency to meet a really lively group of year 6 pupils. They showed me the skills that they had learnt as a result of the Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and British Heart Foundation programme that has been going round schools and teaching children about resuscitation and how to stop people choking. Does the Minister agree that we should be considering such training for the curriculum not only in secondary schools but in primary schools, as their pupils could also benefit from learning those skills?
Elizabeth Truss
I think it is a fantastic programme that the British Heart Foundation runs. One thing we have done is to provide finance to the Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education Association to work with partners such as the British Heart Foundation on providing programmes that really bring the subject to life in schools.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
6. What funding his Department is providing to local authorities to address shortfalls in primary school places.
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
By the end of this Parliament, we will have made well over £5 billion available to local authorities to support the provision of additional pupil places, which is more than double what was provided by the previous Government over a comparable period.
Karl MᶜCartney
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree with me that when we are dealing with a shortage of school places, the last thing we need is an assault on valuable teachers in the independent sector, who face being mummified with red tape to appease the vested interests of the Labour party?
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The National Audit Office projects that there is a 240,000 shortfall of primary school places across England, and in fact there are now bulges in classes across Tameside and Stockport, the two local authorities covering my constituency. Given that, will the Minister explain what proportion of capital spend has gone to address this problem in the areas of need?
Mr Laws
I certainly can. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that under this Government, the amount of money that has gone into funding basic need places has doubled in comparison with the amount available under the last Government. I can also say that the reason why there might be pressures at the current time is that the hon. Gentleman’s party removed over 200,000 primary places between 2003 and 2010—in spite of the warnings about higher pupil numbers from the Office for National Statistics.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The borough of Kettering has the sixth fastest household growth rate in the whole country, and the pressure on primary school places is getting more acute year by year. Will the Minister ensure that in his new funding formula, there is appropriate funding for areas of the country that are experiencing rapid population growth?
Mr Laws
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point because the Government are not only allocating much greater capital for basic need, but have changed the funding formula for distributing this money so that where there are pockets of basic need in areas that were previously not recognised, we are reflecting that fully in the distributions.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State was reticent last week when Sir Michael Wilshaw launched Ofsted’s report on closing the attainment gap for disadvantaged children attracting the pupil premium. Was that because Sir Michael Wilshaw advocated Labour’s proven policy of greater collaboration between schools to raise standards rather than the Secretary of State’s desire for privatised schools for profit of the kind that have been such a failure in Sweden?
Mr Laws
I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. This Government are encouraging schools to collaborate; this Government are encouraging partnership; this Government are promoting national leaders of education; this Government are going to introduce something that their predecessors did not—tables of similar schools so that schools can learn from each other.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
7. What steps he is taking to improve the quality of children and families social work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
Building on the recommendations of the Munro review, we have put in place an ambitious reform programme for social work that seeks to improve initial social work education through the Step Up to Social Work and Frontline training initiatives to get the best people into the profession as well as improve the quality of front-line practice by revising Working Together to Safeguard Children and appointing a chief social worker.
Mr Timpson
My hon. Friend pinpoints a key area of our reform agenda. That is why we have asked Sir Martin Narey to look carefully at social work education and report back to Ministers later this year. It is also why we have introduced, along with the chief social worker, principal family social workers in each local authority area to help champion and challenge social work as well as to provide assistance and support in the first year, which we know has been so successful.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
More than half of councils say that they are planning further cuts to children’s services. What impact does the Minister think this will have on social workers and their case loads?
Mr Timpson
To date we have seen strong protection of children’s services across local authorities, which recognise the importance of providing the best quality service in their areas. Social worker vacancy rates have fallen, not risen, from 10% in 2010 to 7% in 2012. Many local authorities are doing a fantastic job, but we need to ensure that all raise their game.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Given rising caseloads and the pressure exerted by the increase in child poverty up and down the country, does the Minister accept that more resources are needed to pay for additional social workers to deal with rising demand?
Mr Timpson
I explained in my previous answer the approach that local authorities quite rightly take to ensure that children’s services are the best they can be, but we can enable that through the revised Working Together to Safeguard Children, making it clearer who is responsible for providing which services while ensuring that the quality of social work is as high as possible. That is why I set out in my initial answer why this is such a high priority for the Government.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
Has the Minister seen the recent survey of 2,000 social workers, which paints a shocking picture of, in their words, “crisis”, “breaking point” and “chaos”. It shows increasing caseloads, long waiting lists, the use of non-qualified staff to assess children, the use of agency workers, and children who need help being turned away as thresholds are revised upwards to cope with the situation. As one social worker put it, “amber is the new green”. Is it not time that the Government got on red alert and did something about this crisis?
Mr Timpson
I am sorry that the hon. Lady, who was so supportive of many of the measures we have taken to bring in the recommendations of the Munro review, decides to use this set piece to provide a dividing line that does not need to be there. We are all trying to achieve the same thing: to improve outcomes for children who come into contact with children’s services. We are seeing improvements in the country, but they are needed across the board, and we are introducing reforms to ensure that children and families get high quality social work and support when they need it.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
8. What plans he has to increase the diversity of secondary school places available in Essex.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman may be keen to be a Minister, but he is not there yet, and I am in no position to appoint him.
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
I apologise, Mr Speaker.
Local authorities are responsible for ensuring that there are enough school places to meet demand in their areas. The Government are committed to improving quality and choice through the expansion of the academies programme, university technical colleges and sixth forms, and through the opening of free schools.
Rebecca Harris
The Minister will be aware that Essex county council is currently consulting on proposals to close the Deanes school—most recently rated by Ofsted as “good” with elements of “outstanding”—in my constituency. Clearly, the loss of the school will greatly reduce choice for parents, so will the Minister meet me to discuss the options to try to resist the plans?
Mr Laws
In spite of my tardiness in rising to the Dispatch Box, I am aware of the situation at the Deanes school and of my hon. Friend’s robust representation, as always, of the concerns of her constituents. Although the matter is primarily one for the local authority, as she will understand, I would be delighted to meet her to discuss the issues on the ground, which I know are of great importance to many of her constituents.
Sir Bob Russell
The last Labour Government’s policies, which were backed by Labour in Colchester, would have led to the closure of the Thomas Lord Audley school. Thanks to the coalition, that school has been saved and is going from strength to strength. The Secretary of State will recall from his visits to Colchester, however, that there is still a question mark over secondary school provision on the Shrub End estate. Will he agree to meet a delegation from Colchester to see whether we can save that school, which Labour also wanted to shut?
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that 350 secondary school students in Harlow are eligible for free school meals, but because they go to Harlow FE college, they do not get them, whereas the kids who go to the one sixth-form school in the constituency do get them? Please will my hon. Friend remedy that anomaly and ensure that free school meals are available for all eligible students?
Mr Laws
We are aware of that long-standing anomaly in the system, and we want to fix it. However, such matters depend on the budget allocations that we are given by the Treasury, and these are obviously difficult times. We shall have to look at the situation after the announcement of the spending review settlement.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
9. What plans he has for reform of the schools funding formula.
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
The current school funding system is unfair, and is based on an out-of-date assessment of need. We have already introduced reforms to make the system simpler and more transparent, which will assist preparation for the introduction of a national funding formula in the next spending review period.
Mr Raab
I welcome that answer and that recognition. The current formula has arbitrary consequences in constituencies such as mine. Because a rising birth rate and other factors are not taken into account, parents living in areas like Claygate and Thames Ditton are struggling to secure local places. When will the review start, and what efforts will the Minister make to consult Members directly on the key issues and criteria that are at stake?
Mr Laws
I can tell my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State and I are committed to introducing a fairer national funding formula in the next spending review period, but we are currently waiting for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to announce our final settlement in his spending review statement this Wednesday. I assure my hon. Friend that we will engage in full consultation with all Members, including those who have particular interests in this area, as he has.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Pupils aged between 16 and 18 already receive significantly less funding than pre-16 and post-18 learners. Can the Minister assure 16 to18-year-olds that they will not suffer further detriment to their funding?
Mr Laws
We cannot make any comments until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced the spending review settlement later this week, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State and I are working hard to secure a good settlement for all parts of the education system, not just for schools.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s comments about the unfairness of the current national formula. Having met members of the Worcestershire Association of School Business Management last week, I can tell him that that unfairness is very keenly felt at present. May I urge him to do all that he can to ensure that we move towards a fairer national formula both before and after 2015?
Mr Laws
I assure my hon. Friend that we are taking these matters particularly seriously. We have had a very unfair national funding formula for many years, and, sadly, the last Government did nothing to address it. At a time when there are difficult decisions to be made in all areas of funding, it is especially important for underfunded areas to have a better settlement, because otherwise they will be the areas that feel the budget pressures most acutely.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Joseph Leckie academy in my constituency has missed out on funding for all sorts of reasons. May I ask the Minister to make good the Secretary of State’s promise to send a Minister to visit the school?
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
10. What steps he is taking to support young carers’ attendance at school.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
The Department has developed an online training module for school staff. It is designed to raise awareness about young carers, including awareness of the potential impact that their caring responsibilities can have on their school attendance and attainment. Importantly, the Department of Health has recently started training school nurses to be champions for young carers, and to help head teachers and governors to decide how best to support them at school.
Stephen Barclay
There are about 300 young carers in my constituency. As my hon. Friend recognised in his answer, young carers often reflect many of the best values, but their education suffers as a result of their caring duties. Will my hon. Friend write to me saying what he considers to be the best scheme to support them, and what impediments there are to the spreading of such measures, given that even neighbouring districts such as Fenland and Huntingdon take such different approaches?
Mr Timpson
I praise my hon. Friend for the work that he is doing in his constituency. He has led by example in writing to all local secondary school heads to remind them of the support that young carers need, and to raise their awareness of what is available.
As my hon. Friend has acknowledged, there is a wealth of good practice out there. We recently awarded a £1.2 million contract to the Children’s Society and the Carers Trust to work directly with local services, including schools, and help them to improve support for young carers. However, I am happy to write to my hon. Friend explaining what we are doing over and above that, and what more we can do collectively—at both national and local levels—to improve support for young carers in schools.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The Minister knows that many of us on both sides of this House care very deeply about the hundreds of thousands of young carers in this country and that they should get the support they need to fulfil their potential. He just cited the support role school nurses can play for young carers, but he must know from the parliamentary questions I have asked that the number of school nurses across the country is tiny—indeed, I think one answer stated I had one in the whole of Sunderland. If this is the solution, he might want to look at that. We welcome the assurances the Minister gave at the Report stage of the Children and Families Bill, but as it is due to be debated in the other place next week, will he give us and our noble colleagues a guarantee that he will make this work an immediate priority, so the Bill will make the changes we want to see for these young people, as the care services Minister, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), promised last year.
Mr Timpson
As ever, may I thank the hon. Lady for the tone she strikes with her question? We are at one in wanting to improve the support young carers receive. As she knows, I have met the Minister for care and support to agree some key principles for work in this area and to look at how we can use both the Care Bill and the Children and Families Bill to bring about a closer connection between adult and young carers, so there is a whole-family approach to the support they receive. We will use the stages through the other place to try to make that approach much clearer.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
11. What assessment he has made of the effect of the pupil premium on attainment of children from socially deprived backgrounds.
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
Results for 2012, the first year to reflect the impact of a full year of the pupil premium, showed a larger than expected narrowing of attainment gaps nationally for both key stage 2 and key stage 4. Further improvement is expected as the funding levels increase and schools focus more on evidence-based interventions to help disadvantaged children.
Alex Cunningham
That is very positive news, but schools are given a free hand to spend the pupil premium as they choose, rather than being required to target it on the most disadvantaged children who need the most support, and this comes at a time when the chief inspector is planning to get tough with schools that let poor children down. Will the Secretary of State get tough, too, and tell schools to concentrate these resources on the neediest children, instead of simply absorbing them into their budgets, as happens in some cases?
Mr Laws
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not going to allow schools to use this money for purposes other than that for which it is intended. Schools will have to use this money for the assistance of the most disadvantaged pupils. We are not prescribing the way in which they do that, because, unlike the last Government, we believe head teachers and professionals should be respected to choose their own interventions, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Ofsted will hold schools to account for using this money in the best way and narrowing the disadvantage gaps. If schools do not do that, they will face the consequences.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The two new academies in Hastings, the Hastings academy and St Leonards academy, were both rated 2 by Ofsted recently, which is a tremendous move forward for them. The Ofsted report particularly highlighted the fact that the pupil premium had made a great difference to the most socially disadvantaged. Would the Minister like to join me in congratulating the schools and their leadership?
Mr Laws
I certainly would like to join my hon. Friend in congratulating those two schools, and I do believe that the combination of significant extra funds—after all, next year the pupil premium will be more than £1,000 per disadvantaged pupil—with scrutiny by Ofsted will make a big difference to the opportunities for disadvantaged pupils in the future, and narrow the totally unacceptable gap between the opportunities for young people from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Results for pupils from deprived backgrounds vary dramatically in different parts of the country. Will the Minister continue to ensure that Ofsted’s monitoring of the way in which the pupil premium is spent feeds through into strong, effective action, with a particular focus on the parts of the country where the gap between rich and poor is biggest?
Mr Laws
Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that, in holding schools to account for the use of the pupil premium, Ofsted will be looking not only at the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged pupil performance in particular schools, but at the performance of disadvantaged pupils in particular schools versus the national average, and that it will also be looking at the progress that is being made, so that, whatever school a disadvantaged youngster is in, they can be sure that there will be scrutiny of those who run it, to make sure this money is used effectively and the gaps are narrowed across the whole school system.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
12. What recent steps his Department has taken to improve careers advice and guidance; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
Schools are legally required to secure careers guidance for 13 to 16-year-olds. That requirement will be extended to 12 to 18-year-olds in school, and to young people in colleges, from September.
Mr Slaughter
According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, more than half of employers think that young people lack career guidance and work experience. There are some very good voluntary schemes, such as Work Discovery, which I saw in action with year 6 pupils at Wendell Park primary school last week. Why are the Government not supporting more projects such as that?
Michael Gove
It sounds like an excellent project, and I should like to do everything I can to support it, and other social enterprises and businesses, to help young people experience the world of work.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
On Saturday, I had the pleasure of visiting a high-tech engineering company in Luton, and it was drawn to my attention, yet again, that we are having to recruit thousands of graduate engineers from abroad every year because we cannot train enough of them ourselves. When are the Government going to take real steps to encourage more youngsters to look for careers in engineering?
Michael Gove
Our ministerial team, and, indeed, the superb team at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, take every opportunity to encourage young people to consider engineering as a career, but one of the problems we face is that the quality of the teaching of literacy and, in particular, numeracy and mathematics in science qualifications is often not good enough to give ambitious young people the chance to become engineers. That is why we are improving the quality of English, mathematics and science teaching, and reforming GCSEs.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
13. What steps he is taking to improve the status of technical and vocational education.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
More than 60% of 16 to 19-year-olds now participate in vocational education. This Government have: raised the quality of vocational qualifications; expanded vocational education through studio schools and university technical colleges; and introduced tighter quality controls in further education and work experience. All those reforms build on Professor Wolf’s report on vocational education, which was welcomed across the board.
Andrew Selous
How can we ensure that high-quality non-academic learning gets the status and recognition it deserves, given that we need more practical on-the-job training, such as is being provided at university technical colleges?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a typically acute point. The way in which we can raise the esteem and prestige of vocational qualifications and vocational training is by making sure they are every bit as rigorous as academic qualifications and the academic pathway—I say “pathway” for want of a better word, although I am sure there is one. The way in which we do so is by making sure that the recommendations in Alison Wolf’s report are implemented—recommendations that were once accepted by the Opposition Front-Bench team but now seem to be rejected.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The SKIDZ motor project in my constituency helps children achieve vocational skills pre-16. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that for children who need some context to help them with academic skills some vocational framework is available before they reach 16?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and it is one reason we are consulting on changing the way in which schools are held to account for the way in which they provide for students up to the age of 16, in order to ensure that vocational and technical qualifications are genuinely considered to be equivalent to academic qualifications because they are as rigorous.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
14. What recent steps his Department has taken to improve youth services; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
In December 2011, “Positive for Youth” set out, for the first time, an overarching vision for youth policy, a key principle of which is that local authorities are best placed to decide how to shape their services to meet the needs of local young people. Their duty to secure sufficient services is outlined in the revised statutory guidance issued in June 2012. This Government have also spent an additional £141 million in a network of 63 myplace youth centres to support local youth service provision.
Mr Raynsford
In the aftermath of the appalling killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich, the Prime Minister heard at first hand while visiting Woolwich about, among other things, the importance of a more proactive role for the youth service in providing constructive alternative options for young people at risk of being sucked into extremism or criminal gangs. Has the Department for Education yet submitted evidence to the Government’s taskforce on extremism? If not, will this be given priority by the Department?
Mr Timpson
The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important and serious point, which is all the more echoed around this Chamber today, as we will hear later during the Home Secretary’s statement. This is a priority for this Government and this Department. We have already submitted some evidence to the taskforce, and we will play a full and active role to make sure it achieves its objectives.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
15. What his plans are for the future of GCSEs.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
17. What his plans are for the future of GCSEs.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer Questions 15 and 17 together. We are reforming GCSEs to ensure that they stand comparison—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say to the Secretary of State that this is an attempted grouping on the hoof, of which I had no notice, but being the obliging fellow I am I will do my best to accommodate the right hon. Gentleman?
Michael Gove
I apologise, Mr Speaker, and thank you. We are reforming GCSEs to ensure that they stand comparison with exams in the highest-performing jurisdictions. We are consulting on changes to subject content for GCSEs. Ofqual is also consulting on changes to the structure, grading and standard of the new qualifications.
Ian Austin
I agree with the Secretary of State that many state schools do not stretch their brightest pupils enough to allow them to compete with pupils from private schools. In my constituency, only two out of seven schools reached the national average in GCSEs last year. I do not think there should be a school in the country in which fewer than 70% or 80% are getting five good GCSEs, including English and maths. Will he consider bringing back the black country challenge to boost standards in Dudley in the way the London challenge improved them in London?
Michael Gove
That is a very acute point from a Member of Parliament who, I know, is passionate about education. I will do everything I can to ensure that all the elements that made the London challenge and black country challenge a success apply to schools in his constituency through collaboration and a culture of excellence. I look forward to talking with him about how we can work together to ensure that his championing of high educational standards can be extended across the black country.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State consider yet again the inclusion of British sign language as a GCSE subject? It is appropriate for those students who are less academic and is, after all, a language someone can use throughout the whole of their life.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) for making the point that British sign language was one of the few languages I learned when I was younger for family reasons. For that reason, I am committed to doing everything we can to encourage its take-up. We are working with Ofqual, the exams regulator, to see whether we can ensure that there is a qualification that is as rigorous as possible and that stands comparison with other GCSEs.
David Wright
I thank the Secretary of State for cantering through the questions. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) that we need to drive up standards. What are the Secretary of State’s proposals for practical and vocational subjects? It is important that children who excel in those areas are given the reward they deserve.
Michael Gove
I absolutely agree. One of the recommendations from the Wolf report is that instead of simply having a pass/fail mark for practical and vocational qualifications and allowing students to pass purely on the basis of what a teacher rather than an external assessor has assessed, we should have a more sophisticated grading system and more rigorous external testing to ensure that vocational and technical qualifications are seen, rightly, as equivalent. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the steadfast support he has shown for state schools in his constituency, including the outstanding comprehensive, Thomas Telford.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
16. What measures are in place to ensure that academies are open to public scrutiny.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
Academies are open to greater accountability and scrutiny than other state-funded schools. Performance data including exam results, inspection reports and financial accounts are published for each academy. Academies are also accountable through analysis from the Education Funding Agency, and through greater data transparency and an improved inspection system academies are more open to public scrutiny than ever before.
Mr Watts
I thank the Secretary of State for his response, but schools such as Byrchall High in Wigan are refusing to provide written responses to MPs’ inquiries. Is it not clear that the Secretary of State needs to act if there is to be public accountability on spend in those schools and public accountability on policy?
Michael Gove
It is absolutely regrettable if any principal or head teacher declines to respond to a request from an elected Member of Parliament. I will look into the case, but I should stress that academies are subject to freedom of information. The previous Government did not allow that, but this Government brought it in.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
My Department published destination data last week that showed how many schools are very successful in encouraging young people to go on to universities and into satisfying apprenticeships, but it is still a matter of regret that for one fifth of comprehensive schools not a single student makes it to a Russell Group university.
Annette Brooke
In the light of the recent conclusion of the Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment that children are more vulnerable than adults to an equivalent asbestos exposure, what reassurances can the Secretary of State provide that his Department’s policy on asbestos in schools will be reviewed rigorously, transparently and in a timely fashion?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and I have been discussing today exactly what we can do to ensure that the arguments made in the committee’s report are taken on board and to ensure that when we think about how to invest in the future fabric of schools and about the state of the estate we take appropriate steps. I hope, following on from the spending review, we can be clear that the money we spend on maintenance will be spent in a way that takes account of the arguments made by my hon. Friend.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that, over the past year, the number of infants in classes of more than 30 has increased by more than 25,000—an increase of 50% in just 12 months? What proportion of free school places go to primary-age children in areas where there is a shortage?
Michael Gove
I think the hon. Gentleman is right about those figures for infants, but I also think that the increase in the number is less in percentage terms than was the increase under Labour. [Interruption.] I think it is, actually. I have answered the question of substance; the rest of it was rhetoric, so over to you.
Stephen Twigg
Three years ago, in the first comprehensive spending review, the Secretary of State got a truly terrible education capital spending settlement. His free schools programme fails to focus on areas where there is a shortage of places but opens new schools in areas with existing good schools with places available, and of course it allows unqualified people to teach. Is it not a policy driven by dogma, not by the best interests of children?
Michael Gove
No, not at all. In these matters, I often pay close attention to what Lord Adonis, a former schools Minister, says. He argued last week that we need more free school places in areas where there is a lack of high-quality school places. That is a different view from the one taken by the hon. Gentleman. I take the view that Lord Adonis is right—we need to give parents a choice where schools are poor—and therefore, not for the last time, the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
T3. Tudor Grange is a good non-faith-based secondary school in my constituency, but the governors have angered many parents in the school’s catchment area by attempting to introduce a faith school as a feeder school, whose children would take precedence for admittance over children in the local authority catchment area. Will my right hon. Friend advise me on whether this would constitute indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I know Tudor Grange and its outstanding head teacher, Jennifer Bexon-Smith. She is committed to helping children in difficult circumstances and is sponsoring an academy in Worcester, I think, so I cannot believe that she would take a decision that would discriminate against children in need of high-quality state education. The admissions code is clear about these matters, and I look forward to talking with my hon. Friend to make sure the public are reassured.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
T2. In 2011-12, there was a 10% fall in the number of graduates applying to teacher training programmes; there has also been a 17% rise in the number of schools using supply teachers, and we see reliance on unqualified teachers. How will those approaches raise standards and improve the outcome for children?
Michael Gove
I am pleased to be able to say that the statistics the hon. Gentleman quotes come from a period before the introduction of our school direct programme, which has achieved a dramatic increase in the number of highly qualified graduates entering the profession. In addition, thanks to the work we have done with the Institute of Physics and the Royal Society of Chemistry, there are more graduates in shortage subjects with 2:1s and firsts coming into the classroom. The more people with great degrees from great universities, such as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), we have teaching in our schools, the happier I am—even if it runs contrary to Labour policy.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
T4. There are 37 academy brokers on up to £700 a day. Are they bound by the civil service code of conduct?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a good point. They are not bound by the civil service code, but they do have to have regard to the civil service code. I believe the question was raised in a Westminster Hall debate and he secured a partial answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss)—
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
An incorrect answer, which she apologised for.
Michael Gove
I am terribly sorry, but I think that someone who makes a mistake and is happy to correct the record is in a rather better position than someone who attempts to belittle in a sexist fashion an honourable Minister.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
T9. Teachers in my constituency tell me that teaching assistants make a huge contribution to their schools. Their work not only means that teachers have more time to teach, but has a big impact on things such as attendance and student discipline. In the light of recent press speculation, will the Secretary of State put on the record his support for teaching assistants and pledge to keep them in our schools?
Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)
T5. Academy@Worden in my constituency is now the highest achieving school in South Ribble, with the percentage of pupils who gain at least five A* to C grades increasing from 76% in 2010 to 100% last year. As a trustee of the school, which became an academy this year, I am pleased to ask my right hon. Friend if he will join me in congratulating Academy@Worden on its achievement, and if he will accompany me on a visit to the school, which is a great success story of the academies programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It sounds like a fantastic result from that academy. Sponsored academies have improved their results at a faster rate than local authority-maintained schools, and I am sure that someone from the Department for Education would be delighted to visit the school.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Lilian Baylis school, an outstanding secondary school in Kennington in my constituency, will this month receive the dubious award of taking the longest time to become an academy—it is now more than 22 months—because of a dispute between the local authority and the Department over the fact that it is a private finance initiative, along with legal costs. In the meantime, the school is suffering, as it wants to get on with becoming an academy. Will the Secretary of State try to get that sorted out? Only a small amount of money is needed from someone, but clearly we need to get it sorted.
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady is a brilliant campaigner for higher quality schools in her constituency, and we will do everything we can to help. I am afraid that her question lays bare the fact that there are some really good MPs on the Labour Benches who want their schools to become academies, but an insufficient number of Labour local authorities that are prepared to stand with us against the enemies of promise.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
T6. Bewsey Lodge primary school is a very good school in a difficult part of Warrington. It has a large special needs unit that, although it is high quality, reduces the overall performance metrics, which affects morale. Better school comparability could be achieved if metrics were produced with, and without, special needs units.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his keen interest in schools in his constituency that provide important and excellent special educational needs provision. It is important that we have an accountability system that recognises the achievements of all pupils, which very much chimes with Sir Michael Wilshaw’s comments last week, as well as the strengthening of the SEN element of inspection from September 2012. We will launch an accountability consultation shortly, and doubtless my hon. Friend will want to contribute to it on the very point that he has just made.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the heads of academies cannot create small sub-committees of governors that can then take crucial decisions about the general future of the schools in question?
Michael Gove
It is absolutely the case that the principals of academies are tightly bound by a set of rules about how governing bodies or boards of trustees should operate. If there are specific cases about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned but which, for understandable reasons, he does not wish to raise on the Floor of the House, perhaps we can meet to discuss what is giving him concern.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
T8. Does the Minister agree that making financial education a formal part of the national curriculum should ensure not only that every child leaves school with a basic understanding of personal finance but that those who seek to start their own businesses are better equipped with the skills that they need to succeed?
Elizabeth Truss
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We have improved financial education in maths through the better study of interest rates, loans and mortgages. We have also included the subject in citizenship classes and, furthermore, we are participating in the PISA —the programme for international student assessment— comparison between different countries on financial literacy. We can therefore compare the capabilities of our 15-year-olds with those in other countries.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
In response to a cross-party amendment to the Children and Families Bill proposing a continuation of funding to foster carers until care leavers reach the age of 21, the Minister said that he was reviewing the current arrangements and was prepared to legislate if necessary. Will he give the House an indication of the time scale for that review?
Mr Timpson
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, both for his continued and passionate support for children in care and care leavers, and for his instrumental work in securing the junior ISAs—individual savings accounts—which have proved to be a great success, with over 30,000 in operation. We want to enable care leavers to continue to live with former foster carers where it is right for them to do so. I know from my own family experience that it can be a hugely beneficial part of their transition to adult life.
Although staying put policies have been clearly set out—and I wrote to all the directors of children’s services in October to lay out the terrain so that they can do more to support foster children in that situation—we want to see further improvements. More figures will be published later this year on the staying put pilots and how they are beginning to spread more widely. We will look at those keenly, as we want more progress more quickly.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
School governance is an increasingly topical issue. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important to ensure that our school governing bodies are strong, courageous and capable of making sure that all schools provide decent education for all their pupils?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is right. That is why I am so pleased that Lord Nash and Sir Michael Wilshaw are working together to raise the quality of school governance.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), both the think-tank Reform and the Treasury have raised questions about the efficacy and value for money of teaching assistants. Will the Secretary of State give his view?
Michael Gove
I respect teaching assistants. I am also very interested in what Reform has to say, but above all I obey what the Treasury tells me.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give me his assessment of how well the new Harris academy in Beckenham has been doing since its foundation?
Michael Gove
The Harris academy in Beckenham, like all Harris academies, is performing significantly better than its predecessor school. May I place on the record my gratitude for the visionary leadership shown by Lord Harris of Peckham, Sir Dan Moynihan and those Members of Parliament from Mitcham and Morden to Beckenham who have championed Harris academies, often in the teeth of opposition from the National Union of Teachers, the NASUWT and other unions that have acted as the enemies of promise?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State agree with his own chief inspector of schools that over the past 15 years standards across the urban population of this country have risen remarkably? Will he give the House the opportunity to hear him say, “Well done, teachers. You’ve done a good job. You could do more but you’ve done pretty well over these past 15 years”?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as he is increasingly becoming, for giving me this opportunity to underline that point. Let me first of all praise those politicians from the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) to Lord Adonis who, in the teeth of resistance from trade unions and others, pressed forward the case for reform. Let me praise the former Prime Minister Tony Blair for his courage in doing so. Let me regret that the momentum for reform was lost under the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), but let me above all praise teachers for the fantastic job that we are doing. We have the best generation of young teachers and the best generation of head teachers ever in our schools, and I had the opportunity of seeing some of them when I visited the constituency of Buckingham just over a week ago. In both schools that I visited, Buckingham school and the Royal Latin, I was privileged to see brilliant teachers doing a wonderful job for an MP who believes in the very best of state education.
Mr Speaker
I warmly thank the Secretary of State and I know that Angela Wells and David Hudson, the head teachers of the Buckingham and Royal Latin schools, will similarly thank the right hon. Gentleman.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
In September this year in my constituency, a free school will be opening in one of the most deprived wards in Wolverhampton, providing an invaluable ladder for social mobility. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that a future Conservative Government will provide free school places and free schools to meet the needs of local people?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his consistent championing of greater choice for his constituents. It is absolutely the case that if a Conservative Government or indeed a Conservative-led Government are returned after the next election we will make sure that parental choice and higher standards are at the heart of everything we do.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
May I give the Secretary of State the chance to say “Well done” to Labour-run Telford and Wrekin council, which is developing a co-operative academy model, bringing schools together, working as co-operative schools?
Michael Gove
There are some great people in Labour local government and if they are friends of the hon. Gentleman, they are friends of mine.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the case of Geoffrey Bettley, who was a teacher at St Mary’s in Menston on the border of my constituency, who downloaded child porn images, was rightly sacked by the school and was put on the sex offenders register. Bizarrely, the Secretary of State appears to have allowed this gentleman to start teaching again. Surely he appreciates that people convicted of those offences are not welcomed back into the classroom by parents. Can he explain how he arrived at that decision, and what he will do to try to reverse it?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that very serious issue. Mr Bettley is not teaching at the moment and will not be teaching in future. The process we arrived at for ensuring that the National College for Teaching and Leadership reviewed cases was not as good as it should have been, to put it mildly. I do not put the blame at anyone’s door other than my own, but one of the things I have been anxious to do following the Bettley case is to make sure that we have new guidance in place to ensure that the decisions taken in future are appropriate to keep our children safe.
Petition
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
On Friday, the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and I were presented with this massive petition about the National Railway museum in York, which is quite simply the world’s best railway museum. If you want to see the original engineering drawings by George Stephenson for the Rocket, they are there; if you want to see the engine that 75 years ago set the steam engine world speed record, the Mallard, it is there. The petition is signed by Steve Hughes, editor of The Press, York’s daily newspaper, and 13,500 other people from the City of York.
The petition states:
The Petition of Steve Hughes, Editor of “The Press” York and the people of York,
Declares that the Petitioners note with concern that the National Railway Museum, one of the most treasured attractions in York and the UK, and one of the world's best transport museums, is threatened with closure.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the National Railway Museum remains open.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001185]
Undercover Policing
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the latest allegations concerning the use of undercover officers to smear the reputations of Doreen and Neville Lawrence and Duwayne Brooks. These allegations follow several serious claims about the activities of police officers engaged in undercover operations, and I would like to update the House on the several investigations and inquiries into the conduct of those officers.
Before I do so, I know that the whole House will want to convey its support for the Lawrence family. They experienced an unspeakable tragedy, their pain was compounded by the many years in which justice was not done, and these latest allegations, still coming 20 years after Stephen’s murder, only add to their suffering. I also know that the House will agree with me about the seriousness of allegations concerning police corruption and wrongdoing. We must be ruthless in purging such behaviour from their ranks.
As Members of the House will remember, in February I announced that the commissioner of the Metropolitan police had agreed that Mick Creedon, chief constable of Derbyshire constabulary, would investigate allegations of improper practice and misconduct by the Metropolitan police’s special demonstration squad, which for around 40 years specialised in undercover operations. Mick Creedon took over a Metropolitan police investigation called Operation Herne.
In addition to these latest allegations about the Lawrence family, Operation Herne is also looking into claims about the use by police officers of dead children’s identities, the conduct of officers who had infiltrated environmentalist groups, and other serious matters. Given the nature of those allegations and the many years the special demonstration squad was in existence, we should not be surprised if further allegations are made. I want to be clear that all such allegations will be investigated. Operation Herne is led by Chief Constable Creedon and elements are supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Today the Metropolitan police are also referring details of the new set of allegations to the IPCC, meaning that this aspect of the investigation will also be supervised. I know that some Members have suggested that the IPCC should take over Operation Herne completely, and that is an understandable reaction. I spoke with Dame Anne Owers, the chair of the IPCC, earlier today. She does not believe that a greater degree of IPCC control would enhance the investigation, but I can confirm that where the Creedon investigation finds evidence of criminal behaviour or misconduct by police officers, the IPCC will investigate and the officers will be brought to justice.
I have also spoken today with Chief Constable Mick Creedon. He told me that the first strand of his work, which relates to allegations about the identities of dead children, will report before the House rises for the summer recess. At present there are 23 police officers working on the case, with a further 10 police staff working in support. In the course of their investigation they have already examined in the region of 55,000 documents and have started to interview witnesses, including police officers who worked in the special demonstration squad.
I want to emphasise that undercover operations are a vital part of protecting the public, but they need detailed supervision and constant reassessment to ensure that what is being done is justified. For obvious reasons, members of the public cannot know the details of the police’s undercover operations, but we need to have the assurance that this work is conducted properly and in accordance with a procedure that ensures that ethical lines are respected.
In February last year, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary reported on how forces go about undercover policing. That work was undertaken partly in response to allegations about the conduct of a police officer named Mark Kennedy, who had been tasked with infiltrating an environmental protest group. HMIC’s report made a series of recommendations designed to improve the procedures that police forces have in place for managing and scrutinising the deployment of undercover officers. Among other recommendations, HMIC said that the authorisation arrangements for high-risk undercover deployments should be improved and that additional controls should be put in place where a deployment is intended to gather intelligence rather than evidence.
Since March this year, HMIC has been working on a further report that will check on how the police have implemented its recommendations, and I can tell the House that this report is due to be published on Thursday. I can also tell the House that Tom Winsor, the new chief inspector, plans to undertake a further review of undercover police work later this year.
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice told the Home Affairs Committee that the Government intend to bring forward legislation to require law enforcement authorities to obtain the prior approval of the Office of Surveillance Commissioners before renewing the deployment of an undercover officer for a period exceeding 12 months. In future, authorisation should also be sought under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 for any activity to develop a cover persona.
I want to turn now to the allegations regarding the Lawrence family. The investigation into Stephen’s murder has cast a long shadow over policing, especially in London. That is why, in July last year, I asked Mark Ellison QC to investigate allegations of deliberate incompetence, and corruption, on the part of officers involved in the original investigation into the murder.
Mr Ellison was the lead barrister in the successful prosecutions of Gary Dobson and David Norris and he is supported by Alison Morgan, junior counsel from the prosecution. I have spoken to Mr Ellison today, and I encouraged him to go as far and wide as he would like in his investigation. I have also spoken to Mick Creedon to make sure that Mr Ellison will have access to any relevant material uncovered in the course of Operation Herne. We must await the findings of the Ellison review, which, given the latest allegations, will be published later than originally intended. When the review concludes, a decision will have to be made about whether its findings should lead to any formal police investigations.
I am determined that we should have zero tolerance of police corruption and wrongdoing. That is why the Government are beefing up the IPCC, making the inspectorate more independent, and it is why we asked the College of Policing to establish a code of ethics for police officers.
As the House knows, I have also launched a panel inquiry into the murder of Daniel Morgan, and I am determined that we get to the bottom of all of these latest allegations. We must do so to ensure public confidence in the police and the criminal justice system, not least for the sake of Doreen and Neville Lawrence, and for the memory of their son Stephen. I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I join the Home Secretary in expressing support for the Lawrence family, who have indeed endured great tragedy. I also pay tribute to them for the work that they have done to pursue justice and reform over very many years. The whole country has been appalled by the allegations that police officers were involved in spying on or attempting to undermine the Lawrence family and their friends when they should have been supporting them to get justice done. It is vital that we get to the truth about what happened.
Stephen Lawrence was the victim of a terrible racist murder, yet it took 19 years for any prosecutions to succeed. We knew already about the failings of the initial investigations and prosecutions and what the Macpherson review identified as both incompetence and institutional racism at the time. We knew already about the failure to support and listen to the Lawrence family at the time, as chronicled in the Macpherson review, and we know, too, that immense work has been done since then, including reform of policing and the work by Clive Driscoll’s team in the Met to secure the two successful prosecutions last year.
However, these latest allegations must be taken very seriously because they suggest that the full information was not given to the Macpherson review at the time—a concern that we raised last year in the House over corruption allegations, where still we have no answers. Most disturbingly of all, the latest allegations suggest that police officers were working undercover to undermine victims of crime when the very job of a police officer is to support and get justice for victims of crime. That is why people across the country—including police officers, who do vital work each day—will be appalled by these allegations.
I welcome the work that the Home Secretary has set out today on undercover policing; it is vital that there should be much stronger oversight and control of the important work that police officers do but that nevertheless needs strong control. I also welcome the commitment of the Home Secretary to ensure an independent look at the allegations about undermining the Lawrence family. I am glad that she has gone further than the Prime Minister’s call this morning for the Metropolitan police to investigate; clearly, the investigation needs to be independent. However, it remains unclear whether she expects the lead on getting to the truth of the allegations to be taken by Mark Ellison QC, by Operation Herne under Chief Constable Creedon or by the Met under the auspices of the IPCC. It would be very helpful to have clarification on this.
Mark Ellison QC is indeed a well-respected independent person to review these allegations and report back to the Lawrence family, but he does not, of course, have the powers to instigate criminal or disciplinary proceedings. At the same time, Operation Herne is a wide-ranging report with a far wider remit looking into undercover policing, especially in the environmental movement, over very many years. The Home Secretary set out the huge scope of that investigation in her statement. May I suggest that we need a specific independent investigation into these allegations, given their seriousness and the significance of the Lawrence investigation and the Macpherson review for policing and confidence in policing? We need a clear timetable for getting to the truth. The investigation will also need to look at whether the Macpherson review was misled. Would it not be better to set out a clear and focused independent investigation into these allegations with a precise remit and the powers to pursue both criminal and disciplinary proceedings?
The Home Secretary said that any conclusions that the Ellison review comes to would still have to be handed to the IPCC or to another police force to pursue a further investigation. Given that these allegations already refer to events of 20 years ago, surely this would risk creating significant further delays. Has she considered giving the Ellison review additional powers or combining it with independent police or IPCC investigations in order to allow it to pursue the truth and trigger further investigations where necessary?
The vital work that police officers do every day to investigate crimes, bring offenders to justice and support victims relies on public confidence. As we saw with the Hillsborough review, we can never ignore any case where there is evidence that police officers may be involved in undermining victims or investigations rather than supporting them. For the sake of victims of crime and the excellent work that police officers do each day, there must be a proper, swift and effective system to investigate when things go wrong and when concerns like these arise.
I hope that the Home Secretary can assure the House that there is a clear remit for the review and that she will make sure that it is clear and independent, with the focus, the powers and the timetable it needs to get to the truth and pursue the investigations. It should not have taken 19 years for the Lawrence family to have seen some justice for the murder of their son, and they should not still have to fight for answers about the way they were treated and failed so many years ago.
Mrs May
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for the approach that she has taken to this very serious issue. We all agree across this House that these allegations are appalling and need to be looked into properly.
The right hon. Lady raised a number of issues about the independence and timeliness of any investigation, the proper form of the investigation, and bringing people to justice. She asked specifically whether the allegations that have been revealed in relation to the operation of the SDS and the Lawrence family would be investigated under Operation Herne, by Mark Ellison, or by the Met under the auspices of the IPCC. Operation Herne was originally set up by the Metropolitan police, but it is now being led by Chief Constable Creedon. Although Met officers are still involved in that investigation, Chief Constable Creedon has also brought into it officers from his own force and elsewhere. The investigation by Chief Constable Creedon will look specifically at the tasking of officers in the SDS. That was part of the operation’s original remit. It is one of the issues that was raised by Peter Francis in the interview that he gave to the programme that will be shown tonight.
On Mark Ellison’s review, the right hon. Lady asked whether the Macpherson inquiry was misled. Another specific part of the remit of Mark Ellison’s review is that he looks into whether all the evidence that was necessary to be given to the Macpherson inquiry was indeed given to it. Obviously, the fact that Peter Francis has suggested that he and others were told not to give evidence to the Macpherson inquiry is a matter of particular concern, but that will be investigated by Mark Ellison. Having spoken to Mark Ellison and Chief Constable Creedon this morning, I am clear that they are working together; there has been a degree of interaction between the two. They are working to ensure that nothing falls between the two stools of the review and the investigation.
It is right that investigations into whether there has been misconduct or criminality are the remit of a police investigation—the Creedon investigation—with reference to the IPCC, as has been the case today, with the Met referring these allegations to the IPCC. There must be a proper pursuit of justice so that people can be charged with criminal offences or so that appropriate action can be taken for misconduct.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that the vast majority of police officers in this country will be as horrified as the rest of the country at these allegations? Does she believe that a similar thing could occur now?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment about police officers. It should be said in this House that the vast majority of police officers in this country are honest and act with integrity to keep the public safe, reduce crime and catch criminals. They will be as concerned as we are by the allegations that have appeared in the media over the past 24 hours.
On whether something similar could happen today, the special demonstration squad was disbanded more than a decade ago after operating for about 40 years. Since it was disbanded, there have been a number of changes to the way in which undercover and covert operations are undertaken. We are determined to look constantly at whether further changes are needed to enhance the oversight of undercover operations and the procedures under which such operations take place. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made the announcement last week about the Office of Surveillance Commissioners.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
It is worth reminding ourselves that the Macpherson inquiry was instigated by failures in the initial investigation by the Metropolitan police. It was effectively an investigation into the Metropolitan police, so the idea that it was hiding information from the inquiry beggars belief. Sir Paul Condon, who was the Metropolitan Police Commissioner at the time, said that he knew nothing about the SDS in the Metropolitan police, which I believe was funded by the Home Office. Someone in the Metropolitan police decided not to provide this information to the Macpherson inquiry. Can we be clear: people are not satisfied with the police investigating the police? The public will be satisfied only by a fully independent, publicly held inquiry with oversight of all these matters, including the suggestions of corruption and the smearing of the family of Stephen Lawrence.
Mrs May
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s level of concern. He is right that the Macpherson inquiry was an investigation into the way in which the Metropolitan police had handled itself. It went wider and looked at the Metropolitan police as a whole, including its attitudes in such cases. No information should have been hidden from the Macpherson inquiry and the allegation that it was is shocking. I set up the Mark Ellison review last year with the support of and after full discussions with Doreen Lawrence and the Lawrence family. I asked Mark Ellison to look specifically at whether information had been withheld from the Macpherson inquiry, so that is already part of his remit. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Mark Ellison is independent in the work that he is doing.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Like many colleagues, I have been privileged to support Doreen and Neville Lawrence over the years, as well as Duwayne Brooks, who is a friend and colleague. I am sure that the whole of south-east London and beyond is appreciative of the Home Secretary’s quick response. However, I put it to her that it is not just the Lawrence case that gives rise to the suspicion that in those days and for quite a long time, the Metropolitan police had institutional bias against black and minority ethnic communities in London. I would like her reassurance that the independent investigation will look not just at one famous and dreadful historical case, but at what some of us suspect was a much wider problem that covered many more families over many more years.
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend is right that it is important that the investigation into the special demonstration squad covers other cases. That is exactly what Chief Constable Creedon is determined to do. Although there is a specific allegation about the work of the SDS in respect of the Stephen Lawrence murder, it is important that the investigation covers a wider range of activities. Its remit will allow it to do just that.
If I may correct myself, I said that the SDS was disbanded more than a decade ago. In fact, it was disbanded in the late 2000s, which is not quite a decade ago.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
I welcome the prompt and positive action the Home Secretary has taken this morning in light of these revelations. I am sure they will be welcomed by the Lawrence family, who may be forgiven for believing that they have been punished twice over for the fact that they inconveniently allowed their son to be murdered while he stood innocently at a bus stop in south London in 1993. Does the Home Secretary accept that I, as Home Secretary, and the Metropolitan Police Authority knew absolutely nothing about the allegations, notwithstanding that it was well known that I established the Macpherson inquiry and wanted to know everything there was to know about the Metropolitan police’s conduct of that investigation? That conduct alone is reprehensible, as is the fact that we now understand that such information was kept from Lord Condon, the then commissioner of the Metropolitan police. Does she agree that finding out why we were kept in the dark, and, more importantly, why the Macpherson inquiry was kept in the dark, should be a focus of the investigation?
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. As he says, he established the Macpherson inquiry and was in office when it published its report. At the time, there were some very concerning issues regarding the way the murder was investigated, both originally and later on, and the attitude, which the Macpherson inquiry looked into, of the Metropolitan police. He is right that we should be very concerned if information was deliberately withheld from those who should have been given it, which is why I asked Mark Ellison to look specifically at the issue of the information that was given to the Macpherson inquiry. The remit of Operation Herne, now under Chief Constable Creedon, includes looking at reporting mechanisms within the SDS, and at how information was disseminated.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Is the Home Secretary aware of the growing concern regarding the actions of the police in some instances and the inactions of the police in others? Can she comment on the reports at the weekend that the police have uncovered widespread use of private investigators to hack telephones not just by journalists, but by lawyers’ firms and other corporations? Can she say why it appears that the police thought it right to tell Lord Justice Leveson about that, but not pursue any action against those who committed criminal offences?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend will be well aware that decisions on whether the police investigate individuals and alleged offences are an operational matter for the police, and that it is for the police, with the Crown Prosecution Service, to decide whether those investigations lead to charges and prosecution. However, I recognise the degree of concern that he raises. Phone hacking by some aspects of the press has caused disquiet in this House for some time. Suggestions that it could have been more widespread are, of course, equally worrying.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and join her in condemning the shocking revelations that were made in relation to the Lawrence family. The Select Committee on Home Affairs published its report on undercover police officers on 1 March. It expressed deep concern that Operation Herne had taken 20 months, cost £1.2 million and involved 23 officers, and yet nobody had been arrested. Chief Constable Creedon is a full-time serving chief constable. Frankly, with 50,000 documents to look through it will take years to resolve this matter. We need a timetable. What words of comfort does she have for the families whose dead children’s identities have been used by undercover agents? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) that the time has come to look seriously at a public inquiry into the use of undercover agents.
Mrs May
I recognise the concern that the right hon. Gentleman and the Home Affairs Committee have raised about the timetable for Operation Herne, but I would make two comments in response. First, Chief Constable Mick Creedon expects to be able to respond on the issue of the use of dead children’s identities before the House rises for the summer recess. That is one part of the inquiry. Where possible, his intention is to report on issues as they arise, rather than waiting until the end of all the investigations, but obviously that will be done where appropriate and depending on what has been found and what he is able to report on. Secondly, it is also fair to say—the right hon. Gentleman is right about this—that the Metropolitan police had been conducting Operation Herne for some time before Chief Constable Creedon was brought in, but sometimes it is easier for somebody coming into an investigation from outside the home force being investigated to interview people and get the evidence required.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the register.
Surely we need to be clear that the police’s role is to investigate crime, not to smear the victims of crime. Given that in this case it has taken a long time for these details to emerge, is the Home Secretary satisfied that if a junior police officer is given an instruction by a more senior colleague to do something that he or she thinks is clearly inappropriate, there is the appropriate mechanism for that junior officer to do something about it?
Mrs May
I am absolutely clear that any junior officer asked to do something that they should not be being asked to do by a senior officer should be able to report that and ensure that appropriate action is taken. Any former officer in the special demonstration squad or anybody who has any information or allegations about the squad should come forward so that Operation Herne can have all the information available to it in the investigations that we all agree it must undertake.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Can the Home Secretary think of a more grotesquely perverted case of police priorities than one where, instead of hunting down and prosecuting those responsible for the vicious racist murder of a talented British youngster, they infiltrate an undercover agent into the campaign to secure justice? Will she assure the House that she will look personally at every undercover operation and check that nothing so dreadful is going on today?
Mrs May
It is of course right that we have changed the arrangements in order to put in place a stronger procedure for the deployment of undercover officers and that the Office of Surveillance Commissioners has been brought in to consider cases where it is suggested that an undercover officer should be in place for more than 12 months. Of course, the House will be concerned about the allegations made over the operation of the SDS and the Lawrence family, but as to the suggestion that the Home Secretary should be responsible for deciding on undercover operations—
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that it now appears that the Macpherson report, which was so controversial at the time, actually understated the scale of the problem, and that the response that Neville and Doreen Lawrence received when their son was brutally murdered fell so far short of what they had a right to expect that it is almost beyond belief? Given that the Metropolitan police cannot do their job unless they have the support of all London’s communities, is it not essential that we get to the bottom of what has happened as soon as possible and that anyone found guilty of wrongdoing feels the full weight of justice?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Neville and Doreen Lawrence had every right to expect that the police would do nothing less than hunt down those who murdered their son Stephen. Sadly, as we have seen, it was many years before anyone was brought to justice and there were issues with how the investigation was conducted and with the Metropolitan police, as was shown in the Macpherson report. He is right that if the police are to do their job, they need the confidence and support of the community, which is why it is imperative that where there is wrongdoing, it is identified, and that those who have committed wrongdoing, be it misconduct or criminal activity, are brought to the appropriate justice.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement to the House today. Will she tell us when she was first informed of these serious allegations about the undercover operation relating to the Lawrence family?
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
In February, the Home Secretary announced to the House an expansion of the powers of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. A key issue that my constituents raise with me is the timeliness of the decisions by the IPCC. Is she confident that the commission is sufficiently resourced to give quick, timely turnarounds when serious allegations are made against the police?
Mrs May
As part of the work that we are doing to expand the remit of the IPCC so that it can look into all serious allegations against police officers, we are discussing with the commission the extra resources that will need to be made available in order to ensure that it can do that. There is of course always a tension between the need for a timely response to an allegation and the need to ensure that the investigation has been conducted properly. We shall be discussing with the IPCC the level of resource that it needs to ensure that it can undertake the extra duties that we require of it.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Home Secretary referred in her statement to last year’s report from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which made a number of recommendations about the authorisation arrangements for undercover operations. On several occasions, she has mentioned new legislation in relation to operations lasting more than 12 months, but does she have any measures in mind that would strengthen the arrangements for serious operations lasting less than 12 months?
Mrs May
Yes, we have been looking at this, and HMIC will be reporting on the extent to which there is better management of those deployments of officers. One of the issues that came up in the Mark Kennedy case, which initiated that HMIC report, related not only to the length of time an individual had been operating in a particular undercover operation but to whether there had been proper management of the deployment during the course of the operation. That is something that we and HMIC will be returning to.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Mick Creedon found that the use of dead children’s identities by undercover officers had been commonplace. Does the Home Secretary recognise that until such time as the parents of all children whose identities have been stolen in that way have been informed, any parent who has lost a child will, having grieved, be left to wonder what deception might have been carried out in their child’s name? How long will it be before this matter can be resolved and those parents can be given the reassurance that they need?
Mrs May
Chief Constable Creedon has indicated that he hopes to be able to respond on that issue before the House breaks for the summer recess. I cannot say what his response to the available information will be, but I hope that Members will welcome the fact that he has put a priority on that particular issue.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
The full implications of the Home Secretary’s statement are truly shocking, and I share the reservations about the remedies that have been expressed by those on the Labour Front Bench. One thing that the Home Secretary could do now is address the issue raised with her by the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), and confirm to the House that the report he referred to exists. Will she get a copy of it and place it in the House of Commons Library? Will she also give a copy to the Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who should have been given it some years ago?
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
Undercover work requires exceptional personnel and thorough controls. Selection and training are vital components to ensure that such operations as have been reported to us today do not happen again. Will my right hon. Friend look at training across the country to ensure that the training of undercover officers is of the highest standard and that the training of senior police officers ensures that they understand the very important need for control throughout an operation, whether it be a short-term or a long-term one?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance not only of training for individual officers, but of the need to ensure that senior officers properly manage any deployment of undercover operatives. That is indeed one of the issues that, as I mentioned earlier, was raised in the HMIC report last year. HMIC will, of course, look at the implementation of its recommendations, and will be reporting this Thursday. Having set up the College of Policing, we now have a body that is responsible for ensuring that for police operations across the board, appropriate training is given and to the right and correct standards.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Another of the allegations that have been made is that an undercover police officer was one of the co-authors of the leaflet that led to what became known as the McLibel court case, and that another undercover police officer had a two-year relationship with one of the defendants in that case. Will the Home Secretary ensure that this is also thoroughly investigated?
Mrs May
I can assure the hon. Lady that the remit of Operation Herne in relation to the SDS goes very wide. It is not focused just on a limited number of cases; it looks at the whole operation of the SDS, including the reporting lines, as I indicated to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), and a number of other matters. It has a wide-ranging remit.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
These allegations are very shocking, but for those of us involved in campaigning around those issues at the time, they are not entirely surprising. It was era when, for instance, there was a death in police custody and negative information very quickly found its way into the public domain. I was the first Member of Parliament to raise this case on the Floor of the House and I was close to the Lawrence family at the time. I remember that the reason why Doreen was so angry, so upset and so determined was that she felt that the police were not even trying. Now, it seems clear that they not only were not trying, but were actively trying to denigrate and smear the family. Does the Home Secretary appreciate that this was a totemic case for a generation and that she owes it the Lawrence family, but also to the wider community, to get to the bottom of what happened, who knew and who authorised this operation?
Mrs May
I can assure the hon. Lady that I fully understand the seriousness of this case and the allegations made around it. The Operation Herne investigation will get to the bottom of this; it is the whole point of having that investigation, and also the Mark Ellison review to look at issues around the Macpherson inquiry and other matters. We will get to the bottom of this, find out what was happening and how the SDS was operating, how it was being tasked and so forth.
The hon. Lady is right to say that this is a case about which many people were concerned. As she says, she was the first Member of Parliament to raise it in this House—and appropriately so. I can only join the shadow Home Secretary in paying tribute to Doreen Lawrence and the Lawrence family for the work they have done over the years not to take no for an answer and to carry on campaigning until they have seen at least a degree of justice in relation to Stephen’s murder. But as we have seen from these allegations, there is still more to be done.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is bursting with anticipation. He need not worry that I have forgotten him; how could I? I call Mr Jeremy Corbyn.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I thank the Home Secretary for the statement she has given today. It is something beyond disgusting that, when many of us thought that Macpherson was a moving-on stage in the whole area of public policy in relation to the black community and to policing, we find out that whole elements of the Metropolitan police had not moved on at all, and indeed were busy smearing and obstructing justice in exactly the way they had beforehand. The Guardian reported at great length on Saturday the behaviour of two undercover police officers, Bob Lambert and John Dines. Bob Lambert is known to some of us in this House and is a very clever operator—there is no question about that. It is also clear that during the undercover operations used against the Lawrence family and in the McLibel case and a number of other cases, senior officers in Scotland Yard must have known who was doing what and known of the disreputable personal behaviour of such people, and must still know. I hope the inquiry is not restricted within the police force but, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), is open and public, and that heads roll at a high level in Scotland Yard for those who have covered up the truth and allowed smearing and injustice to go on for a very long time. Unless that inquiry gets to the bottom of these matters, there will be no credibility and no public confidence in policing.
Mrs May
The investigation is, of course, looking into allegations that attempts were made to smear the Lawrence family, is looking widely at the operation and tasking of the special demonstration squad, and is looking at how reporting was undertaken, which I assume will include the question of who was aware of what was being done. It is clear that a number of cases are already under the supervision of the IPCC because they relate to the conduct of officers, which it is appropriate for the IPCC to consider, but I am clear, as are those involved in the investigation, that they should follow the evidence, and we must ensure that those who are guilty of wrongdoing will be brought to justice.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
In view of the latest allegations of disgraceful conduct, as well as the names of dead children being used by police agents, and previous misconduct relating to Hillsborough—for which the Prime Minister has apologised—the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, was there not something rotten at the heart of policing for many years?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman has referred to a number of issues other than the operations of the special demonstration squad—of course, the House has debated the events that took place at Hillsborough, which are also being investigated by both former Chief Constable Jon Stoddart and the IPCC—and it is right that we get to the bottom of such matters. What is as important is that we ensure that lessons have been learned from how things were done in the past, and that changes have taken place. As I said in relation to the deployment of undercover operatives, we are clear that we need to continue to ensure that appropriate procedures are in place and that where those operatives are working—they do good work in many cases to keep the public safe—they do so according to ethical lines, and appropriately.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
It seems that a host of different organisations is involved in looking at the allegations—Chief Constable Creedon, the IPCC, Mr Mark Ellison QC—but would it not be better to have one properly resourced investigation with clear timetables, preferably led by the IPCC?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that there are several strands to the work that is taking place; it is being done in that way for very good reasons. The investigation of Operation Herne, now led by Chief Constable Creedon, with some aspects supervised by the IPCC, is looking at a wide remit in the operation of the special demonstration squad, but also at whether any criminal activities took place, and whether any appropriate action must be taken in relation to such criminal activities or misconduct by police officers. The Mark Ellison review was set up to look at the information available, to see whether specific corruption was taking place around the investigation into Stephen Lawrence’s murder and whether all the information that should have been given to the Macpherson inquiry was given to it. In due course, there may be a need for investigations to come out of that review, but I suggest we wait until the review is completed before making that decision.
Points of Order
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Over the weekend, the Foreign Secretary received a great deal of coverage for his visit to Qatar and his involvement in a conference about the future relationships of the western countries with Syria. Has there been any request for a statement by the Foreign Secretary on the outcome of the conference and the possibility of British arms sales to any of the opposition forces in Syria?
Mr Speaker
There has been no such request thus far, but as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Foreign Office has ears all over the place, and I am sure that those ears will have heard his plaintive call. We will leave it there for now.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Staying with those “ears” of the Foreign Office, I believe that, during Foreign Office questions last week, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), praised President Santos of Colombia for what he had done in respect of the Colombian peace process. On Friday, that same President accused peasant protesters in Catatumbo, in north-east Colombia, of being linked to the terrorist FARC group, which resulted in Saturday’s killing by the army and police of two innocent civilian protesters.
The Colombian Defence Minister is coming to the United Kingdom this week, and will meet Ministers. Has there been any indication that either the Secretary of State for Defence or the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will make a statement to the House? I believe that one of them should do so, in order to explain why they have not roundly condemned the behaviour of the Colombian Government in—far too frequently—naming people with whom they disagree as terrorists, after which those people are “disappeared” or killed.
Mr Speaker
Again, I have received no indication at this stage of a Minister’s intention to make a statement on the subject. However, the hon. Gentleman has aired his concern, which is now on the record. There will be all sorts of parliamentary opportunities for him to pursue the matter, and I feel sure that he will seek to avail himself of one or more of them.
Bills Presented
Face Coverings (Prohibition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Mr Christopher Chope, presented a Bill to prohibit the wearing of certain face coverings; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 September; and to be printed (Bill 31).
National Service Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to provide a system of national service for young persons; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 September; and to be printed (Bill 32).
European Communities Act 1972 (Repeal) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Dr Julian Lewis, Martin Vickers and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and related legislation; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 September; and to be printed (Bill 33).
Young Offenders (Parental Responsibility) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies and Mr Douglas Carswell, presented a Bill to make provision for the parents of young offenders to be legally responsible for their actions.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 October; and to be printed (Bill 34).
Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the United Kingdom) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision to exclude from the United Kingdom foreign nationals found guilty of a criminal offence committed in the United Kingdom.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 October; and to be printed (Bill 35).
Asylum Seekers (Return to Nearest Safe Country) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies and Mr Douglas Carswell, presented a Bill to facilitate the transfer of asylum seekers to the safe country nearest their country of origin.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 October; and to be printed (Bill 36).
Prisoners (Completion of Custodial Sentences) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell and Mr Graham Brady, presented a Bill to require prisoners to serve in prison the full custodial sentence handed down by the court.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014; and to be printed (Bill 37).
Fishing Grounds and Territorial Waters (Repatriation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady, Dr Julian Lewis and Martin Vickers, presented a Bill to make provision for the Government to designate certain fishing grounds and territorial waters as sovereign territory of the United Kingdom outside the control of the Common Fisheries Policy.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014; and to be printed (Bill 38).
School Governing Bodies (Adverse Weather Conditions) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to require school governing bodies and headteachers to make provision to keep schools open in adverse weather conditions.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014; and to be printed (Bill 39).
Capital Punishment Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to allow for capital punishment for certain offences.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014; and to be printed (Bill 40).
Government Departments (Amalgamation of Scotland Office, Wales Office and Northern Ireland Office) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision for the amalgamation of the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Offices.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014; and to be printed (Bill 41).
Residential Roads (Adoption by Local Highways Authorities) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall and Mr Douglas Carswell, presented a Bill to require the handover of residential roads built by developers to local highways authorities within certain time periods; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 November; and to be printed (Bill 42).
Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to prohibit the use of affirmative and positive action in recruitment and appointment processes; to amend the Equality Act 2010 to remove the special provision for political parties in relation to the selection of candidates; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November; and to be printed (Bill 43).
Sentencing Escalator Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to provide that a criminal reconvicted for an offence on a second or further occasion receives a longer sentence than for the first such offence. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November; and to be printed (Bill 44).
Leasehold Reform (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies and Mr Douglas Carswell, presented a Bill to amend the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 in relation to the permitted signatories of notices; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November; and to be printed (Bill 45.)
BBC Licence Fee (Civil Debt) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell and Adam Afriyie, presented a Bill to make provision to decriminalise the non-payment of the BBC licence fee.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November; and to be printed (Bill 46.)
Smoking (Private Members’ Clubs) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell and Mr Graham Brady, presented a Bill to make provision to allow smoking in a separate ventilated room in a private members’ club if a majority of the members of the club so decide.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November; and to be printed (Bill 47.)
Mr Speaker
It is to be hoped that none of those Fridays is the hon. Gentleman’s wedding anniversary.
Margaret Thatcher Day Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady and Dr Julian Lewis, presented a Bill to make provision that the annual Bank Holiday Monday in late August be known as Margaret Thatcher Day.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July; and to be printed (Bill 48.)
Department of Energy and Climate Change (Abolition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies and Mr Douglas Carswell, presented a Bill to make provision for the abolition of the Department of Energy and Climate Change and for its functions to be absorbed into the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 November; and to be printed (Bill 49.)
Married Couples (Tax Allowance) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady, Dr Julian Lewis and Martin Vickers, presented a Bill to make provision for a tax allowance for married couples.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 November; and to be printed (Bill 50.)
Foreign Aid Ring-Fencing (Abolition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Dr Julian Lewis and Martin Vickers, presented a Bill to make provision for foreign aid and development not to be linked to a specific percentage of Gross National Income, but to be set yearly, by Parliament, in relation to need.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 November; and to be printed (Bill 51.)
Charitable Status for Religious Institutions Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady, Martin Vickers and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision for a presumption that religious institutions meet the public benefit test for charitable status.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 November; and to be printed (Bill 52.)
Same Sex Marriage (Referendum) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies and Martin Vickers, presented a Bill to make provision for a referendum on whether same sex marriage should be allowed.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 November; and to be printed (Bill 53.)
Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Conor Burns, Richard Drax and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision for the cessation of subsidies for the development of wind farms.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 November; and to be printed (Bill 54.)
Withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights and Removal of Alleged Terrorists Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Dr Julian Lewis, Martin Vickers and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision for an application to the Council of Europe to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and to deport alleged terrorists subject to approval by the British courts.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 September; and to be printed (Bill 55.)
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
That is my wedding anniversary.
Romanian and Bulgarian Accession (Labour Restriction) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Dr Julian Lewis, Martin Vickers and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision for restrictions on the residence in the UK of Bulgarian and Romanian nationals to continue.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 September; and to be printed (Bill 56.)
BBC Privatisation Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies and Mr Douglas Carswell, presented a Bill to make provision for the privatisation of the British Broadcasting Corporation by providing shares in the Corporation to all licence fee payers.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 November; and to be printed (Bill 57.)
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Abolition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brad, Dr Julian Lewis and Adam Afriyie, presented a Bill to make provision for the abolition of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and its responsibilities to be allocated to other Departments of State.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 September; and to be printed (Bill 58.)
Prime Minister (Replacement) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady, Dr Julian Lewis and Adam Afriyie, presented a Bill to make provision for the appointment of a Prime Minister in the event that a Prime Minister is temporarily or permanently incapacitated.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 November; and to be printed (Bill 59.)
United Kingdom (Withdrawal from the European Union) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Dr Julian Lewis, Martin Vickers and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision for the Government to give notice under Article 50 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October; and to be printed (Bill 60.)
Asylum (Time Limit) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Adam Afriyie and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to require that asylum claims in the United Kingdom be lodged within three months of the claimant’s arrival in the United Kingdom; and that persons who have already entered the United Kingdom and wish to make an asylum claim must do so within three months of the passing of this Act.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October; and to be printed (Bill 61.)
Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Dr Julian Lewis, Adam Afriyie and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision to restrict the entitlement of non-UK citizens from the European Union and the European Economic Area to taxpayer-funded benefits.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 62.)
Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell and Mr Graham Brady, presented a Bill to make provision for criminal sanctions against those who have entered the UK illegally or who have remained in the UK without legal authority.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 63.)
Sexual Impropriety in Employment Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies and Mr Douglas Carswell, presented a Bill to require that claims by employees alleging sexual impropriety be limited to cases where the alleged misconduct is contrary to the criminal law and has been reported to the police.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 July; and to be printed (Bill 64.)
Collection of Nationality Data Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Mr Douglas Carswell and Dr Julian Lewis, presented a Bill to require the collection and publication of information relating to the nationality of those in receipt of benefits and of those to whom national insurance numbers are issued.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 65.)
Foreign Nationals (Access to Public Services) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady and Adam Afriyie, presented a Bill to restrict access by foreign nationals to United Kingdom public services for which no charge is made.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October; and to be printed (Bill 66.)
House of Lords (Maximum Membership) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to provide for a maximum limit on the number of Peers entitled to vote in the House of Lords, and to provide for a moratorium on new appointments.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 July; and to be printed (Bill 67.)
Control of Offshore Wind Turbines Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Dr Julian Lewis, Conor Burns and Richard Drax, presented a Bill to restrict the height, number, location and subsidies of wind turbines situated offshore within 20 miles of the coast.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 68.)
Employment Opportunities Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies and Mr Douglas Carswell, presented a Bill to introduce more freedom, flexibility and opportunity for those seeking employment in the public and private sectors; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 69.)
EU Membership (Audit of Costs and Benefits) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady, Dr Julian Lewis, Martin Vickers, Adam Afriyie and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to require an independent audit of the benefits and costs of UK membership of the European Union.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July; and to be printed (Bill 70.)
Armed Forces (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Thomas Docherty presented a Bill to provide that certain offences committed towards members of the armed forces shall be treated as aggravated; to prohibit discrimination against individuals in terms of provision of goods and services on the grounds that they are members of the armed forces; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 71.)
Train Companies (Minimum Fares) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Thomas Docherty presented a Bill to require train companies to offer customers the cheapest available fare as a first option; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 72.)
Lobbyists (Registration of Code of Conduct) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Thomas Docherty presented a Bill to establish a public register of organisations and individuals that carry out lobbying of Parliament, the Government and local authorities for financial gain; to introduce a code of conduct for those on the register; to introduce sanctions for non-registration and non-compliance with the code of conduct; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 73.)
International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Thomas Docherty presented a Bill to make provision about the meeting by the United Kingdom of the target for official development assistance (ODA) to constitute 0.7 per cent of gross national income; to make provision for independent verification that ODA is spent efficiently and effectively; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 74.)
Jobs Guarantee Scheme (Research) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Thomas Docherty presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to undertake a programme of research into a scheme designed to provide guaranteed employment for those aged 18 to 24 and those aged 25 and over who have been in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance for one year or for two years; to require the Secretary of State to report the results of the research to the House of Commons within six months of completion; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 75.)
Specialist Printing Equipment and Materials (Offences) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Charlie Elphicke presented a Bill to make provision for an offence in respect of supplies of specialist printing equipment and related materials; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July; and to be printed (Bill 76) with explanatory notes (Bill 76-EN).
Local Government (Review of Decisions) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Charlie Elphicke presented a Bill to make provision about the procedure for conducting investigations under Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1974; and to make provision for cases where an authority to which that Part applies takes a decision that affects the holding of an event for a reason relating to health or safety.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 September; and to be printed (Bill 77) with explanatory notes (Bill 77-EN).
Gangmasters Licensing Authority (Extension of Powers) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Andy Sawford presented a Bill to extend the powers of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to enable it to regulate employment agencies in all sectors of the economy; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 78.)
Zero Hours Contracts Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Andy Sawford presented a Bill to prohibit the use of zero hours employment contracts.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 79.)
Football Governance Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Damian Collins, supported by Mr Gerry Sutcliffe, Mr John Whittingdale, Penny Mordaunt, Jim Sheridan, Mr Adrian Sanders and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to reform the governance of football in England to increase transparency and accountability; to ensure fair financial dealings between professional football clubs and their supporters; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 November; and to be printed (Bill 80.)
Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Unlike every other Northern Ireland Bill of recent years, the legislation before the House this afternoon is not being rushed through to resolve a crisis, to deal with security matters or to revive collapsed institutions. Today, we are considering a new kind of Bill for Northern Ireland: a Bill for more normal times—times in which Northern Ireland’s position as part of the United Kingdom is settled on the basis of consent; we have a stable and inclusive devolved Government at Stormont; and the focus is now very much on the politics of delivery.
Many of the measures in the Bill—in contrast to previous legislation—have been prepared in the light of public consultation, followed by pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and his Committee for the seriousness and diligence with which they approached their task of scrutinising this legislation. Several aspects of the Bill have been improved in response to their recommendations.
So the context for this Bill is much more stable than that for previous Northern Ireland-related legislation. Devolved government is well established and the Northern Ireland institutions have been running continuously since 2007. In May, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister published an ambitious programme to address sectarian divisions, including dismantling all peace walls within 10 years. Just 10 days ago, they, I and the Prime Minister signed a substantial economic pact to help Northern Ireland compete in the global race for jobs and investment. The agreement reflects the maturing relationship between the Government and the Executive, and it will see the two Administrations working more closely together than ever before on crucial issues such as business access to finance, improving infrastructure, and supporting research and development.
Of course, last week Northern Ireland also played host to the highly successful G8 summit—something that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. The Prime Minister’s decision to bring the G8 to County Fermanagh could not have been more fully vindicated. Lough Erne provided a spectacular backdrop for the meeting of eight of the most powerful people in the world. The summit was a great opportunity to showcase the best of the new Northern Ireland, which is a great place to invest and a great place to visit. A highly effective policing operation delivered the most peaceful G8 that anyone can remember. Let me take this opportunity to thank the Police Service of Northern Ireland and its partner agencies, including the Garda Siochana, for all their work in making that possible and for their continuing vigilance against the terrorist threat that remains so severe in Northern Ireland.
The Bill makes a number of institutional changes. The measures do not reopen the political settlement enshrined in the Belfast agreement or its successors, but I believe they will improve the way that politics works in Northern Ireland in a number of significant ways. For example, the Bill will open the way for more transparency about political donations, it will modernise the way that elections are run and it will see an end to dual mandates in the Assembly and the House of Commons.
Let me take the points about transparency first. As the House may well be aware, Northern Ireland is subject to different transparency rules on political donation from the rest of the UK. The concern has always been that the publication of donor names could deter people from making political donations because of fear of violent reprisal. Let me be clear that the Government’s ultimate goal is full transparency, with the rules in Northern Ireland being brought into line with the rest of the UK but, having considered the matter carefully, we have concluded that the security situation has not improved sufficiently to enable us to do that and that it is not yet right to start publishing donor names.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for taking an intervention so early in her speech. The Secretary of State began with words with which no one could disagree. She said that the Bill is happening in more normal times in Northern Ireland; I could not agree more. She proceeded to talk about the G8 summit, which has been a huge success, and I thank her for expressing appreciation of the PSNI and the Garda Siochana. Will she take into account the fact that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want the anonymity of political donations to be removed and want transparency? What justification is there for keeping that anonymity in more normal times for Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I share the goal of those who want to see the extension of the GB regime to Northern Ireland, but, as I have said, I feel that the time is not right for that because the security situation has not improved enough since the rules were first devised. It is a pity, but the Bill will enable us to make progress towards the ultimate goal, which the hon. Lady and I both support.
Clauses 1 and 2 will enable us to make progress towards exactly the sort of normalisation that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) wants to see. They will give the Government the power to use secondary legislation to increase transparency gradually, stage by stage. As a first stage, in response to the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we propose to move as swiftly as possible to the publication of draft secondary legislation, if the Bill passes all its parliamentary stages.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
On the question of people being in support or not in support of greater transparency—we certainly support greater transparency—will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Electoral Commission, as well as the Social Democratic and Labour party, preferred option 3 in the Government’s option paper? It said that there were
“concerns…about the risk of intimidation of donors which justified withholding identities”.
This is not just a party political point; the independent Electoral Commission reached that conclusion, which is in line with the Government’s proposals.
Mrs Villiers
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. Indeed, the Electoral Commission has expressed support for a number of the provisions in the Bill. We have listened carefully to the commission in preparing the Bill, given the impact that the commission has on the running of elections and the mechanics of politics in Northern Ireland.
If the Bill passes all its stages, we envisage that secondary legislation will cover matters such as the number and amount of donations, the type of donor—that is, whether they are individual or business donors—the date of the donation and whether it came from an Irish source.
Clauses 3 to 5 are a key part of the Bill and will ban the holding of dual mandates in the Assembly and the House of Commons. That has been a matter of concern in Northern Ireland for some years and the committee formed prior to the 2006 St Andrews talks agreed that dual mandates should be phased out. Further concern was expressed during the MPs’ expenses crisis, including by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Most important of all, an end to double-jobbing was an important commitment made in the 2010 Conservative manifesto for Northern Ireland. Clauses 3 and 5 will enable us to keep the promises we made to the electorate in 2010.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I fully support clause 3, but will the Secretary of State explain why she is making arrangements for Members of the House of Commons to be disqualified from membership of the Assembly, but not making similar arrangements for Members of the House of Lords? I know from personal experience that many Members of the House of Lords from Northern Ireland do an excellent job; the question is whether they can do that job and be Members of the Assembly. The Government have decided that Members of the House of Commons should not be Assembly Members; why is it okay for Members of the House of Lords?
Mrs Villiers
The right hon. Gentleman asks a fair question, and his position is supported by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I reflected carefully on the matter and, in the end, we decided not to go down that route because we feel that the issues are simply not as strong in relation to the House of Lords. It has always been a different type of Chamber, where people are involved in alternative jobs and careers; there is not the same degree of public concern about dual mandates with the House of Lords; and the lack of a constituency and responsibilities for Members of the House of Lords also provides a reason to distinguish them from Members of the House of Commons. We will listen to the debates in this House and in the other place with an open mind, and if the Lords themselves wish us to act on this, of course we will consider their views carefully, but we believe that the focus of the legislation should be the key cause of concern in Northern Ireland, and that is dual mandates in the Assembly and the House of Commons.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Surely there is a degree of hypocrisy when we have Members from one party who claim all the expenses they can get their hands on but who do not even attend this House?
Mrs Villiers
The Democratic Unionist party has strong views on these matters—[Hon. Members: “So did your party in your manifesto.”]—but they are not relevant to the Bill. No doubt hon. Members will have the opportunity to raise those concerns as the debate continues, and I am sure that, on a future occasion, the whole House will have the opportunity to express a view on the status quo regarding parliamentary allowances and what changes should be made.
Lady Hermon
Will the Secretary of State clarify, for the benefit of the whole House, whether Members of the Scottish Parliament and Members of the Welsh Assembly can also sit in the House of Lords? Is there a precedent that the Secretary of State is following, or are we just making it up as we go along for Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
There is no legislative ban on Members of the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament being Members of the House of Lords. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is seeking to introduce legislation on dual mandates in the Welsh Assembly and the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has not taken that step. We believe that there is a case for looking specifically at Northern Ireland, where this has arisen as a problem. The Committee on Standards in Public Life commented that the issue was particularly entrenched in relation to Northern Ireland; that is why it was the subject of the manifesto commitment relating to the Northern Ireland Assembly, but not other Assemblies.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
In her elaboration on the Bill’s provisions on dual mandates, the Secretary of State has not mentioned, alluded to or expanded on the cost implications of proceeding with ending dual mandates.
Mrs Villiers
No, I have not expounded on the cost implications, but I certainly do not believe that a ban on dual mandates in the Assembly and the House of Commons would add significantly to the cost of politics in Northern Ireland.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The Secretary of State described dual mandates as a problem, but during the difficult years of the peace process it was absolutely essential that Members of the House who were in leadership positions took seats in the Assembly to help it through those initial years. It is therefore regrettable that she described it as a problem: it was part of the solution, in terms of moving Northern Ireland politics forward. Thankfully, we have moved on, but let us not look back and say that it was a bad thing.
Mrs Villiers
I would certainly agree that there are a number of reasons why there were more dual mandates in relation to Northern Ireland than for other parts of the United Kingdom. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there may have been justified reasons for that at the time. However, things have moved on, and it is a greater sign of normalisation that, arguably, what might have been a need or justification in the past is no longer relevant today.
In response to a recommendation on double-jobbing from the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, the Bill bans double-jobbing in the Assembly and the lower House of the Irish Parliament to maintain parity. I am grateful to the Committee for highlighting that issue.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Will the Secretary of State comment on double-jobbing between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the House of Lords, and double-jobbing in the Northern Ireland Assembly and Seanad Eireann, the upper House to the Dail?
Mrs Villiers
As I have said, we do not see the same pressing issues applying in relation to double-jobbing with the House of Lords, and that applies equally to the upper House of the Irish Parliament.
Clause 6 will enable the Assembly to reduce the number of Members of the Legislative Assembly, subject to consent from Westminster. There is widespread acceptance that Northern Ireland has high numbers of elected representatives. Scotland, with a population of just over 5 million elects 129 MSPs, but Northern Ireland elects 108 MLAs to represent just 1.8 million people. While there were perhaps good reasons for that when the institutions were set up, we feel that the case has now been made for change.
As yet, there is no cross-party agreement on the appropriate size of the reduction in the number of MLAs, and I certainly hope that Northern Ireland’s political leadership can reach a settled view on this as soon as possible. In the meantime, the Bill moves things forward by enabling such a reduction to take place without further primary legislation. The Bill also contains a number of provisions allowing us to update the rules on electoral administration.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Electoral registration rates in Northern Ireland are at something like 70%—the lowest they have ever been, and the lowest rate anywhere in the UK—after 10 years of individual electoral registration. Will the Secretary of State use the Bill to redress that imbalance, and what is her view of the fact that if 30% of the public are not on the electoral register, people do not have a functioning democracy?
Mrs Villiers
We have taken action outside the scope of the Bill to do the necessary work to update the content of the electoral register. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it needs to be updated, and we have set aside funding to enable that to take place over the coming months.
The Bill deals with issues such as performance standards for electoral registration officers; residence requirements for voting; the canvass form; and declarations by overseas voters. Clause 7 introduces five-year fixed terms for the Assembly from now on, and moves the date of the next Assembly election to 2016. When the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill was debated in 2010, concern was expressed that a general election in May 2015 would overshadow polls for the UK’s devolved Assemblies scheduled for the same day and cause voter confusion. The decision was taken to extend the terms of the Scottish Parliament and of the Welsh Assembly. Lord Wallace, speaking on behalf of the Government, indicated in the debate in the other House that the Government would consider a similar extension for the Northern Ireland Executive after consideration of the triple poll of May 2011. The Bill now brings the Northern Ireland institutions into line with the approach adopted for Scotland and Wales, avoiding the clash with the 2015 general election and making future clashes much less likely.
Clauses 8 and 9 give the Northern Ireland Justice Minister the same security of tenure as other Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. This reflects cross-party negotiations that led to the agreement in the Assembly on the method for selecting a Justice Minister and that were part of the historic agreement on the devolution of policing and justice powers.
Clauses 10 to 12 would permit the devolution of certain arm’s length bodies without further primary legislation. These include the Human Rights Commission, the civil service commissioners and the district electoral areas commissioner. Before devolution could take place, though, there would need to be full consideration, a vote in the Assembly, and confirmation via secondary legislation approved by Parliament.
As well as consideration of these and other measures in the Bill, I am sure our debates will give us the opportunity to reflect on what the next steps for institutional change in Northern Ireland should be. The Government do not rule out more far-reaching changes to the institutions in the future, but any future reforms would have to be consistent with the principles of power sharing and inclusivity at the heart of the Belfast agreement, and they could go ahead only if they had cross-party and cross-communal agreement.
The perennial question for all institutions of government is how to improve delivery. A growing number of people think this could come about by facilitating the emergence of a formal Opposition within the Northern Ireland Assembly. Although MLAs of course provide regular and careful scrutiny of the Executive, the Government have been clear that they would like to see a more normal system emerge, which accommodates a Government and a formal Opposition. As yet the consensus that we would need in order to legislate has not been achieved, but I believe that the consultation that my predecessor ran last year on this has pushed the issue forward.
I welcome the fact that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee are now looking at steps that the Assembly itself might take in this field. I certainly encourage the larger parties to be generous towards parties that might consider that they could best serve the electorate by choosing to be in opposition, or that do not have sufficient strength in the Assembly for a seat at the Executive table. As parliamentarians we recognise the democratic value of challenge to our views, even where that can be uncomfortable. Innovation often comes from those who are prepared to take on the prevailing consensus.
In conclusion, it is a good thing that the Bill is not surrounded by the drama or the breakneck urgency of Northern Ireland Bills of the past. It offers an important set of changes, none the less. In pressing ahead with targeted improvements to the way politics works, I hope the Bill will play its part in helping to address the challenges faced by today’s Northern Ireland and its political leadership. Despite some welcome signs that the economy is beginning to heal, the economic climate remains difficult. As President Obama reminded us in his memorable address at the Waterfront hall in Belfast last week, there are many miles to go before Northern Ireland has the shared society we all want to see.
The President was introduced in Belfast by 16-year-old Hannah Nelson from Methodist college, Belfast. With great composure, she told the packed hall and the global media that
“we should not let the past pull us apart and stop us from moving forward…We need to listen to each other and we need to compromise. Most importantly, we need to clearly value each other. Peace is not easy and it takes a lot of work to make it happen.”
Her message is one that has resonated across Northern Ireland. Sectarian division carries great risks to progress on the economy, to security, and to the general well-being of Northern Ireland’s people. It profoundly influences how the world sees Northern Ireland, not least when the tensions that it causes on flags and parading spill out on to the streets. This debate and the Bill provide us with an opportunity in this House once again to pledge our support to the people of Northern Ireland and their political leadership in their continuing efforts to build a prosperous and united community of which all of us can be proud. I commend the Bill to the House.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
This is a remarkable time for Northern Ireland and a good time for the House to discuss the Bill. The coverage of President Obama’s visit to Belfast last week and the sight of world leaders attending the G8 summit in Fermanagh were powerful, moving and hugely uplifting. Some 2,000 young people from schools across Northern Ireland were reminded that the future belongs to them and that it is their attitude and decisions that will take us forward. The President’s words will serve to inspire those in the Waterfront hall and far beyond to make rhetoric a reality and to deliver progress for the next generation.
From a Northern Ireland perspective, the G8 summit was everything we had all hoped it would be. I again congratulate the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister on their work and their foresight in deciding to hold such a prestigious international event in County Fermanagh. Indeed, the Prime Minister told us last week that each of the world leaders commented on how incredible it was that such a summit could take place in Northern Ireland, and in the most tranquil and beautiful surroundings of Lough Erne.
Thanks to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, their colleagues from other police forces in the UK, and An Garda Siochana, the G8 met safely and securely and the accompanying protests took place peacefully and respectfully. The people of Northern Ireland and their representatives in this House and in Stormont can rightly be proud of what that showed the world last week. I know that everyone in this House and right across the United Kingdom and Ireland share that pride and that sense of success and achievement. It is in that context that we are discussing the Bill today and not, as was so often the case before, in a time of crisis.
Of course, as the Secretary of State suggested, and as Members know, there is more to come. We are halfway through Derry/Londonderry’s year as UK city of culture. I spent a great weekend there at the start of this month, visiting the newly developed Tower museum, which charts the city’s incredible history, the London street art gallery, which showcases the work of emerging artists, a moving exhibition showing images of Derry during the troubles and the new Shirt Factory art project. I also attended my first Ulster championship Gaelic football match, between Down and Derry, although my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will remind me that I did not bring the home team much luck.
Ms Ritchie
My hon. Friend’s visit brought greater luck to me, as MP for South Down, because Down won that day, but unfortunately they did not win yesterday against Donegal. I look forward to the day when they will do better through the back-door mechanism.
Vernon Coaker
I hesitate to get involved in discussions about Gaelic football fixtures, but my next remark was going to be that the result will have pleased my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie).
Everyone knows that challenges remain and that there remains much work to be done. The threat from dissident republican groups remains high, and those who seek to destroy the peace and progress are still intent on carrying out their murderous activities. It is only the bravery, dedication and skill of the police, army technical officers and the security services that have prevented the terrorists from succeeding. The loyalist flag protests have shown that there is still work to be done, so we cannot be complacent. I join the First and Deputy First Ministers, the Justice Minister and the Chief Constable in calling for a calm and peaceful summer.
It is in that context that we are considering the Bill today. Let me say something I have said many times before: the Opposition are committed to working with the Government in a bipartisan way where possible. When we believe that the Government are acting in the best interests of Northern Ireland, we will support them. When we disagree, we have a duty to challenge them and hold them to account.
I must say that in some respects I am disappointed with the Bill, not so much because of what is in it, but because of what is not. “Miscellaneous” suggests that all that is needed is some tidying up by Westminster and that it is a case of putting forward some minor amendments and small adjustments. Indeed, most of the Bill’s provisions have been discussed with the Northern Ireland parties and command general, if not universal, support. In principle, we support the ending of dual mandates, the extension of the Assembly’s term—temporarily and then permanently—giving security of tenure to the Justice Minister and devolving power on the size of the Assembly. We want to move to full transparency and accountability in political donations. Clearly, we will look at the detail of all the proposals in Committee, but by and large they make sense.
However, the Secretary of State will know that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee at Stormont is looking at the size of the Assembly, the number of Executive Departments, designation, the composition of the Executive, and provision for opposition. These are difficult and sensitive issues. The principles of power sharing and inclusivity are fundamental, but there is an acceptance that the system could be improved and there are demands for more accountability and more rigorous scrutiny of the Executive.
As a precursor to the Bill, the previous Secretary of State last year launched a review of the operation of the Assembly during a speech in which he criticised the Assembly and the Executive. I said at the time that that criticism was largely unwarranted and unnecessary and suggested that the Government work in partnership with the Executive and the Assembly to look at how they and the Northern Ireland Office could work more effectively, individually and collectively. To be fair to the current Secretary of State, she has taken an approach more in line with that thinking. However, I worry that in some respects she has gone too far the other way and has not engaged with some of the issues.
I have said before that devolution should not mean disengagement. The Bill gives the House a chance to put its views appropriately and constructively and I hope that, as the debate goes through the House, the Government will reflect on how they could take that opportunity.
In replying to the debate, will the Minister of State tell us what discussions he has had on the progress of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee’s work? Have the Government had any requests from that body or the Executive for the inclusion of measures that have not been included in the Bill? These are difficult and challenging areas and it will be hard to find agreement, but I sense from everywhere that there is an increasing desire to make progress a little more quickly—something, as I have said, that will undoubtedly be discussed in Committee in more detail.
Many other issues affect people in Northern Ireland, of course, and there is demand for politicians here and in Stormont to concentrate on building jobs and growth, tackling youth unemployment and creating opportunity. Of course, there are also the continuing challenges in health, education and welfare. Many of the decisions are devolved, but there is a role for the House to play in supporting the Executive as they seek to build peace, progress and prosperity.
The Government should also remember that they have a huge responsibility for economic and welfare decisions that affect people in Northern Ireland just as much as they do people in Gedling, Chipping Barnet or Hemel Hempstead. Is there nothing that the Bill could have contained that looked at the impact of Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Government’s economic and welfare policies on Northern Ireland, given the particular circumstances of a society emerging from conflict?
We know also that great strides have been taken to encourage business, tourism and economic progress. Indeed, later this week, alongside the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) in his capacity as Finance Minister, I am meeting a range of business organisations, including the Federation of Small Businesses, the Northern Ireland chambers of commerce, the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association and others, to take forward plans for a small business Saturday. We need to do all we can to help business and build prosperity in communities where there is a high level of economic inactivity and a lack of opportunities, which create such a sense of despair and hopelessness.
Mrs Villiers
Perhaps I can provide the shadow Secretary of State with some reassurance. The proposals agreed in the economic package between the Executive and the Government are meant to complement the institutional changes in the Bill. We will work hard to deliver on those, including with a major G8-themed inward investment conference in October and, hopefully, the prompt extension of start-up loans to Northern Ireland, on which my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is making an announcement today.
Vernon Coaker
Obviously, we all hope that those measures are successful. As I have said, I thought the package announced by the Government a few days ago was a step in the right direction. However, I am talking about the sense of urgency needed to accelerate progress and saying that the Government here in London should recognise the huge impact that Treasury decisions have on Northern Ireland, which has particular circumstances as it emerges from conflict. The Secretary of State will know, from hon. Members here and representatives she meets in Northern Ireland, of the real concern about the impact in many communities of joblessness as well as the Government’s welfare changes, the impact of which the Government need to reflect carefully on.
Huge progress has been made on policing and justice. I welcome the changes made to ensure security of tenure for the Justice Minister. I encouraged the Government to legislate on that more than a year ago, and I am glad that the relevant measures are included in the Bill. David Ford, the current incumbent, does a good job in tough circumstances, and I pay tribute to him. Further to policing and justice, I will continue to raise the very serious issue of the National Crime Agency’s inability to operate in Northern Ireland.
Paul Goggins
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that point. He said that the Bill contains measures that will clearly have broad support in all parts of the House. He is right, however, to argue with some urgency about the need to return to provisions in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 that are still not in operation, and have no likelihood of being so, in Northern Ireland. That is very good news for criminals and very bad news for the people of Northern Ireland.
Vernon Coaker
The fact that the National Crime Agency cannot operate in Northern Ireland as it does in the rest of the UK is a source of great regret to us all. I hope that as we go through the Bill we can look at ways in which we may continue to support the Secretary of State in putting pressure on the Home Secretary to work with the Northern Ireland Executive to get the legislative consent necessary for the agency’s remit to extend to Northern Ireland.
The Executive’s publication of their strategy on community sharing and integration is to be welcomed. However, that does not mean that there is no longer a role for Westminster and the Government to play in helping to build a shared future across Northern Ireland, with no community left behind. I would have liked the Bill to include a measure to consolidate the work of the Executive and, most importantly, of the thousands of individuals and organisations doing hugely important work to bring people together in friendship, understanding and co-operation.
Some weeks ago I spoke to a group of students from Queen’s university and the university of Ulster. I was struck by their confidence, ability and experience. Let us be clear: these young people, aged 18, 19 and 20, were not untouched by sectarianism. I was genuinely surprised to hear from one very bright and articulate student that the first time she had, in any real sense, met someone from the other side was when she went to university. We have a duty to ensure that in future 18, 19 and 20-year-olds do not have to leave home to meet their neighbours.
The Bill contains provisions relating to arm’s length bodies such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which does important and valuable work. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State outlined what role she sees for it in future and shared her views on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.
On the electoral registration provisions, I add a note of caution. We need to get the balance right between ensuring that as many people as possible who are entitled to do so engage in our democratic process while protecting against the kind of electoral fraud that is an affront to that process.
In this Second Reading debate, the main point that I want to make to the Government is that they should reflect on whether anything more could be included in the Bill that would help to build peace, progress and prosperity in Northern Ireland. I am always glad, and often surprised, to learn how keen people in Northern Ireland are for us to visit to hear their stories and share in some of their experiences. Nowhere has this been more evident than in engaging with victims and survivors. It is always an incredibly humbling and emotional experience to speak with those who have lost loved ones. The heartbreaking stories that I have heard have moved and affected me greatly, as I am sure they have many others.
I have met dozens of victims and survivors, some with organisations, some individually, right across Northern Ireland. Some months ago I spent time with a woman whose two brothers had joined the Royal Ulster Constabulary together on the same day—a very proud one for her family. One of them was killed in a car bomb just a few months later, and just as she was beginning to recover from that, the other was killed in a mortar attack on a police station, 15 years after his brother. It devastated her and her family. I also met the mother of a young girl aged 12 who died in her father’s arms just yards from her home after being shot by a soldier. There was no explanation of or justification for either of those events.
These are very difficult and painful things to speak about, but we have had many difficult and painful conversations in Northern Ireland, and we need to have this one. Is there nothing we can propose in the Bill that would help this process and take it forward? The Government say that there is no consensus on the way forward and therefore no possibility of agreement. In essence, that it is to do with them. I fundamentally disagree, as Members will know. Dealing with the past—the legacy of the troubles—is expressly a responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office. It cannot act alone, of course, and I have consistently said that we need a comprehensive and inclusive process with victims and survivors at the centre. The last time we debated Northern Ireland on the Floor of the House, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked me what I meant by that. I repeat today that the Government, in partnership with the Irish Government, have a duty to lead, but not to prescribe. They must create a vehicle through which these issues can be discussed and resolved. Of course, that will take time and it will not be easy, but the prize will be worth it. Victims and survivors are not afraid to talk about the past; the Governments should not be either.
Just last week, I went to St Ethelburga’s church, which was blown up by the IRA in the Bishopsgate bombing in 1993, where I saw the Theatre of Witness production, “From the Rubble”. It was an incredibly powerful performance that bore witness to the wounds of the past, which are still visible to many in Northern Ireland. The performers were not acting, but telling their own real stories. One said that we need to have an eye on the future, as well as an eye on the past. We cannot ignore the past, but we must not be trapped by it either.
That is why I am saddened that the Government cannot find a way in the Bill to allow the issues of the past to be discussed and addressed, so that consensus may emerge. The legacy of the past has to be dealt with and the Government must consider the impact that it has on the victims, the survivors and everyone in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Donaldson
I thank the Opposition spokesman for his moving words, for his genuine concern for the victims of the terrorist campaigns in Northern Ireland and for the time he has taken to meet many of the victims. He speaks of the British and Irish Governments taking the lead. Does he accept that it is not just a matter of taking the lead? We have heard a lot from our Government by way of apology and inquiry, but precious little from the Irish Government, despite the evidence that Irish Ministers were involved in arming the IRA at the beginning of the troubles and the growing evidence of collusion between Irish state forces and paramilitary organisations. If the Irish Government are to take a lead, they need to accept that they too have a responsibility to acknowledge the wrongdoing of the past.
Vernon Coaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about me. I appreciate them when we are discussing such a sensitive matter. I say to him that everyone needs to be involved in the process of coming to an understanding of what happened and of how we can move forward.
Westminster still matters to Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland must matter to Westminster. The Bill gives the House of Commons the chance to demonstrate that through our deliberations. The UK Government should work ever closer with the devolved Administration to do the best that they can for Northern Ireland and its people. The key message from the peace process that we should share with the world is that an end to conflict is only the start of the peace. Along with the Irish Government, and with the support of the European Union and the United States Administration, we must continue to provide support and encouragement as Northern Ireland continues to move forward. That is our responsibility, that is our role and that is how we will build peace, progress and prosperity in every community in Northern Ireland.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I thank the Government for putting the Bill out to pre-legislative scrutiny. Analysing it was an interesting task for the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I thank the Secretary of State and Minister of State for taking on board a number of our recommendations and for considering the other points that we made. I thank all members of the Committee, many of whom are present in the Chamber, for their hard work and for the benefit of their experience, particularly of those who are from Northern Ireland.
I do not want to single out one political party that gave evidence to the Committee, but it demonstrates the considerable extent to which things have moved on in Northern Ireland that the formal evidence session that we held in Belfast with Sinn Fein was, as I understand it, the first time that that political party had given public evidence to a Committee of the House of Commons. I think that is a significant step forward. I thank all the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee in Belfast and in Westminster. As those on the Front Benches have said, things in Northern Ireland have moved on enormously.
Mr Gregory Campbell
The hon. Gentleman rightly alludes to progress, with members of Sinn Fein giving evidence to the Committee. Does he agree that that is a good and significant step forward, and certainly beats impeding police officers in the course of their duty in Belfast at the weekend during an Orange Order parade?
Mr Robertson
I agree entirely. It is sometimes a case of two steps forward and one step back. I was in Belfast this morning and the newspapers were full of that incident in which a person was injured. Two weeks ago, members of the Committee visited Washington and spoke to a number of people. There was an overwhelming feeling that much had been sorted out in Northern Ireland, but the incident at the weekend, flag protests and the murder of Mr David Black last November do nothing to attract investment. They deter investment, and that is a tragedy. I hope we can move forward more smoothly.
We made a great deal of progress in attracting Sinn Fein to give evidence to the Committee. I would go further and say, as we did at the time, that it is time that members of that party took their seats in this Parliament so that they can come and make their case here. They claim they do the job anyway, but they do not. They do a job, but they do not do the job of parliamentarians, even though they accept the expenses and allowances that go with it. We ought to be able to move forward a little more in that respect.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am sure the hon. Gentleman shares the concern of many of us on these Benches and in the Province that the onus is on elected representatives not only to obey the law, but to do so in public. What we saw at the weekend was a travesty of the law: two elected representatives, one of whom sits on the policing board, clearly flouted the law. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there is an onus on elected representatives from Sinn Fein to be more observant of the law?
Mr Robertson
Everybody has to observe the law. The law cannot be applied differently to different people, regardless of who they purport to represent, so I do not disagree with a word the hon. Gentleman has said.
We are in a better place than we were. As the Secretary of State said, it is a welcome change to be considering legislation relating to Northern Ireland that is not a desperately urgent response to a terrible incident. On at least a couple of occasions while I have been a Member, the House has been recalled during the recess to consider such a matter urgently. It is right to move things forward in a more measured way if possible. The Committee looked at the Bill in great detail and supports much of what it proposes. I will discuss three or four issues in my speech, which will be fairly brief.
On donations, the Committee welcomes the move towards normalisation. The objective has to be to move Northern Ireland towards being a normal society and a normal democracy. We have some way to go, but we are slowly getting there. We felt that we ought to move quickly from October 2014 to full publication of who has made donations. We understand that there is a security issue. A number of witnesses and members of the Committee said that there is a risk for people who stand for Parliament, Assembly or council; for those who support them by delivering leaflets, canvassing or putting up posters; and for those who sign nomination papers. The question was whether donating money constitutes a different risk. We were not persuaded that it does, so we want to see greater progress on the publication of donations.
We said, though, that those decisions had to be taken in the light of the security situation. We wanted the Bill to state that the Secretary of State should consult the respective security services before taking such a decision, but she has decided not to include that. I mention that because although we recognise that there are problems, in principle we want to move towards a more normal politics in Northern Ireland in which there is less suspicion, and if everything is out in the open, surely that is a better way forward than the way we have been going so far. We also insisted, however, that anyone or any organisation that made donations prior to the change or notification that those donations would become public should remain anonymous, because when they gave those donations, they depended on that anonymity.
We support the ending of dual mandates. In fact, we would go further, as has been alluded to already. We think that Members of the Assembly should not also be Members of the House of Lords, the European Parliament or the Senate in the Republic of Ireland. I understand fully the points made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), who has left the Chamber momentarily, about how important it was at the time for experienced politicians to take the peace process forward in Northern Ireland—that was certainly essential —but we have moved on. Before the Assembly was restarted, many decisions about Northern Ireland were taken upstairs in Committee by statutory instrument, which was a very unsatisfactory way of governing Northern Ireland.
As Conservative Front-Bench spokesperson, I attended many of those sessions. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) was often the Minister. Because many Northern Ireland Members had the additional burden of advancing the peace process in their constituencies, many were the times when, through no fault of their own, not a single one of them could attend, and these were Committees deciding very important things for Northern Ireland. It was very unsatisfactory, but we have moved on, and people cannot be in two places at once. There is also the potential for a conflict of interest if somebody sits on two legislative bodies. We would have gone further than the Government, and we would also apply the same rules to Scotland and Wales, although I think that Wales is moving in that direction anyway.
The Select Committee welcomed the changes to the appointment and tenure of the Justice Minister—we feel that the Ministry should be more secure—and the fact that taking the position will count against the number of Ministries a party can hold, but we are a little concerned about what will happen if agreement cannot be reached. We urge the Government to seek a way forward when that happens. Could the Justice Minister be appointed another way without bringing everything down? The appointment of the Justice Minister under a d’Hondt system might be possible, although I understand the sensitivities around that. Nevertheless, we identified that as a potential problem; it has not happened, and I hope it never will, but there is a potential problem.
We disagreed with the Government over delaying the next Assembly elections to 2016. We think that people in Northern Ireland are perfectly capable of voting in two or even three elections, where necessary, and who is to say that the general election will be held in May 2015? We have legislated for it—although I voted against it—but who is to say that the coalition will last that long? It might do, but who is to say that elections will come in neat five-year terms after that? It might be the case, but it might not, so we did not see the need to change that arrangement, although we accepted that it was not necessarily the main part of the Bill.
We held many discussions about government and opposition, and a number of witnesses said that they wanted to see an opposition developing in Northern Ireland. I think I am representing the Committee’s views accurately here, but it is certainly my own view that we have to allow the politicians and the people of Northern Ireland to come forward with their own proposals and solutions to the situation. The Assembly was created in the way it was for a reason, and we all know what that reason was. We must bear in mind the Good Friday agreement requirements for a shared future, and it is difficult to come up with a solution to the problem. We recognise that there is an issue, but we feel that the solution ought to be home grown and brought to this House in the form of a proposal.
We hold a similar view on the size of the Assembly. This is not so much about the fact that 108 Assembly Members represent 1.8 million people; it is more about the fact that there are six Members of the Assembly for every Westminster constituency. Again, we know why that was done—it made the maths easier at the time—but things can move on. We should not throw away the principles of the Belfast agreement, but I do not see why we cannot, with consent, move forward on certain aspects of it.
That is a collection of some of the Select Committee’s thoughts. I should like to thank all the members of the Committee for their work and for their proposals, and to thank the Government for listening to what we have had to say. I wish the Bill well.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I join others in welcoming the Bill. It has had a long gestation period, and the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), who is now the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, heralded it as a normalisation Bill. We heard about the Bill in many meetings with him and others at the Northern Ireland Office, and we were led to believe that it would contain all sorts of wonderful, amazing things for Northern Ireland. Yes, it represents progress, but it is certainly not as far-reaching as was originally envisaged. It is certainly not as ambitious as the then Secretary of State suggested when he became the holder of that office.
The then Secretary of State said many other things, too, and I shall deal with those in a moment. One such matter was allowances for Sinn Fein Members. We have talked about dual mandates, but the issues of non-representation and the non-fulfilment of mandates are equally important. The right hon. Gentleman promised that not a single Conservative Member in this new Parliament would dream of sustaining the position whereby Members who did not take their seats could claim money and expenses. I hope that the House will shortly have an opportunity to consider that matter further.
I welcome the fact that we are debating the Bill at a time when there is no crisis in Northern Ireland relating to the Assembly or the Executive. On many occasions, we have had to debate all the stages of a Bill in one day to deal with the suspension of the Assembly, with some other crisis, or with its reinstatement. Thankfully, those days have gone and we now have relative stability. Indeed, we take that stability for granted. The very fact that we are debating an extension of the current Assembly’s term for another year, and fixed terms of five years thereafter, is in indication of the progress that has been made. Who would have previously imagined that we would be discussing these proposals here today? People would have said that we were living in fantasy land if they had been suggested before. Previous Assemblies did not have this kind of stability, and even the current one that was set up under the 1998 legislation did not have it until 2007. So we have a lot to be grateful for, and we should reflect on the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland, but we should not take it for granted. We must remember that there is still work to be done to ensure that that stability continues.
The Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State have mentioned that we are debating these matters against the background of a propitious event. The hosting of the G8 summit by Northern Ireland was enormously successful, and tribute has rightly been paid to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the security forces in the Irish Republic and to the help given by other British police and security services. We have had great news, too, in recent days with announcements of significant numbers of fantastic, good-quality, high-value jobs for Northern Ireland. All those announcements are highly significant. As has also been pointed out, however, major challenges remain despite the progress that has been made. The challenge posed by dissident terrorists and other republican groups is significant. The police and security services deserve all our gratitude and our support—given in material ways—to make sure that they are ready, able and fit to combat that threat.
It is also crucial that the political parties in Northern Ireland’s civic society continue to give their full support to policing, the courts and the rule of law. One deeply disturbing issue already alluded to in this debate is the selective approach to policing that we have seen in recent months from Sinn Fein. We have seen its members picketing outside police headquarters when certain people are arrested, protesting against certain investigations and now we have seen the incident mentioned by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), the Chairman of the Select Committee, and others, in which a Sinn Fein Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive and a Sinn Fein member of the Policing Board, Gerry Kelly, were both seen openly obstructing police and clambering on police vehicles at a peaceful parade held in my Belfast North constituency last Friday.
Clearly, there is outrage at this loutish and hooligan behaviour. It is not the job of Assembly Members, elected representatives or members of the Policing Board to interfere in that way in the conduct of police operational matters. Holding the police to account is not, as Gerry Kelly seems to think, a question of clambering on a police vehicle and trying to stop an arrest. It is about doing the job of being a member of the Policing Board by asking questions or coming to this House, if elected to it, and asking questions; it is not about vandalism or the loutish behaviour and hooliganism that we have seen. I have written to the Chief Constable today to ask what action he is going to take to investigate fully and ensure that action is taken against those who engage in this kind of provocative behaviour, which could have resulted in serious trouble. As we saw on the night, these actions led to others getting involved in attacking the police vehicle. There are challenges that we in Northern Ireland face.
Let me move on to the details of the Bill. It does not go as far as was first envisaged, but significant progress has been made on donations, dual mandates, the removal of some powers from the excepted category to the reserved category, and justice powers. I shall deal with each of those briefly in turn.
The issue of political donations and loans falls into three main areas: transparency of donors, the timetable for moving to full transparency and—this is an issue that the Secretary of State only glanced over—an anomaly that will remain, despite the Bill, in that donations will still be able to be made to Northern Ireland parties from individuals and bodies outside the United Kingdom.
This party supports in principle having as much transparency as possible when it comes to donations. There have obviously been good reasons in Northern Ireland for granting exceptions to the rules that apply to parties in the rest of the United Kingdom. Evidence about the security situation presented to the Select Committee in its investigation of this Bill cannot be set to one side. That evidence has come from not just the Unionist side, but the nationalist side and, as I mentioned in my intervention on the Secretary of State, the independent Electoral Commission. It shows that many brave individuals and businesses stepped forward during the darkest of days to make donations. They took great personal and corporate risks coming forward with donations, and their main concern was rightly—there is evidence that when the donations were discovered, these things did happen—that they would suffer personal loss, a downturn in trade and, in some cases, even physical attack. The intimidation was a real threat and was certainly a clear attempt to silence people and prevent them from participating in the democratic process.
As we in Northern Ireland move forward and put the violence of the past behind us, it is right and proper that we move towards a system of donations and loans that is similar to that used in the rest of the United Kingdom. That should apply not only to transparency issues, but to all aspects of donations, such as who can donate. From 2014 onwards, why should there be any exceptions at all?
We support the commitment in the Bill not to publish retrospectively the names of past donors. Any future reform must safeguard the trust that people in the past have placed in the system, to protect them, their families and their businesses from disclosure.
Lady Hermon
On transparency of political donations, I agree that donors to any political party were under real and significant threat in the past, but in the present changed circumstances in Northern Ireland that we enjoy by and large—thank goodness—will the right hon. Gentleman say, without disclosing their identities and breaching confidentiality, whether it is tens, dozens or one or two donors to the Democratic Unionist party who currently feel threatened by violence?
Mr Dodds
I can do no better than to quote the leader of my party and First Minister of Northern Ireland, who, as stated in the House of Commons Library research paper, shared the concerns of other parties, including the Ulster Unionists, in saying in evidence to the Select Committee:
“In the past, businesses and businesses were attacked because of their association either with security forces or with one section of the community. You cannot be cavalier about these issues because they are real. Even if it did not happen, there would certainly be the perception among those who might be willing to donate that it could.”
I will go even further and quote the leader of the SDLP, the hon. Member for South Down—[Hon. Members: “South Belfast.”] I apologise to both the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), the leader of the SDLP, who said in evidence to the Select Committee—I know he is more than capable of speaking for himself—that
“we feel that we were particularly vulnerable…in that some of our donors felt vulnerable and threatened…Sometimes the threat is not even direct, but people are put under pressure and told, ‘You gave the SDLP £1,000 this week; we think that we are entitled to £2,000 this week’. The threat is at that level. In a situation in which there are still a handful of people moving about with guns, that threat is there.”
I agree with the leader of the SDLP, with the leader of my party and with the Government, who have got this issue right. The Electoral Commission—an independent, not party political, body—also expressed such concerns.
I also fully endorse the recommendation of the Select Committee that the clause should be amended so as to provide that the Electoral Commission in future—from 2014 onwards, not going backwards—can disclose donor identity only where there is express consent from the donor; under the Bill as currently worded, such information can be published where there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that there was consent.
On the timetable for moving to transparency, I listened to what the Secretary of State has said: the Bill does not implement any provision, but simply gives the power to the Secretary of State to bring forward legislation in future for achieving greater transparency. At that point, a strong degree of caution and common sense will still need to be exercised because of the continued dissident threat to which we have referred.
The Bill states that the Electoral Commission must be consulted, but—with due respect to the commission—I think that there should also be consultation with the security forces and with the police in particular, and also with the political parties in Northern Ireland. I would be grateful for the Secretary of State’s assurance that this will not simply involve the thoughts and minds of the Electoral Commission, and that there will be a much wider consultation.
Mrs Villiers
I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. Of course it would be very important to consult the Police Service of Northern Ireland and others with knowledge of the security situation, but when proceeding with any transparency arrangements, we would want to consult widely with others, including the political parties.
Mr Dodds
I am grateful for that undertaking. In Committee, we may return to the question of how the Bill might reflect it more clearly.
Let me now turn to the issue of donations made by individuals and bodies outside the United Kingdom. The Select Committee made the welcome recommendation that the loophole represented by an anomaly, or special provision, should be closed. We will, of course, examine the issue in more detail during the Bill’s Committee stage.
Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, political parties registered in Great Britain are permitted to accept donations only from UK residents and bodies. The Act extends to parties in Northern Ireland, but parties registered there may accept donations from citizens and bodies in the Irish Republic. Why was the Act brought into being? It was brought into being so that the public—the people who send us to this place—could have some degree of certainty that those who gave money to political parties had a stake in this country, and in affairs of state here. They did not want political parties to be flooded with money from people in the United States, Europe and elsewhere who had interests in the making of certain decisions, but who did not vote here, represent anyone here, or have any stake in this country other than, for instance, a commercial stake. The Act was introduced for very good reasons, yet an exception was made in the case of Northern Ireland.
Individuals and bodies in the Republic of Ireland can donate to parties in Northern Ireland in a way that contravenes the law of that country. Worse still, however, owing to our inability to regulate donations of this kind, those individuals and bodies can be used as a front for donations from other foreign or overseas countries. The Select Committee’s recognition of that problem led it rightly to recommend that the anomaly be removed.
Here we all are, saying that Northern Ireland should be subject to the same level of transparency in respect of donations and identity as every other part of the United Kingdom. We ask “Why should Northern Ireland be any different?” But why should Northern Ireland be any different when it comes to who can donate to political parties? There is no reason at all why it should. I hope that, as we consider the Bill further in the House and in Committee, Members and, in particular, the Government will look afresh at the issue. If the Government fail to close this loophole, they may rightly stand accused of giving preferential treatment to certain political parties for political reasons.
Whatever the causes for the arguments of the past, those reasons certainly do not exist today. There should be a level playing field for all political parties in Northern Ireland. There should be the same rules for all of them, and there should be the same benefits, if possible, in terms of donations for all political parties. This anomaly was introduced for one reason: to allow Sinn Fein, and other nationalists, to get money from America, channelled into Northern Ireland via the Irish Republic. That is why this was implemented. That is the reason it was allowed, and if it is allowed to continue, that will be an indictment of this House, particularly at a time when people are so concerned about the funding of political parties.
We support the provision to extend the term of the Assembly to 2016. We disagree with the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), on that point, but not because we think people in Northern Ireland will not be able to understand voting in different elections on the same day. Northern Ireland’s citizens have a long and admirable track record of being able not only to vote in different elections on the same day, but to use different electoral systems, and to do so very successfully. The terrible outcome in Scotland recently, when there was a dual election that led to thousands of spoiled ballot papers, has never happened to the same degree in Northern Ireland.
We wanted the extension of the Northern Ireland Assembly term because it has been extended in Scotland and in Wales. In both those jurisdictions, there is now a five-year fixed term. I welcome the fact that today, in this Bill, Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, is being treated like Scotland, Wales and the other parts of the United Kingdom—and quite right too, as there is no logic whatever in saying we should be treated differently. It means that, as the Secretary of State has said, when there is an Assembly election, Assembly issues will be to the fore, and when there is a Westminster election, the issues affecting this House and Westminster representation will be debated, and there will be no confusion of the two sets of issues. That is very important.
Mr Laurence Robertson
There are, of course, two issues here: one is whether this particular Assembly term should be extended, and then whether we should move to five-year terms. The right hon. Gentleman puts a logical case for having five-year terms, but surely the Assembly did not need to be extended in this term. I think that was probably the more important point we were making.
Mr Dodds
Actually, the reason for that is the fact that, given the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2012, we will have a clash in May 2015. That is what makes it imperative that action is taken in this Parliament. The dates of the Scottish parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections were moved for precisely that reason. If we do not take action, in two years’ time there will be elections on the same day for Parliament and in Northern Ireland. That is why this measure has been brought forward.
Lady Hermon
May I preface my remarks by saying it is wonderful to see the right hon. Gentleman back on great form? I might not agree with half of what he is saying, but I am delighted to see him, as a great parliamentarian, back and on great form.
May I make an imaginary journey forward to 2016, when we will—unfortunately, from my perspective—have an Assembly election? The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be well aware of the fact that the Easter of 2016 will be celebrated, and that could be very divisive, as that Easter marks the centenary of a significant event. Does the right hon. Gentleman have concerns—and I do just mean concerns—about that being exploited by a particular party in Northern Ireland to its advantage?
Mr Dodds
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her very kind remarks. It is great to be back, and there is no better occasion to be back for than this debate on the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It is a great Bill and reminds me why I entered politics in the first place.
I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from, but I cannot agree with her. The Easter rising centenary will be commemorated in 2016, but the Unionist perspective will be, “100 years on and still no united Ireland”. One hundred years on from the Easter rising and Ulster—Northern Ireland—is more firmly part of the United Kingdom than it has ever been.
Mr Dodds
I am absolutely delighted that the hon. Lady asked that question. I look forward to her, like me, celebrating in 2016 and also commemorating another significant historic event in Northern Ireland—the anniversary of the Somme—on 1 July, as so many Ulster men gave their lives on the first day of that enormous battle. There will be many commemorations, centenaries and anniversaries affecting Northern Ireland in 2016 and the coming years, so I understand what she is saying. Although I do not agree with her on that point, I am sure she will respect my view on the issue.
Let me deal briefly with the change in the size of the Northern Ireland Assembly. As the Secretary of State has said, the powers will change from being in an excepted category to being in the reserved category. The Northern Ireland Assembly will, thus, be able to legislate, with the consent of the Westminster Parliament, and that is right and proper. We believe that there should be more such provisions, making it easier for the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate in other areas, such as its working, the make-up of the Executive and how they are formed. Of course, this should be done on a cross-community basis and as a result of negotiation, agreement and a cross-community vote, but it would send a strong signal that more of those powers are for the people and parties in Northern Ireland to agree.
Of course, Northern Ireland is over-represented, but we have 108 Members because the parties that supported the Belfast agreement in 1998 wanted the Assembly to be that big. We opposed that, for the reasons of over-representation that many Members are now talking about. The choice of six Members per constituency was a blatant attempt, once again, to get smaller parties that were, at that stage, in favour of the Belfast agreement into the Assembly at the expense of others. It did not work out that way because the Northern Ireland electorate had much greater common sense, voting for parties that would fight for change and reform, and for a better way forward. We achieved that, which is why we have the stability we have had since 2007.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I wish to add a little information and insight. When strand 1 was negotiated, the agreement between the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Ulster Unionist party on that holy Thursday night or early hours of Good Friday was for a 90-Member Assembly based on five-seat constituencies. What we disagreed on was whether there should also be a top-up, in either the first Assembly or, possibly, the first and second Assemblies, of an additional 10 Members that could account for smaller parties that might be under-represented because of the spread of the vote. That idea was not agreed by the UUP and, in the absence of agreement between us, Tony Blair stipulated it had to be six-Member constituencies—108 Members. None of the Northern Ireland parties proposed that.
Mr Dodds
I think I am grateful for that explanation. Two things come out of it that are clear. First, the SDLP and the UUP still wanted a significantly larger Assembly, with more than 100 Members, no matter the form of the electoral process. [Interruption.] Certainly, initially—
Mr Dodds
Ninety, plus, as I understand it, a further top-up, which would bring the figure to 100. So they wanted a significantly larger Assembly than the one we want to see nowadays. The second thing we learned from the hon. Gentleman’s contribution was, once again, how much in debt we are to Tony Blair for so much in the political process, both here and in Northern Ireland! Whoever speaks for Labour will doubtless want to defend what Tony Blair did in that regard.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman also feel that John Major played a significant part in the whole process, kicking it off in the first place?
Mr Dodds
I was not getting into the issue of credit for the peace process as a whole; I was only making reference to Tony Blair’s contribution to having a bloated Assembly in Northern Ireland. I do not think that John Major would want to be associated with that. I gladly pay tribute to John Major and others on both sides who have played a significant role in the peace process. I am glad to put that on the record.
With no difference between the views of the political parties in Northern Ireland, most of its parties are on the record as supporting a reduction in the size of the Assembly. The DUP, the Alliance party, the UUP, the SDLP and many independent Members are in favour, but Sinn Fein is not. Let us be clear that the reason we are not getting this reduction is not because the Assembly Members all want to keep their positions and the parties all want to keep the same numbers; it is because one party, Sinn Fein, refuses to accept that, in this day and age so many years on from the 1998 agreement and St Andrews, there is no need to have 108 Members any more. Let us put the focus squarely where it belongs, just as we need to do with the “blame”, if I may put it like that, for the national security issues. Again, they are the result of one or two parties in Northern Ireland taking a particular stand.
On the issue of dual mandates, our position is clear: they are being phased out. The Bill does not bring an end to dual mandates; the political parties in Northern Ireland are bringing an end to them. We in the DUP are certainly doing that. We made a commitment that by 2015 they would be phased out, in line with the recommendations made by the independent body—I cannot remember its name, because we had so many of these bodies at one time. That was what was said should be done, we committed to it and it is what we are doing. The Bill’s provisions outlawing dual mandates should apply to Scotland and Wales as well. I am glad to hear that the Welsh First Minister is introducing such proposals, but they should also apply to Scotland—Northern Ireland should not be unique in this regard.
The issue of non-representation also needs to be addressed. I alluded to it at the start of my remarks and I will close with it. Although it is not a matter for legislation, it is a matter for the resolution of this House—it is a House of Commons issue. It is a scandal that there are Members elected to this House who do not do their jobs and do not carry out parliamentary activity but get expenses, allowances and money, and not just to carry out their constituency duties—through representative money they get money to campaign. The rest of us are bound by the rules of this House and are rightly accountable for our expenditure for parliamentary purposes, but these people can spend this money for party political purposes and not a word is asked about it.
That special provision was brought in, again, under Tony Blair’s premiership. The then Secretary of State, John Reid, brought it in. It was opposed by the then Conservative Opposition, as it had been by the previous Speaker, Betty Boothroyd, and others. Sinn Fein had challenged all the way to the courts—European Courts—and had been defeated, but it was introduced as a special concession because it was argued at that time that it was necessary to bring Sinn Fein into the political process. If anyone can argue today that Sinn Fein is not in the political process, I would find it staggering. The time has now come for the House to address this issue. If we are concerned about dual mandates and about people being in two places at once, we cannot ignore the glaring issue about non-representation and a special status given to Members who do not attend. Their arrangement is actually advantageous and better than the position given to Members who do take their seats.
Mark Durkan
It is not often that I stand up to defend the former Secretary of State John Reid from criticism about his time in Northern Ireland but the measure on Opposition party money and the special terms given to Sinn Fein was actually introduced by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) when he was Secretary of State. He said that it was a necessary measure for the peace process. He refused to answer when asked what promise or threat made it so necessary, but confirmed that Sinn Fein could use the money for entirely different purposes from anybody else.
Mr Dodds
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the glaring discrepancy in accountability arrangements for this money. That is not tolerable, because all the political parties that take their seats in this House are at a disadvantage compared with Members who do not take their seats and who can use the representative money for whatever they like.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is ironic that somebody like me, as the sole Member from a party, has no access to such money whereas multiple Members of another party who never turn up to this place to do the work they are elected to do have access to it for policy support and development?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has been making his comeback with an amazing tour de force and has been very generous in giving way, but I gently point out that he has now been speaking for 34 minutes and quite a few of his colleagues wish to speak as well. As much as we are enjoying his speech, I am sure that he is going to give us his final words about his views on the Bill.
Mr Dodds
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I have had so many weeks to ponder and consider the contents of the Bill in relative peace and quiet that I have become carried away. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). Following your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not go into detail on the various issues to do with the changes to the rules of court, sharing biometric data, equality and so on—not that I had very much to say about them.
The Bill is relatively modest, but it is significant in the context in which it has been introduced. It is significant in that it moves things forward in Northern Ireland, which is important because when all else is stripped away, the most important thing for those of us who represent the Province here in this House of Commons is to keep Northern Ireland moving forward.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
Just this morning, pupils from All Saints’ Church of England primary school in Trysull visited me and asked me what I was doing this afternoon, and I explained that I hoped to speak on the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) will be shocked to hear that they had not heard of it, but I informed them of the detail. I should say how well behaved they were and what a pleasure it was to have them visit Parliament.
I had the great privilege of serving as Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire) when he was in the Northern Ireland Office, and I remember how often the Bill, what it would contain and what it would deliver would be mentioned in our discussions. It is satisfying to see so much of what was discussed in the Bill and to see progress being made. Opposition Members have said that they would have liked to see more, but it is heartening to see how much can be welcomed by Members on both sides of the House.
It was 10 years ago that I started travelling regularly to Northern Ireland to work. Even in those 10 years, one saw an enormous difference in politics, economics and stability in Northern Ireland. I must confess that the Ulster fries were as good then as they are today—
Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and will draw Mrs Williamson’s attention to them. I hope she appreciates that.
What has happened in the past 10 years—stability, progress—is remarkable, but what has happened in the past 20 years is even more remarkable. As has been mentioned, the Bill is about the progress that has been made and about supporting future progress.
The G8 was held in County Fermanagh. I remember visiting Lough Erne many times and seeing the beauty of it, and the whole world saw the beauty of Lough Erne. I am sure that that will be an enormous boost to tourism in Northern Ireland. Derry/Londonderry was city of culture last year. So much is happening and there is so much of which to feel proud.
We have touched on the issue of political donations, and most of my constituents, if they did not understand the context of what Northern Ireland had been through, would find it odd if political donations were not declared. The proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are sensible; they show a clear understanding of the problems we have had in Northern Ireland but take a gradualist approach that will ensure that we are open and transparent. The Electoral Commission’s polling has shown that 62% of people support more transparency and only 7% are happy with the status quo. We should welcome the fact that people feel that transparency about political donations is acceptable and that Northern Ireland is ready to see a greater level of it.
The right hon. Member for Belfast North made an important point about foreign donations from the Republic of Ireland. As we have discovered over the past few months, every multinational company has a base in the Republic of Ireland. In fact, nowadays it is more unusual for a multinational company not to have a base there. I hope that that can be considered, but the progress and the direction of travel are to be welcomed. They are what we need to see and they will build greater confidence in the political process and the political parties of Northern Ireland among all those who take part.
The Whip will have to make a note of this, but I am tempted to vote against the idea of ending double-jobbing. It is saddening to see that so many wonderful characters—great parliamentarians—might no longer be with us, but despite our sad loss if they decide to stay in Stormont I recognise that we need to deliver that proposal. We promised to deliver it in our manifesto and, as we have already heard from Northern Ireland Members, it is something on which they are ready to see progress. They are already delivering it in their political parties. Having such a provision in the Bill is an important element of building the confidence of people in Northern Ireland in the political process. I welcome it, and I am sure that all Members of this House will, too.
The idea of reducing the number of representatives in the Legislative Assembly should also be welcomed as there is massive over-representation. I accept that Staffordshire has a slightly smaller population than Northern Ireland, by 0.6 million—we have a population of only 1.1 million—but I find it hard to justify such over-representation in the Northern Ireland Assembly, with 108 Members, to my electorate. I am sure that a sensible number can be reached, to which all parties can agree. We should perhaps be willing to accept that some cages should be rattled if all parties cannot buy into the idea of bringing the number of Members down to a more sustainable level, whether that is 90 or 70—I will leave that to people who are far more knowledgeable about the matter than I am. Such a reduction will be progress. It will not only reduce the cost of politics but make those democratic representatives more relevant. I cannot think of a more horrendous idea than having six members of another assembly sitting below me in my constituency—I imagine it makes local politics a little more interesting. I am not saying that all Northern Ireland Members would be in favour of reducing the number, but it will make politics simpler and easier to understand. It will also make those who are elected to the Legislative Assembly more accountable to their electorate.
We have heard differing views on whether the election date should be changed, but I think it would be good if all the devolved Assemblies held all their elections on the same day. That would make the date more significant, not only for the devolved Assemblies but for the whole United Kingdom. If elections are held on different days and in different years, there is not so much of a national story or a local story. We must not underestimate the importance of a devolved Assembly to the lives of the whole United Kingdom. As one who believes in a united kingdom, the success of the devolved Assemblies is as important to me as it is to those who live in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. So often, the BBC and our national press ignore stories in the devolved Assemblies; I hope that holding all the elections together will make a more significant news story for the whole of the United Kingdom.
We have been waiting for this Bill. I remember the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), talking about it excitedly, and now it has arrived. It is a good Bill, I welcome it and I am happy to support it.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I welcome the fact that, through this Bill, the House is paying some attention to Northern Ireland today, but we should not lull ourselves into a false sense of security that everything in the garden is rosy and just a few tweaks here and there will make everything perfect. Attention to Northern Ireland from this House is needed. I believe it was the shadow Secretary of State who said that devolution cannot mean disengagement, but there has been some degree of disengagement.
Although I will comment on the Bill, I feel there is a need, before I do so, to set it in context. The context is that, yes, progress has been made—I agree with others on that—but there is a lot more to do. The Bill is concerned with some details of the interior decoration of a structure whose purpose and future are still being debated. Fifteen years ago, we had the Good Friday or Belfast agreement, and legislation followed in this House to put much of that agenda into law. This country—indeed, the world—thought that we had achieved the impossible and that lasting peace was copper-fastened. Sadly, that is not quite true.
It was wonderful to have an end to the violence and to hear almost all the guns and almost all the bombs fall silent. Hope gushed eternal from the people who had been oppressed, smothered, injured and damaged by violence, and they dared to dream of a life and a future, but an end to violence was not peace in any meaningful sense. Really, it was just what it said on the tin: it was an end to violence. Peace does not happen; it has to be built, and when it has been built, it has to be sustained, and it can be sustained only by people’s hope for a better life and a better future. There is no doubt in my mind that in 1998 the people of Ireland, north and south, were voting not just for peace, but for a better life that the peace would make possible.
We need our people to make a long-term personal investment in that peace, and we must show them what return they will get on that personal investment. In other words, the peace process can be sustained only if it is followed up by a prosperity process. Unfortunately, the financial boost required to pump-prime a prosperity process has never quite been delivered. We have heard much talk about rebalancing our economy towards wealth creation and away from over-reliance on public spending, but we have seen little action other than cuts in welfare. We have had a great debate about cutting corporation tax to put us on a level playing field with the rest of the island of Ireland to attract serious foreign investment, but the Treasury did not want a cut and priced it right out of the ballpark. The economy in Northern Ireland is fragile and the private sector small and extremely fragile. To date, too few of our people have seen any prosperity or, indeed, any economic benefit arrive on the back of the peace process. That is unfortunate, because they were entitled to some economic advance.
As a result, many people—those on the economic margins of our society—are looking backward, not forward, whether they be former provos peddling themselves as dissidents, or loyalist paramilitaries creating havoc under the guise of a flag protest. Incidentally, that protest wiped out most of our Christmas and hospitality season and left many of our hotels, restaurants and retailers bankrupt. Whatever the source or the excuse for disruption, Northern Ireland has quite a way to go before we can say that we have true peace. I am anxious that the Bill should not be taken as some sort of a final touch on the whole process. We will not have true peace until we have attended to all the factors that undermine peace, including economic factors, and we will not have it unless the sovereign Government recognise the responsibilities they undertook back in 1998. Devolution has been used by Government as an excuse for walking away. I repeat what the shadow Secretary of State said: devolution should not be an excuse for disengagement.
It needs to be remembered that devolution in Northern Ireland is based on an international agreement between two sovereign Governments from which neither can walk away. The British Government have an obligation to see the Good Friday agreement through to completion. Unfortunately, it is still not complete. There is an obligation to act, in co-operation with the Irish Government, to ensure that devolution is not an excuse for stagnation. I regret to tell the House that, in terms of the special objectives, devolution in Northern Ireland has stalled to some extent. The two main parties have pushed the other three parties, including mine, to the margins—they have pushed us aside and are carving up the cake in their own self-interest, rather than the public interest. The Prime Minister and this Government cannot turn a blind eye any longer: they must recognise that the two-party stranglehold within a structure that was designed to be inclusive is now preventing that structure from achieving its objectives.
After 15 years, where is the progress on reconciliation and where is there any reference to reconciliation in the Bill? Where is the progress on cohesion, sharing and integration, or any reference to them? Where is there any progress on the victims’ situation, or on dealing with the past or with divisions? I am distressed and concerned that the Bill is silent on those matters. I would prefer that we were here today to discuss how progress on those issues could be advanced and included in a Bill.
Mr Donaldson
Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the House how he feels it is a contribution to reconciliation for his party’s councillors to support the naming of a children’s play park after a convicted, dead IRA terrorist, who was caught in possession of the weapon involved in the murder of 10 innocent Protestants at Kingsmill in south Armagh?
Dr McDonnell
The issue the right hon. Gentleman refers to is not relevant to this Bill. It is quite simply an example of the DUP—
Dr McDonnell
Yes. The DUP are bigots and sectarian and they want to drive a wedge through our society.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
“Bigots” is a very strong word. I am sure that hon. Members never judge each other like that.
Dr McDonnell
There are issues here, and these people come to apologise for the failures that they have created in Stormont.
This Bill should deal with serious difficulties in Northern Ireland and offer more remedies; if it does not, it will be inadequate and less than fit for purpose. I will now discuss some of the details of the Bill—first, the clause that deals with donations and the measures that will impact on the functioning of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I was deeply concerned to hear that there could be restrictions on Irish citizens making donations to political parties in the north. Many of the greatest friends and supporters of the peace process are in the south, and without their support we would not be where we are today. Indeed, those people supported all the parties across the north, not just one or two. I would be deeply concerned about any perceived restrictions on donations from Irish citizens, because something has to be realised in these debates: we are not talking about Surrey, Sussex, Essex or, indeed, Yorkshire. Northern Ireland is different: many of us are Irish and many of us see ourselves as Irish. There is an ambiguity around the settlement that we had, which has created ambiguity. Thank God for that, because it has allowed peace to flourish. We have to build prosperity on that peace.
We want to move towards a more open and accountable system of donations in Northern Ireland, and we are happy to do so when that is possible. However, those who make donations on a certain understanding of anonymity should be protected from retrospective action unless they give authorisation. That authorisation should be specific, rather than assumed. I do not want to take up any more time, but I think I was quoted earlier, and I would endorse that. I have seen a number of people who have been intimidated, and who are frightened and worried. We have to protect them.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman said that many people saw themselves as Irish in Northern Ireland. That may be the case, but does he acknowledge that the national opinion poll last year showed that only 21% of nationalists were in favour of a united Ireland? This year, only 19% of Irish nationalists want a united Ireland. Things are changing. Is he part of that change, or is he just one of the old boys who do not want to change at all?
Dr McDonnell
I am not sure what answer I am supposed to give, or what answer is expected. I do not think that any of us pay much attention to opinion polls yet, at the same time, we can quote selectively from them when it suits.
Mr Dodds
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. A moment ago, the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) was challenged about his party’s support for the naming of a playground after an IRA terrorist. Rather than answering the point, he used the term “bigots” to refer to hon. Members in a somewhat childish reaction, instead of responding to the substantive point. Can you give a ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the use of the term “bigot” as parliamentary language to refer to hon. Members?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That is why I interrupted the debate. This is about having a temperate debate. It is about using moderate language. We do not want to inflame the debate. That is why I interrupted in the way that I did. I do not think that it was an appropriate use of the word, but I made that point at the time. We have moved on, and it is about making sure that it is a debate in which people have respect for one another. We are in danger of losing that respect with the use of inflammatory language.
Dr McDonnell
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. For the record, I did not accuse any hon. Member. I referred to a group of—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Before we get too far with further points of order, I know that reference was not made to an individual Member, but the Members to whom the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) referred were sitting behind him. In a sense, it was a collective use of the word. I do not want to prolong this. I have given my view and I want to hear more of the hon. Gentleman’s speech.
Dr McDonnell
I want to put on the record my deep concern that there are considerations to take into account about placing restrictions on Irish citizens who make donations to Irish political parties in the north. I do not wish to back that proposal, and I do not support that part of the Bill. As for transparency on donations, we want to move towards the open and accountable system to which I have referred.
We are comfortable, even though the Secretary of State has some grudge against the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and me, with the phasing out of the dual mandate in due course, and we have gone most of the way towards doing so. However, that should allow for some flexibility where appropriate, and clear lines of communication between the House of Commons and the devolved Assembly are essential. The way in which those lines of communication will be maintained should be explained in the Bill. It should be noted that there is no corresponding legislation covering the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. I am concerned that a rush to legislate on this could have unknown, and perhaps unwanted and unexpected, consequences.
Furthermore, our party would point out that the provisions do not deal with a dual mandate between the Assembly and the House of Lords. We do not agree that, somehow or other, the House of Lords is different. If there is an exclusion or ruling out of the dual mandate, it should be ruled out for all. If the Secretary of State is determined to ban the practice, why can that not be done for the upper House? Those issues need to be explored further as the Bill proceeds through Parliament.
Briefly, the reduction in the size of the Assembly should be approached with caution. Yes, we agreed to a small reduction in the context of the reduction of the number of Westminster seats—that is on the record at Stormont, where the discussions took place—but the Assembly should be as inclusive as possible, and should involve as many people as possible until a sustainable peace and good politics are well established there. We believe that until that happens there are risks.
The extension of the term of the Assembly is wrong. It is totally inappropriate for any Member given a mandate for four years to have their term extended to five years without clear justification. The election has been postponed so that it can be held at a time of possible tension, wedged between the 100th anniversary, as has been said, of the Easter rising and the 100th anniversary of the battle of the Somme. While hon. Members might not be involved in raising tension—indeed, we will do all that we can to reduce it—the anniversary of the battle of the Somme will increase tensions, as will the Easter rising anniversary, and it is inappropriate to hold an election between those two anniversaries.
Electoral registration in Northern Ireland is defective and while we can dot some of the i’s and cross some of the t’s in the Bill, there are some areas in which 20% to 25% of people—the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) suggested that it was 30%—are not on the register. There is a duty on someone, somewhere to ensure that that registration gap is covered and repaired.
I do not wish to say the matters in the Bill are not important—they are—but on their own they are not enough to bring progress and achieve better electoral registration. Any honest observer will say that there has been little progress overall in Northern Ireland. I urge the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Government to get a grip on the stagnant situation in Northern Ireland, as we face serious problems.
Dr McDonnell
Sorry, no: I want to make progress.
Months of illegality during the flags protests do not bode well for the marching season, which has started badly, as we have heard. We are now much further away from dealing with flags, marches and illegal bonfires than we were five years ago.
I want to put on the record the fact that profits from illegal fuel laundering in Ireland generally—we can split it north and south; it used to be a northern problem, but it has migrated south, and regrettably it has moved into parts of southern Scotland and northern England—amounting to £60 million to £70 million a year are swelling the coffers of the provo organisation. Much of that has now been set up as a privatised business.
Dr McDonnell
I am trying to make progress, but the hon. Gentleman has an interest in this, so I shall do so.
David Simpson
I am grateful. The hon. Gentleman referred to illicit fuel laundering across the whole of Northern Ireland, right across the whole of the United Kingdom and into the Republic of Ireland. If his party agreed to the implementation of the National Crime Agency that would go a long way towards trying to resolve the problem.
Dr McDonnell
Issues relating to the National Crime Agency have to be resolved. We are keen that responsibility for dealing with crime and keeping the law is retained in Northern Ireland with the PSNI.
Beyond fuel laundering, tobacco smuggling creates about £100 million-worth of benefit to a wide cross-section of people. Some of them are provos, some are dissidents, many are loyalists and many are non-aligned criminals. The Bill works to convey the impression—perhaps with some justification—that we have a normal society. Yes, we are moving towards a normal society, but our society did not suddenly become normal when organised violence ended. There were generations of industrial decline, then decades of violence, which left our economy drastically skewed towards public spending. It will take at least a generation to fix it, as the Prime Minister recognised before the election.
The people who brought us the decades of violence are still there, doing rather nicely out of organised crime, which is in danger of becoming normalised. Millions of litres of laundered fuel have been seized, but not one person has gone to jail. We have a deeply divided society, with little prospect of divisions being tackled seriously if the current two-party stranglehold is allowed to determine the rate of progress. Let us be blunt and recognise just how deep the divisions are that we have and the divisions that we are asked to tackle.
We have a major challenge to tackle. The Bill should tackle the reconciliation issue, the victims issue, dealing with the past, and cohesion, sharing and integration. All these things are vital and should be included in some shape or form in the Bill, and there should be some movement on that.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for inviting me to speak in the debate. I will not pretend that I knew Northern Ireland particularly well before I was elected to this place, but sitting on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who does such a brilliant job of chairing it and keeping us all in order, I have learned quite a bit about Northern Ireland, and also from being a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly.
Last night I was listening to Michael Portillo’s programme on BBC Radio 4 about 1913, which happens to be the year before my father was born. Michael Portillo talked about how it was that Ireland became involved in the domestic policy of Britain and how important that was. That had kicked off in 1848, with the Irish potato famine. Today I was reminded by one of my hon. Friends that when Churchill introduced the Bill to establish the Irish free state in 1922 he famously remarked that despite the cataclysm of the first world war which had swept the world, the “integrity of the quarrel” between the people of Fermanagh was one of the few institutions that had been unaltered. Today that situation has been transformed by peace in a way that was barely imaginable 20 years ago, let alone in the 1920s. This month Fermanagh was not at the heart of a quarrel, but was the home of the world’s leaders at the G8 conference at Lough Erne. This year we are celebrating the city of culture in Londonderry, and this very week last year we saw the Irish open taking place at Royal Portrush, which I was delighted to be able to go to. Progress is being made.
Today is an historic occasion. We are not talking about the troubles. We are talking about the constitution of Northern Ireland. I want to use this opportunity to congratulate and to thank the former Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and also Sir John Major for all their hard work and effort in bringing about the Good Friday agreement. I thank the Americans as well and President Clinton for the effort that he invested.
I welcome the Bill. There are one or two issues about which I have concerns, such as the dual mandate, which allows people to sit in the House of Lords and the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is very good indeed that we are talking about how we can create greater transparency in Northern Ireland. In the main, I agree with the Bill.
Last week members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee were in the United States of America, where we saw for ourselves how the Americans are beginning to view the situation in Northern Ireland. They think that the whole issue of Northern Ireland is sorted and is no longer a problem, but we all know because we see it in our national press and our national media that there will always remain a residue of real concern about making sure that there is peace in Northern Ireland. We learned how hard the Northern Ireland Bureau is working to encourage inward investment into Northern Ireland. That is incredibly good news. That is another example to show how Northern Ireland is moving forward to a more natural form of politics.
Measures to make political donations transparent, to stop double-jobbing, to introduce a real opposition and to create an accurate electoral register are all positive moves. The US was somewhat surprised at the recent flags protest and feared that might discourage future investment. The recent civil disturbances and what may potentially happen during the marching season should make us feel concerned about how members of society are coming forward and how it is that some young people feel disfranchised from the peace process.
Naomi Long
I caution the hon. Gentleman. In all the discussion about people feeling disconnected and disillusioned with the political process, it is important that we do not talk about them being disfranchised. People have a franchise—the right to a vote. They may not avail themselves of that vote, but they have a franchise. We need to reconnect them and re-energise them about politics, and it is important to make the distinction.
Oliver Colvile
I thank the hon. Lady for correcting me. I am sorry that I ended up making a mistake. This time last year when we were in Northern Ireland seeing the marches take place, I switched on the television to watch a documentary about the battle of the Boyne and how James II sought to re-establish his throne there. I thank the hon. Lady for reminding me about that.
It is excellent news that the Northern Ireland Executive will be given extra funds if progress is made on bringing down the peace walls. Our priorities surely should be to create community cohesion and rebalance the Northern Ireland economy. Key to that is a skilled work force. As I understand it, 60% of people who work in Northern Ireland still work in the public sector. We must try to do something about that. Northern Ireland has a vibrant university sector, which has the potential to create a vibrant economy, and Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that has a common land border with another EU country.
We need to encourage investment into Northern Ireland. That is why I support, as did the Select Committee, a reduction in corporation tax. Key to creating a vibrant economy are not only high skills, but better transport links. As in my Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency, we need to ensure that there are better transport links from Northern Ireland to England and to London. The House may be interested to know that today I wrote to the Chancellor asking for some studies into dualling the A303, which feeds into my constituency, and improving our train network. The Province needs good links not only to the UK and to southern Ireland, but to the US.
Last week’s G8 meeting in Londonderry was another good opportunity to demonstrate how Northern Ireland is moving forward. It is vital that we do not take our eye off the ball and that we continue to be as supportive as we can be to Northern Ireland and all the communities within it.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
Like other Members who have spoken, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on Second Reading, because the Bill deals with a number of important issues that relate to improving democracy and accountability in Northern Ireland.
I welcome at the outset, as other Members have done, the fact that the Bill, unlike so many of its predecessors, is not the result of a crisis or emergency and is not intended to resolve a point of instability in the Assembly. Instead, it is part of the normal democratic process. Not only does that demonstrate the significant progress that has been made at a political level in recent years, notwithstanding the many serious issues still to be addressed, and indeed the occasional setback, but it afforded the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee the opportunity to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny and the Northern Ireland parties and general public the opportunity to express a view on the proposals the Government brought forward during the public consultation. That is a hugely important part of the democratic process that has helped shape the Bill, and I hope it will set the tone for future engagement on legislation relating to Northern Ireland.
I will focus on a few aspects of the Bill: donor transparency, the rules affecting dual mandates and reform of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Bill contains other important provisions that I support, such as those relating to the working of the Electoral Commission, but I do not have time to go into them in detail today.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way on that important point. It is essential that people are on the electoral register. I recently held an event in my constituency at which we were able to get people registered and get their photo ID, but there were a great many other places where we were unable to do that because the Electoral Commission told us it did not have the funds. Does the hon. Lady therefore welcome the fact that clause 18 refers to taking all steps necessary for the purpose of complying with the duty to maintain the registers so that every step will be taken, including releasing funds and making more funding available to ensure that people are registered?
Naomi Long
I certainly agree that the resources available to the Electoral Commission need to be used wisely. As in every other public body, the commission’s resources will be constrained by the limitations of what is available, but I note that the Secretary of State said earlier that additional funding would be made available specifically to deal with registration.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mike Penning)
Perhaps I can clarify the situation. The full door-to-door canvass was not due to take place this year, but I have now made the funding available, along with the necessary administration process, so that it can do so. It is for the political process in Northern Ireland, as well as the Electoral Commission, to push that forward so that we get more people on the electoral register, because if they are not on the register they cannot vote and no one can campaign for their vote.
Naomi Long
I thank the Minister for that clarification, which hopefully will have answered some of the specific questions Members have on electoral registration.
The first issue I want to address is transparency on political party donations and loans, which I have raised in the House on a number of occasions over the past few years. Whatever the historical arguments regarding the need to protect the identity of donors, I firmly believe that the time to lift that veil of secrecy has passed. The Northern Ireland public have a right to know the identity of significant donors to political parties, as voters do in the rest of the UK, and then to judge for themselves whether such donations influence the decisions, policies and actions of parties. As long as mystery surrounds that, parties will be open to the charge that they are influenced in that way, but they will be largely unable to defend themselves against such suspicion. Although that is disclosed to the Electoral Commission, it is not made public, and that is key.
The security situation in Northern Ireland, although far from perfect, has improved significantly since donor anonymity was introduced. It is not consistent or sustainable to argue that Northern Ireland is a safe and welcoming destination for tourism and inward investment while at the same time arguing that the security situation is so grave that normal democratic scrutiny cannot be introduced.
Three primary concerns regarding the impact of transparency have been raised. I will briefly address each in turn. First, there is the fear of a threat of violence against a person, their family or property as a result of their association with a particular party becoming known. Despite the genuine concerns expressed in that regard, there appears to be little tangible evidence of specific targeting of donors as part of campaigns. However, nowhere can that be entirely ruled out. Therefore, donors should carefully consider the risk when deciding whether to donate; it is not compulsory. Knowing that their donations will be published will help to inform them as to which decision to make.
I am certainly not oblivious to, or cavalier about, the risk that being politically aligned or identified in Northern Ireland can still carry. My party leader, David Ford MLA, who is the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, is likewise cognisant of the continued risks. However, that does not insulate Northern Ireland politics from the wider public perception that politics is organised for the benefit of the few rather than the many. Notwithstanding any security concerns, if we are to increase trust and confidence in the political system, we need to maximise openness and transparency. As a result, and despite ongoing security concerns, the Alliance party voluntarily publishes our returns to the Electoral Commission on our website and has done so over the past few years, and to no disadvantage. I call again on other parties to do likewise in order to help grow confidence in the commitment to public scrutiny, regardless of a legislative requirement to do so.
Secondly, concerns have been expressed that opponents of a particular party might boycott a business if its owner or company are seen to support a particular party political view. However, in theory the same could happen in any part of the UK. Again, it is a matter that donors should consider carefully before donating, rather than a reason to deny the public their right of scrutiny. In my view, and incidentally that of Sir Christopher Kelly, as expressed in his evidence to the Select Committee, neither risk should automatically be given primacy over the principles that guide public life: openness, transparency and accountability.
Thirdly, as parties are not publicly funded and therefore rely on donations to survive, one could argue that any action that could deter donors could restrict party political activity or even the range of choice available to the electorate. I challenge that on two grounds. In order to stand for election to a council, candidates need the signatures and addresses of residents in the council area on their nomination papers, and those are published. I am not aware of parties being unable to field candidates, even in the worst days of the troubles, owing to people being unwilling to have that information published, despite it being a more direct link to elected politics. People clearly weigh up those risk but still opt to be involved, whether as candidates, canvassers, supporters, nominees or otherwise, and there is evidence that since 1998 the public’s willingness to do so has increased.
Furthermore, most parties have said, including in evidence to the Select Committee, that they receive very few donations that reach the £7,500 threshold for donor names to be declared and instead are heavily reliant on small donations from members and supporters. Even if all of those large donations were to cease, according to their evidence that would not have a disproportionate effect on party finances or activity and would not jeopardise the continued functioning of our democracy.
It is worth noting, as a measure of just how opaque donor information is in Northern Ireland, that it is against the law for the Electoral Commission even to confirm or dispute a party’s claim that it receives few donations of that magnitude. Such anonymised data pose no risk to anyone and would provide considerable insight for the public into how parties are funded and how reliant they are on a small number of donors. I think that the move towards publishing anonymised data in the interim, between now and October 2014, would be good preparation for change.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank the hon. and very brave Lady for allowing me to intervene. I understand her argument, but is she asking for that provision on publishing the identity of political donors to be backdated, because that would worry me?
Naomi Long
Well, given the timing of his intervention, which led perfectly to what I was about to say, perhaps that will be reviewed in due course. I thank him for making that point, because it is an important one.
With respect to the retrospective publication of donor information, I think that it is reasonable that where people had an expectation, even though the letter of the law suggests otherwise, that donations they made during the prescribed period would remain confidential even after the prescribed period ended, that should be honoured. Such historical information should be published only with their express consent, as to do otherwise would be a fundamental breach of trust.
However, I support the Electoral Commission’s proposal that the expectation of anonymity should be removed from the date the Bill receives Royal Assent, making it clear that all donations made after that date will be subject to future publication. Whether the Secretary of State decides that such publication should happen routinely from October 2014, the expiry of the current prescribed period, or chooses again to extend that period, they should be published at a subsequent juncture. I think that that ought to be pursued in Committee, as it adds clarity for donors in the interim and increases public confidence without limiting the options available to the Secretary of State.
With regard to the prescribed period and its continuation, I remain disappointed that a firm commitment has not been given to remove anonymity at the first possible opportunity. The Bill gives the Secretary of State maximum flexibility specifically to increase transparency, and I welcome the presumption in favour of publication, but both fall short of a commitment to end the inequality that exists between Northern Ireland residents and their counterparts in Great Britain. I hope that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will be able to give some reassurance in that regard.
Finally, with regard to donations, I believe that there might be merit in considering further whether the threshold for publication of donations to Northern Ireland political parties should be reduced from £7,500 to a lower figure, given the smaller income of most local parties and the likely lower threshold at which donations may be considered large enough to influence a party’s decision. Clearly, that requires the striking of a very delicate balance between the administrative burden that it would create for what are, in the main, small organisations, and increasing transparency for the public. Such matters are not unique to Northern Ireland, so the Bill may not be the ideal vehicle for advancing them, but it would be helpful to consider them at Government level in future.
On multiple mandates, I welcome the clauses that will disqualify a Member of Parliament from also being a Member of the Assembly. I do not believe that MPs should be permitted to continue as Members of the Assembly. The primary argument that they should is that the fledging Assembly structures were unstable and senior political figures who left Westminster for the Assembly could find themselves with no mandate in the event of a collapse. Those points no longer hold true, as the Assembly is in its second successive, uninterrupted term, which represents positive progress.
A further argument advanced in favour of allowing such a dual mandate is that, for key people in party leadership roles or holding key ministerial positions in the devolved Assembly, the direct linkage with Parliament can prove valuable in keeping them fully informed of developments in both places. I do not think that that argument carries much weight in the current situation.
As deputy leader of the Alliance party and MP for East Belfast, it is incumbent on me to keep abreast of developments in the devolved institutions and keep in close contact with Assembly colleagues about the implications of matters discussed in this Chamber and the Assembly. I do not need to sit in both places for that. There are also mechanisms for the Ministers in the Executive who are not MPs to meet their counterparts in Westminster and address issues with them and vice-versa, and the majority fall into that category.
Having fulfilled the roles of MP and MLA, I strongly believe that both jobs are at least full time and require a focus that could not be achieved effectively with a dual mandate and consequently competing demands on time. It is a crucial part of the role of an MLA to be in Stormont to vote on legislation passing through the Assembly, to question Ministers and to hold the Executive to account. Equally, an MP’s work demands that they be in Westminster for a significant and conflicting proportion of the week to scrutinise and vote on legislation and policy, question Ministers and provide a voice for their constituents. Although there is a considerable overlap in the constituency casework element of both jobs, the locations and timings make them incompatible with each other, regardless of the talent, energy or ability of individual Members. Put simply, no person can be in two places at once.
A further benefit of ending dual mandates would be the creation of an opportunity not only for parties to bring forward new talent, but for the electorate to see the electoral cohort refreshed, reinvigorated and made more reflective of society as a whole. Again, Alliance as a party has voluntarily and speedily acted in respect of dual mandates, following through on our pre-election pledges and manifesto commitments to do so, within weeks of election to Westminster.
Three years on, there has been significant time and space for parties to implement fully their pre-election commitments to end dual mandates, yet many have failed to make other than glacial progress in that regard. It is important that the legislation comes forward to ensure that the wishes of the public are taken into account.
Although I recognise that the House of Lords is not structured in the same way as the Commons—its Members have no electoral mandate and no constituency responsibilities—the same conflict exists for Members of the Lords. I am disappointed that currently the Bill does not disqualify Members of the Lords from belonging to the Assembly. Given the important role of the House of Lords as a revising Chamber and the burden of undertaking detailed scrutiny of Government Bills, it would be challenging for a peer who was also an MLA, with the legislative, constituency and Committee responsibilities attendant on that position, to commit fully to the discharge of either role.
The situation is exacerbated because the Assembly and the Lords also sit at the same times on Mondays and Tuesdays, further limiting a person’s ability to participate fully in the work of both institutions. I recognise that remuneration for the work of a peer is different and reflects the fact that many peers have careers outside Parliament, some of which may also conflict with the sittings of the House of Lords, so I would have been content for the measures to end dual representation to be considered in the context of wider Lords reform, which would have addressed remuneration and allowances at the same time. However, as that has not been advanced and is unlikely to be in this Parliament, the Government should revisit the possibility of action in this Bill.
If membership of this Parliament is a disqualification for serving in the Assembly, it follows logically that membership of other Parliaments should also be. I welcome the fact that the Government are including membership of Dail Eireann as a disqualification, but just as I believe that membership of the House of Lords should be a disqualification when it comes to membership of the Assembly, membership of the Seanad should also be, regardless of any Irish Government plans for the reform or abolition of that body.
I move on to the structures of the Assembly. We believe that the Assembly and parliamentary elections should be decoupled. The roles and responsibilities of each legislature are separate and distinct, and it is important that the issues pertinent to each receive full and detailed public consideration in advance of the vote. That will be difficult if both elections are running on the same day or without adequate separation, with the risk that one set of elections would overshadow the other.
For example, national coverage of Westminster elections could eclipse Northern Ireland issues and regional focus on the Assembly could lead to inadequate coverage of national issues. Alternatively, the two could become unhelpfully conflated. I am strongly of the opinion that elections should be held separately, preferably a year apart, and that the electorate should be given a full opportunity to engage in issues affecting each legislature. On that, perhaps, the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and I, the Member for Belfast East, find common ground.
I acknowledge that the Northern Ireland electorate are sophisticated and able to deal with the complexity of having not only two different elections but two different voting systems on the same day, but such circumstances are not desirable, although they might be practically manageable. I therefore support the extension of the current term and the change to five-year terms for the Assembly, as ad hoc changes to avoid future conflicts will no longer have to be made. What I propose would regularise the situation just as the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament will, and that is welcome.
Oliver Colvile
Does the hon. Lady agree that such a change would stop any confusion because the United Kingdom general election will take place in 2015 as well and people could be confused?
Naomi Long
I am not entirely clear about the hon. Gentleman’s point, but separating the general election from the Assembly election is important. Ensuring that that separation is maintained in the long term, without ad hoc changes to the length of the Assembly term, is important.
The Assembly term was generally the one that had to be adjusted to move away from Westminster’s and that made the Assembly seem somewhat less important. That is not a particularly good message to give the electorate —that we will hold the election as long as nothing more important is happening. Resolving the issue once and for all is a much better way to move forward.
I move on to the structures of the Assembly. I turn to the arrangements for the appointment and replacement of the Justice Minister. I am pleased that the issues that my own party and others have raised in this regard are now being addressed in a manner fairer and more appropriate than the current arrangements. There are twin anomalies. First, whichever party holds the Justice Ministry will end up with an additional Ministry over its d’Hondt entitlement. Secondly, there is a lack of security of tenure for the Justice Minister, who can be removed from post by an Assembly vote, unlike any other Minister, potentially leading to under-representation in comparison to the d’Hondt entitlement were the power to be exercised.
The current arrangement is not sustainable, and although my own party has benefited from the first anomaly in this term, while remaining vulnerable to the second, we wish the issue to be addressed. The proposals before us are, in essence, the same as those that my party and others discussed in trying to come to a resolution, so we welcome their inclusion in the Bill. They will create a fairer arrangement for all the parties in the Executive, and, crucially for those who voted for them, ensure that the Justice Minister counts towards the d’Hondt allocation but, once appointed, can be removed only by resignation or through the party nominating officer, as with other Ministers.
Finally, I am disappointed that provision could not have been made in the Bill to allow the wider structures and size of the Assembly to be reformed, as seemed to be very much part of the Bill when the previous Secretary of State talked about it initially. The issue’s initial prominence seems to have disappeared.
It has long been the view of the Alliance party, throughout the talks that led to the Good Friday agreement and subsequent negotiations and reforms, that democracy in Northern Ireland would be best served by a properly funded, properly structured formal Opposition. Having, as a party, spent a considerable time as the only effective Opposition within the Assembly and been the only one of the five major parties to have been outside the Executive for much of the Assembly’s existence, we recognise the importance of that role. However, unlike other legislatures, there is no formal role, status or support for such an Opposition, inhibiting effectiveness.
We also recognise, however, that the current system was endorsed as part of the Good Friday agreement referendum and that any such change would therefore require the consent of the Assembly and should not be externally imposed. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly is considering proposals to move in that direction, although as yet consensus has not been achieved. That is regrettable. It is also regrettable that enabling legislation that would have permitted the formation of an opposition could not have been included in the Bill so that we could at least have put down a marker that it was possible, although the Assembly would be required to ask for it to be implemented. Such reform would also have allowed for much of the architecture around consociationalism, which, while managing division, has tended to copper-fasten rather than diminish it over time, without removing or undermining the protections for minorities.
Linked to such reform is the size of the Assembly. In my party’s view, the current number of MLAs is too large when compared with other levels of representation across the UK, and we would like the number of seats to be reduced. We recognise the vital importance of ensuring that proportionality is fully protected as any reform goes forward. That is the key aspect to maintaining the confidence of Northern Ireland voters. We propose that the number of elected representatives to be returned by each constituency should, as a starting point, be five rather than six. Should the number be reduced to fewer than five, there would be a risk of imbalances in terms of how reflective of the population those returned at the election would be. That has been shown in elections to Dail Eireann on the basis of three, four and five-seat constituencies. Proportionality is crucial in a deeply divided society such as ours.
We would also support a reduction in the number of constituencies. We are disappointed that that was unable to be effected as part of the proposals that went before this House, which would have resulted in 16 constituencies with five Members each. That would have taken us to around the 80 mark, which would have been extremely helpful in reducing the Assembly to a more manageable size. There is no evidence to suggest that an 80-Member Assembly would be insufficient to ensure the effectiveness of its operations, particularly if streamlining of the Executive happened concurrently.
Our proposals for a reduction to eight departments are a matter of record as part of the discussions of the AER Committee at Stormont. We believe that that, coupled with an allied reduction in Government Departments, would lead to a reduction in the number of statutory committees, thus not significantly increasing the burden on a smaller number of MLAs. We would also argue that such reform would lead to no discernible drop in the level of governance, as evidenced by the Scottish Parliament, which has similar powers and functions to those of the Assembly but fewer MSPs per head of population.
This is a second lost opportunity to right-size the Assembly after the abandonment of the boundary changes and other measures. I am pleased that such changes proposed by the Assembly in future will not require primary legislation in order to right-size it, but it is disappointing that there is not more in the Bill to drive that forward.
I very much welcome the Bill and the more positive context in which it has been introduced, although I express some disappointment about how far-reaching it is. I hope that in Committee issues such as donor transparency and the recommendations of the Electoral Commission will be addressed and taken forward.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long).
I will touch on two very significant issues, the first of which is the increased transparency of donations. I commend the hon. Lady and the Alliance party, who have been very open about this issue for a number of years. I am glad that we are sticking to the timetable of October 2014. I urge the Secretary of State, when we get there, to implement the measure post-haste, because we have reached a point in Northern Ireland at which it is very important to normalise donations and their transparency. Like everyone in the Chamber, I fully understand that Northern Ireland is in a different situation, and has certainly come from a very different place, but I am firmly of the view that it is time that donations there are completely normalised and that they become as transparent as they are in the rest of the country.
The second issue is the proposal to change the process of appointment and dismissal for Northern Ireland Justice Ministers. That is clearly a very sensitive post. I appreciate the thought and consultation that have gone into the Bill in this context as it will provide greater security of tenure. The complexity around d’Hondt should provide a discipline to the whole process that means, one hopes, that it will never need to be implemented. It is a very practical and sensible addition to the Bill.
As a number of colleagues have said, this is the first Northern Ireland Bill since 1998—the first in 15 years—to be introduced at Westminster under normal circumstances; all the others have been dealt with under emergency procedures. That demonstrates the enormous progress that has been made over the past few years, despite some of the challenges over the past 24 months. It is a very positive sign that demonstrates that even if it is sometimes inch by inch, the society of Northern Ireland is going in the right direction.
The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) flagged up the issue of 2016 and all the historical issues and challenges that we will have to move through. He rightly pointed out that in 1916 many people from the Ulster regiments served and died on the Somme. My grandfather served and was wounded on the Somme. He originally hailed from County Mayo and that fact demonstrates the complexity of the whole issue. When we get to the point of discussing it, I am sure that all Members of the House will deal with it as sensitively as we must.
I commend the Secretary of State for the Bill. It has taken 15 years, but it is good to have another Northern Ireland Bill debated on the Floor of the House.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I concur with much of what has been said in this Second Reading debate. The Secretary of State said that this was a Bill for more normal times. On an earlier occasion, it was described as a “normalisation” Bill.
I want to allude to a small number of issues, the first of which has been dealt with by several Members—party political donations. I welcome the fact that we are making progress towards full and open disclosure, although we are not yet where we need to be, for a number of reasons. We cannot yet fully arrive at the concluding point, but I hope that we are making significant strides towards it.
Another issue is the creation of an opposition in the Assembly, which is concentrating the minds of the Assembly and the Executive Review Committee at Stormont. For my sins, I am a member of that Committee and have an attendance rate of over 70%. The dual mandate has not restricted me from maintaining my representation role either there or here. I hope that we are making significant progress towards the creation of an opposition, although we have not reached the final stage.
We are also discussing a reduction in the size of the Assembly. Other Members have made their position clear on that. My view, and that of my party, is that we should be considering a much more significant reduction—for cost purposes, if for no other reason. The over-representation in the Assembly means that we have the almost ludicrous situation of a population of 1.8 million being represented by 108 MLAs. We should remember that the salary of an MLA is £48,000, plus an office costs expenditure allowance of £71,378—a total of £120,000 for each MLA. It should be possible to get to the point where we have four MLAs per constituency, making a total of 72. That would be a significant reduction of 36, from 108 to 72.
If we do not agree to such a reduction in the Northern Ireland Assembly and we make dual mandates illegal, the cost to the taxpayer will be in the region of £100,000 per year per MLA. If a dozen MLAs were also MPs and they stood down—thankfully we have moved beyond that—it would cost £1 million a year every year, unless there were a reduction in the number of MLAs at Stormont. Each of the parties has handled the issue of dual mandates voluntarily. I made representations to Sir Christopher Kelly about my party’s position, which is that we will phase out dual mandates.
Given that the Government introduced a non-salaried role for those of us who were in both legislatures, I would have thought that most people would say to those who want to do a second job and not get paid for it, but who are as diligent there as they are here, “If you want to do it, get on and do it.” However, we are moving towards a point where that will no longer be required.
Members have made fleeting reference to the normality of life in Northern Ireland and to the way in which the Bill reflects that. Over the last few months, Londonderry has celebrated being the first ever UK city of culture. The many celebrations over the past week have indicated the normality that is returning not just to Londonderry, but to Northern Ireland as a whole. We hope to demonstrate that normality more and more in the coming months, not just through the UK city of culture, but across Northern Ireland.
The other issue that I want to allude to is very important to citizens everywhere. I hold in my hand a badge that is important to people in every nation on Earth: a passport. It is a badge of citizenship. It declares that one can call on the services of the nation when in difficulty in another land. In Northern Ireland we have a problem that I have raised with the Secretary of State and her predecessors. Some people wish to have an Irish identity, as the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) indicated when he was not describing others as bigots. In my other hand, I hold an Irish passport.
Mr Campbell
No, it is not mine.
People in Northern Ireland are entitled to have either passport or even both passports if they so wish. The anomaly relates to the thousands of people who were born in the Irish Republic after 1949, when it left the Commonwealth, but who have lived for decades in Northern Ireland. Those people are British. They are British by courtesy of their tax-paying and their voting arrangements. They are British voters and British residents, but they cannot hold a British passport. That anomaly has to be addressed.
I hope that the matter will be raised at the appropriate point in the progress of the Bill. If people in Northern Ireland have the right to claim an Irish identity, even if they have never been to the Irish Republic, why can people who were born in the Irish Republic, but who have been British and have lived in the United Kingdom for decades not have British citizenship? They demand the right to have British citizenship, but they are currently denied that right. I hope we will be able to debate amendments to deal with that during the Bill’s passage.
As I said earlier, we are very pleased with elements of the Bill. We wish that it would go further, particularly in respect of Members who do not turn up here, but who still have their allowances paid. That will have to be dealt with quickly, if not in this Bill, then through another means. I hope that progress will be made on the measures that are in the Bill and on other issues that, although outside the remit of the Bill, will, I hope, be introduced before we get much further.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to take part in this important debate for Northern Ireland. I also want to express my appreciation to the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State for the tone in which they introduced the debate on this Bill.
The Secretary of State acknowledged that we are in more normal times. Although that is true, I cannot forget the awful murder of David Black near the town where I went to school. I want to express my appreciation to the security services and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which provide daily protection for the people of Northern Ireland. They have thwarted many of the attempts by terrorists and allowed us to live in peace. Although it is true that we are in more normal times, there is still a dissident threat in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State acknowledged that devolved government in Northern Ireland is well established. The House must accept that the formula for government in Northern Ireland, with a mandatory coalition at its heart, cannot continue indefinitely. Although the Bill reforms other parts of political life in Northern Ireland, that fundamental part is left untouched. I believe that it will have to be addressed at a later date.
I acknowledge, as did both Front Benchers, the tremendous boost that the G8 leaders brought to Northern Ireland, County Fermanagh and the beautiful countryside of Lough Erne and the Fermanagh lakes, which is next to my constituency of South Antrim. We should again show our appreciation to the Prime Minister for bringing the most powerful leaders in the world to Northern Ireland. I trust that we will build on that. The Prime Minister’s promise that he will return to Northern Ireland for an investment conference later in the year is to be welcomed.
We must build jobs and rebalance the economy, as Members have said, but we can only do that with further growth in the economy. I would like prosperity to be enjoyed by all. I looked today at the unemployment statistics and claimant figures for the United Kingdom. I was delighted to see that my constituency again has the highest employment in the Province and has seen a decrease in claimants. That should be welcomed by all Members, because those figures refer to individual people and we should be glad that they are in a job in these difficult days.
I welcome the tone that has been used by the majority of Members. I will not go in depth into what I believe was a slur on my colleagues and me by the leader of the SDLP, but I believe that his remark says more about him than about us. I suggest to him quietly and respectfully that it would be better for his constituents and his party if he took the battle to Sinn Fein, rather than to the Unionists who turn up to this House. I trust he will reflect on that, because it is an honourable thing to apologise when a person makes a mistake.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State power to make transparent the declaration of donations and non-commercial loans to political parties in Northern Ireland from September 2014. The Democratic Unionist party supports transparency in principle, but it must be acknowledged that there were good reasons for Northern Ireland being afforded a special status in this matter. This House must never forget the bravery displayed by many individuals and businesses in stepping forward in dangerous and perilous times to make donations to political parties that stood up for justice and democracy against the forces of intimidation and terror. Many did so at great personal and corporate risk, and their sacrifice and courage must not be forgotten. The DUP is doing its part to move Northern Ireland forward to a more normalised society. We acknowledge that the normalisation of political donations must be tackled, and that the Bill takes a step in that direction. Transparency should be a part of such a process, but I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister who will reply to the debate to reflect on the timetable.
Naomi Long
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I take cognisance of what he says about the difficult situation and the reasons for anonymity. His party has said that very few of its donations exceed the £7,500 threshold requiring the names of donors to be published, so what tangible difference would it make if only a small number of donations had the potential to be affected by transparency rules?
Dr McCrea
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I have to acknowledge that I am an hon. Member, not a right hon. Member, of this House.
Putting the life of any individual at risk is very serious. There is a level of donation at which a name would have to be given, and that could put people, and the profitability of the businesses they represent, at risk. We have acknowledged that the measure is right in principle. The Bill will take things forward in a careful manner, but I question the current timetable of 2014.
Jim Shannon
The spirit of the proposals is not to scare off people who wish to contribute to a political party, but the fact is that a great many people in Northern Ireland will feel under pressure because of their political allegiance. That is a key issue for individuals, families and businesses.
Dr McCrea
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Any change must be made in conjunction with an appropriate security assessment by the PSNI. There still exists—the Secretary of State acknowledged this in her opening remarks—a significant threat in Northern Ireland, and we have to be careful because we are dealing with people’s lives. I know the dangers that people face day by day in the constituency in which I live in the west of the Province. We need to move at a proper pace that takes into account the uncertainty involved for businesses that make public donations. Moving too quickly to a fully open and transparent system could be detrimental to the democratic process and political stability.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) acknowledged, one aspect of the Bill needs greater consideration and reflection. Individuals and bodies in the Irish Republic can donate to parties in Northern Ireland, in contravention of the law in that country. Indeed, it is much worse than that, because individuals and bodies in the Republic of Ireland could be used as a front for donations from other foreign countries. The Government must address this matter in the Bill to ensure the integrity of donations to political parties in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) reflects on this, she will understand that it is a greater danger to the coffers of political parties than anything else that the Secretary of State has been asked to do in this House.
Naomi Long
I assure the hon. Gentleman that this was discussed in Committee. I supported the Committee’s recommendation for the loophole to be closed. It is important for transparency and openness, so that people are fully accountable.
Dr McCrea
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.
Many Members highlighted the major issue of dual mandates, and it is a hot political potato. I can speak with some experience, as I entered public life 40 years ago last month when, after a local government reorganisation in 1973, I was elected to the district council for the area in which I live. I represented my area on the council for thirty-seven-and-a-half years. In 1982, I was elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly and in 1983—30 years ago last month—I was elected to this Parliament. I have 40 years’ experience of elected office right across the spectrum—district council, first and second Assemblies, the forum in between, and Westminster. I noticed what the hon. Member for Belfast East said earlier about “what the public want”. What did the public want? The people decided that I would be elected: they decided; they made the choice. In Assembly elections they had six possibilities, but they chose me as number one. When it came to district council elections there were five other candidates and I was elected first, top of the poll. When it came to Westminster elections, I was elected top of the poll. People talk about what the public want and we have to be careful about that, but I speak with all those years of experience in public life.
We must remember that during those years Northern Ireland was plunged into one of the most bloody and terrifying IRA campaigns. Many of my friends and constituents were butchered by the provisionals. Some of those who carried out or engineered those acts are now strutting around the corridors of power. At that time, the law-abiding people wanted a voice against terror to be heard, but not their voice—they were too afraid. People were very reluctant to put their heads above the parapet. They did not want to come forward to stand for election for fear of the risk—the very real risk— to their own personal security and that of their families.
When I held dual mandates, that risk was very real. Putting my head above the parapet meant receiving a real bomb on my 40th birthday from the Provisional IRA. Coming to this House and speaking up for the people I represent meant that 50 bullets riddled my house when my family—my wife and my children—were just going into the house. Every window in our house was a bullet-proof window. For 25 years, I had to drive around in a police car for protection. That is what it cost to be an elected representative in this House, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the district council. Why was I doing it? It was because others put their trust in me and asked me to do it. They were too afraid. They had to have a voice, however, and they were looking for one, and I was honoured and privileged to be it. Thankfully, we have moved on, and in fact after 37 years, although it was a wrench, I voluntarily stood down from the council. I did not need legislation to tell me I had to stand down from the council if I was to be in the House, and I did not need it to tell me to stand down from the Assembly. I voluntarily stood down from the Assembly, too, and others are now taking my place.
It is right that we bring others to this House or the other Chambers to be the voice of the people, but never let us forget that those who had those mandates before held them at great personal risk to their lives and their families. When fathers left in the morning, their families did not know whether they would be back again in the evening, so let us be careful when we talk about those dual mandates. In 1973, when I joined the council, what we got financially did not cover the stamps, so we certainly were not in it for the money. I can assure hon. Members that there were not many others offering to take our places, and what we got certainly did not cover the petrol. We did it because we loved our country, we loved our people, and we wanted to be their voice. It is without apology, therefore, that I look back over those years and I thank God that I had the privilege and that I am still standing here, at the will of the people, to be the voice of my constituents. I trust that I will have the opportunity for some years yet.
Bob Stewart
I am sure the whole House agrees with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. His bravery and that of many other people who stood for elected office in Northern Ireland was reflected by their families, who must have gone through hell and been worried sick. The bravery of those wives, husbands and children should be put on the record, too.
Dr McCrea
I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that. I certainly pay tribute to the wives, husbands and children of those elected representatives who put their heads above the parapet and were willing to stand. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North was visiting his child in hospital when they tried to murder him. That is what families endured.
If dual mandates are wrong, this policy of ending them must be implemented evenly throughout the United Kingdom. It would be anomalous to afford the people of Wales and Scotland the right to dual mandates, but deny the people of Northern Ireland the same. We are saying that there must be common ground across the United Kingdom. Not only should Wales follow this lead, but Scotland should put its money where its mouth is and stand behind this proposal, if people believe that it is the right thing to do.
Non-representation also needs to be ended. I lost my seat in 1997. I had been in for fourteen-and-a- half years, but a boundary change—I believe it was gerrymandering, but that is for another day—sliced the constituency of Mid Ulster in two, creating the constituencies of Mid Ulster and West Tyrone. Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness became Member of Parliament for Mid Ulster, so from 1997 until a few months ago, when he stepped down, that constituency had no voice in the House, where decisions were being taken on behalf of his constituents. Despite not coming to represent their people in the House, however, Sinn Fein Members are happy to take the expenses and office costs.
It is time, then, for people elected to the House of Commons from Northern Ireland to make a decision. If they want their expenses and office costs, they need to demonstrate that they are doing the work, and that means taking their seats. MPs are perfectly at liberty not to take their seats, if they so wish, but the situation where people do not take their seats but are allowed to claim expenses must end. In many ways, non-representation in the Commons is a much greater affront to democracy than dual mandates, and the House must shortly take a decision on this issue. I am happy to welcome many of the provisions in the Bill, but this remains a work in progress.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Like others, I am glad of the opportunity to address several matters relating to Northern Ireland. As other hon. Members have said, the many positive recent developments have confirmed the benign trajectory on which Northern Ireland is headed, thanks to the peace process and a well-embedded agreement that gives us a broadly settled process. It has made the difference because it allows us all to give allegiance to shared institutions for the first time, to work through our differences and, I hope, increasingly to work through common challenges and to do so more productively and ambitiously than in the past.
This is a tapas Bill: there are slivers of meat in it, but there is not very much of it. Some of it might be to some people’s taste, but less so to others, and perhaps we are not quite sure exactly what some of it is and must accept other people’s assurances and technical descriptions of it. On the broad issue of political donations, like others I recognise that historically there have been serious difficulties and challenges for people engaged in politics, whether by virtue of donating, canvassing or being a party member. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) rightly pointed to the many risks that people have taken in elected politics, and I pay tribute to all of them, particularly those who were threatened and victimised in very real and vicious ways.
I extend that tribute, however, to the many people in political parties more generally who faced such threats, challenges and various levels of intimidation, whether in their neighbourhood or in their working lives. A forthcoming book on the Glenanne gang will point out that some of its targets were picked precisely because of their membership of, or association with, the Social Democratic and Labour party. Of course, that was a loyalist gang, but members of my party were also targeted by republican paramilitaries for their own twisted reasons. I know that many other people in many other parties have suffered the same.
All that was true, but things are changing, including the public’s expectations and understanding. When I was leader of my party, I said that the then extension of the anonymity arrangements should be the last one and that we could not keep kicking that can down the road, but we now appear to be granting another extension and leaving the way open to another one after that. Hon. Members are right that the anonymity promises on donations made in recent years should be kept, unless people expressly say that they want their donation declared, and I agree that there should be no retrospective revelations to which people have not agreed. But if the public are to accept that sort of protection for historical donations, they will want to know that there will be a definite end to anonymity for future donations. The one should go with the other, on a fair’s fair, everything square basis.
The question of donations also gives rise to a situation in which people might think that parties have more to hide than they actually have. When I was leader of my party, I said that the change should happen because there was nothing for us to hide. In a small place such as Northern Ireland, people sometimes get suspicious about donations, not only to individual parties but to several parties. They can create suspicion in the mind of the public that decisions are being influenced at various levels and in various policy areas. If the threshold for publication were significantly lowered, some people might worry that complications could arise because they had given to a number of parties on different occasions, or even at the same time. Those issues are going to have to be addressed by the people and the parties concerned, however, and people cannot be protected against that potential for embarrassment under the guise of security sensitivities.
In respect of sensitivity about donations, I know that my party colleague Alex Attwood who is currently the Minister of the Environment in Northern Ireland, imposed a rule on himself and his Department that if a planning application came in from anyone whom he was aware of being a donor to our political party, he would declare that fact to his officials. His officials said, “There is no official need to do that. No one has ever thought of doing it before.” But he has made a point of saying that it should be done because, in some people’s eyes, the donation could be a material consideration that may influence him and he must therefore inform his officials. The officials can then bear the information in mind when carrying out their work on the planning application.
There is an issue beyond the provisions in the Bill on donations and political life in Northern Ireland. Many significant public appointments are made by Ministers in Northern Ireland and perhaps we need to address whether such people who are known donors to parties should be duly registered at departmental level and open to scrutiny. These things should be looked at beyond the level of electoral donations.
On the question of donations from people based in the Irish Republic, I believe that the current provision is right and equal. We have parties in Northern Ireland that have a Unionist outlook, and those with a nationalist outlook. We also have parties that do not frame themselves specifically in relation to Unionism or nationalism. Within that broad base, if people are able to collect donations and win the support and approval of the members of the body politic throughout the United Kingdom who regard themselves as British, I do not see why those who regard themselves as Irish should not be able to collect donations from the democratic body politic to which they see themselves as belonging—that is, people living on the island of Ireland.
Naomi Long
I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman, but a more significant issue are the donations that come into Northern Ireland through the Republic of Ireland from international sources—that is, donations that would not be able to come in through the UK but can come in through the Republic. Such donations probably benefit only one party, and it is not here to debate the issue.
Mark Durkan
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, but I do not believe that the answer is to have a general ban on donations from people living in the Irish Republic. If we were to say that anyone living there who wanted to make a donation had to be registered on the list of electors there, that would go some way towards strengthening the provisions. If there are loopholes that allow moneys that would otherwise be unacceptable to arrive in the north, and if those loopholes are being used to “wash through” money, mechanisms will have to be put in place to stop that happening. Declarations would have to be made in relation to any such money. I would have no problem with a requirement for such declarations, not only from those giving the money to say that it was truly coming from them and not from someone else, but from those receiving it. That would fix minds quite clearly. That is where the responsibility should rest, and that is where the law should be targeted.
I represent a border constituency. Many of the people who make significant investments in businesses there and make a significant contribution to the economy, not only in Foyle but in the whole of the north-west, live in the south. Some live just a few miles across the border, others live further away. Many of them originate in Derry. There are many families in Derry whose cousinage is in Donegal and in many other parts of the south—
Mark Durkan
Including Mayo, as the shadow Minister says. I was also glad to hear earlier from the Liberal spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd). Perhaps we have a gathering of the Mayo association here today. I speak as a grandson of Mayo myself, rather than a son.
The point needs to be recognised that there are many people in the south whose roots are in the north. Many of them have business and professional links with the north, and many of them undertake public appointments there. Thankfully, they are appointed not only by nationalist Ministers. Those people from the south can have a legitimate input into the democratic governance and well-being of the north, and I see no reason to preclude them from doing that through duly registered political donations if they wish to do so.
We have heard the arguments for and against the dual mandate. I made my own decision on that a number of years ago when I took the personal step of saying that if I was elected as an MP again, I would give up my seat in the Assembly. I did not believe that the dual mandate could be sustained any longer. On that basis, I also resigned the leadership of my party, because I did not think that anyone could seriously try to lead a political party in Northern Ireland without being in the devolved Assembly.
I took that step after we had been frustrated in our attempts to change the rules. During various negotiations and initiatives, some of us had made the point that we needed to draw a line under the dual mandate. We said that the parties needed to agree on a date or a point in the electoral cycle when dual mandates would stop, but it was impossible to reach agreement on that. I recall debates in the Assembly in which the Democratic Unionist party voted against any such move against dual mandates. It praised them, saying that they were the best thing since sliced bread and that they were saving us money. Then, in the wake of the pressures resulting from the expenses scandal, the DUP suddenly started playing leapfrog over the rest of us. It suddenly wanted to get rid of dual mandates, too. In many ways it hid behind the Kelly recommendations, saying that if an outlying date of 2015 were set, that would be the target date towards which it would work.
Historically, the dual mandate could be justified by the uncertain circumstances that existed in Northern Ireland. Indeed, it is arguable that many people were able to do great work carrying dual mandates, not least John Hume and Ian Paisley when they were in this House and in the European Parliament. Along with their Ulster Unionist colleague, they were able to do productive and effective work in Europe and to bring home significant benefits. As with the question of openness over donations, however, public expectations have moved on. People can see that circumstances and standards have changed. Change changes things. That is probably the most underestimated fact in politics and democratic life. We need to move on.
If a limit is, rightly, set on dual mandates in this House, the Bill should also make provision for that in respect of any possible membership of Dail Eireann. Any such provision should apply not only to MPs but to Teachtai Dala. It would be right to extend that to Members of the House of Lords and to Members of Seanad Eireann as well. If the rule specifies membership of one legislative chamber and one only, it should apply regardless. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) that that should apply whether or not the proposed abolition of Seanad Eireann goes ahead. I hope it does not; I would much prefer to see reform of that good constitutional tool. The fact is that people should be members of one legislative chamber and one only.
As to the size of the Assembly, I made the point in an intervention that the position on which parties were negotiating at the stage when we negotiated the agreement was broadly based on a 90-member Assembly, with five Members for each of the parliamentary constituencies. It was not the case that it was a matter of principle that we wanted the Assembly elected from the existing parliamentary constituencies. The point was that if we were going to get an Assembly established on the back of an agreement, it had to be on the basis of some existing constituencies, and the parliamentary constituencies were obviously the available and relevant ones.
The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 creates five-year parliamentary boundary reviews, but I think that will cause problems, not just in respect of the potential impact of boundary reviews in parliamentary terms, but in Assembly terms, too. What might appear to be a small change in a constituency in parliamentary terms could be very significant for Assembly members. Somebody’s well-established Assembly bailiwick could be directly split in a way that might appear marginal to the parliamentary constituency, so I think there are difficulties there. I know that there has been some discussion in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee about whether the Assembly still needs to rely on or stick to absolute coterminocity of Assembly and parliamentary constituencies for the long term. If we end up having a difficult experience from five-year boundary reviews—I hope this will be revised in the future so that we can move to something more sensible than having reviews for every single Parliament—the Assembly might well be advised to consider something different.
The position on the number of Members was, as I said, five for each constituency. If, under the boundary reviews, the number of constituencies is reduced, that will obviously reduce the number of Members in the Assembly in turn. In the context of previous negotiations, including those in Leeds castle and elsewhere where there were reviews and half reviews of the agreement, the SDLP put forward its views, but there were no takers for the changes, just as when we offered proposals to improve the transparency of the Assembly and to make it a bit more robust as a chamber of accountability.
Some of those who talk most about transparency and accountability resisted. I remember Peter Robinson saying at Leeds castle, “Well, we do not want that much accountability.” The proposals did not even go as far as saying that there should be a formal opposition in the Assembly, but sought to ensure that there were ways of holding Ministers to account to the Assembly. One way of doing that was that after budgets, all Ministers would make statements on what they were planning to do with the moneys allocated to them rather than hide behind one statement by the Minister of Finance.
As other hon. Members have said, the question of opposition is important. When we negotiated the agreement, just as we were clear that the Government would be inclusive for those parties that wished to exercise the right to take their mandate into ministerial office, so, too, the scrutiny and accountability role of the Assembly had to be inclusive. Some of us, perhaps naively, envisaged that members of the Ministers’ own parties would challenge them and put questions to them; unfortunately, that is not what we have. Anyone looking at the Parliament channel, for example, is likely to see question time and debates, and there are more plants than at a garden centre! It is not what we wanted—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) mentions vegetables in particular, and I am sure his party colleagues will be delighted by that proud reference and strong endorsement.
The discussion that many people are having is important. What it reflects is not necessarily the absolute need for an opposition that some have seized on; it is more a feeling that there is not enough challenge, scrutiny or debate. Some people think that real debate ends up falling to “The Nolan Show” or other talk-back radio programmes, but questioning and challenging decisions should be taking place in the committees of the Assembly and on its floor. We should have other types of committee —more cross-cutting committees, for example, with the sort of teeth that the Public Accounts Committee has. They might be rated more highly not just by Ministers but by civil servants than they are under the current committee model. As other hon. Members have said, there are a number of things that we can look at.
On the appointment of the Justice Minister, we recognise that there are a number of anomalies. The proposed changes seem neatly to answer the problem of the d’Hondt excess enjoyed by one party, which goes against the proportionality provisions and the inclusion promise of the agreement. I fear that in resolving the anomaly in the proposed way, however, we will end up creating a predicament for the system and potentially for a party that could find itself typecast, particularly through the role of the Justice Minister, in ways that might well prove frustrating in the future. Other parties might find that frustrating or might abuse their sense of frustration. We need to be careful that in fixing one problem, we do not create another problem for the long term or build a permanent abnormality that imposes an obligation or a limitation on any particular party.
Naomi Long
As my party provides the Justice Minister in the current arrangements, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. The arrangements being put in place here would apply equally to any party, and the anomaly would apply regardless of which party provided the Justice Minister. The fix, as it were, would apply regardless, too. I do not think that anybody is typecast in that sense. I would also take issue with him about what counts as normal. I happen not to think that using d’Hondt to appoint Ministers is normal; it is actually a mechanism to deal with division, which is abnormal. I would not want to move in that direction; I would prefer the other Ministry to move towards cross-community support.
Mark Durkan
I note the hon. Lady’s point of view, but it is not the one from which I come to this debate. I was involved in the negotiation and drafting of parts of the agreement, not least in respect of strand 1. I would certainly defend the understanding and agreement that we secured then, but I would never pretend that we are stuck with it or that we can never adjust or change it. I certainly recognise that when it comes to the institutions and the fundamental architecture we have to see differences between fixtures and fittings. That is why review mechanisms were built into the agreement and why my own party has proposed changes and developments in a number of reviews—and we would certainly envisage more in the future. They should all be based, however, on the firm and clear foundations of inclusion that are guaranteed in the agreement.
On the issue of the Justice Ministry, I was not saying that it is a given and that it will always go to the Alliance party; I was simply stating a caution, in case things end up being that way. We know all the reasons why the Ministry ended up with an Alliance party member on the first and second occasions. What I am saying is simply a point of caution in that regard.
When it comes to electing other Ministers by cross-community support, I am disappointed that the Bill does not take the opportunity to restore something that was in the Good Friday agreement—that the First and Deputy First Minister should be elected jointly by cross-community support. That was in the Good Friday agreement, and it was important that the administration of the Executive would be headed and chaired by people who had a mandate from the Assembly and were accountable to it. Instead, what we have is a system whereby those two positions are simply appointed from their respective parties by a letter, which goes to the Speaker. That is not the right and proper way to do this.
The change in how the First and Deputy First Minister were appointed—no longer elected by the Assembly but simply appointed by their own parties—was a result of a so-called comprehensive agreement in December 2004 between Sinn Fein, the DUP and the British and Irish Governments to create a new rule whereby parties could only appoint Ministers if those parties voted for the First and Deputy First Minister. The agreement was published, but because there were not photographs in relation to decommissioning, and people were using language about sackcloth and ashes, it did not stick. However, it remained the desired outcome of Sinn Fein, the DUP and the British and Irish Governments until the very day of the St Andrews talks that parties could only be included in government if they voted for the First and Deputy First Minister. That was a complete violation of the basic principle in the Good Friday agreement—the promise of democratic inclusion. The DUP was able to appoint Ministers without having voted for Seamus Mallon or David Trimble; they were able to vote against David Trimble and me, but it did not preclude their holding ministerial office, and rightly so, because that was the promise in the agreement. Similarly, Sinn Fein was able to abstain on the election of the First and Deputy First Minister and still hold ministerial office. The DUP and Sinn Fein, however, were prepared to say that the SDLP, the UUP and, if it qualified, the Alliance party, could only take Ministries if we voted for the First and Deputy First Minister. We would have to submit our mandate to them; we would not even be allowed the right of abstention.
The first people who would be excluded from office under the agreement, under a Labour Government, were those in the SDLP, not for having committed any crimes or transgression, whether in office, in terms of standards in public life or breaching commitments to peace and non-violence, but simply because we were prepared to exercise our democratic right to abstain on the election of those from other parties. Only because the DUP got the message from us clearly in a meeting upstairs in a Committee Room, on the morning we were all flying to St Andrews, that we would not be voting for them, and we understood that the UUP would not be voting for them, so the DUP would be in the Lobby voting on their own with Sinn Fein—the very thing they wanted to prevent—to elect Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness, and only because we stuck to our threat did the DUP scramble to get a different basis whereby people would be appointed to ministerial office by a letter to the Speaker.
Why are we not returning to the agreement in the Bill? Things seem to be bedded down quite well now between Sinn Fein and the DUP—they seem quite happy to go through the Lobby together on lots of things, whether it is to force through future local government boundaries that suit them, or anything else. If they can use their muscle or mandate together in those respects, why should they not be able to do it in relation to electing the First and Deputy First Minister as originally provided for in the agreement?
In relation to local government boundaries, Sinn Fein and the DUP put through a Bill a couple of years ago for the appointment of a boundary commissioner, but the Bill actually fixed the boundaries, and all the boundary commissioner could do was pick the names of the councils and make recommendations around some of the wards. The Bill contains other welcome measures, on the face of it, to transfer further powers in relation to electoral matters, to change their reserved status, and to give more latitude, potentially, to the Assembly, but we need to register some caution. Decisions that can be taken at Assembly level can essentially be taken by Sinn Fein and the DUP themselves, so we need to be careful about a significant reduction in the size of the Assembly that would mean fewer than five Members per constituency, which will affect proportionality, democratic opportunity and fairness, and about other changes in relation to electoral matters.
Northern Ireland began with a Parliament set up after partition, and there was proportional representation. One of the first decisions taken was to remove proportional representation in local government, and then to remove proportional representation for the Parliament itself. The rot set in, and the difficulties came from there. If we get to a situation where everybody else’s democratic opportunity is dependent on the decisions of Sinn Fein and the DUP, to borrow from the late, great Paddy O’Hanlon, that is a bit like asking Attila the Hun to mind your horse. We are asking for trouble if we just say, “It will be up to them.” We ought perhaps to consider ensuring that the Electoral Commission has a bigger, stronger and more defined role in relation to such matters, rather than leaving them to the Executive level and to some parties in particular.
There are other aspects of the Bill, including in relation to court and other matters. Will the Minister clarify the intention in paragraph 5 of the schedule on court rules, in relation to inquests, and the reference to the
“relevant authority must allow or disallow rules submitted to it”?
Is the phrase “relevant authority” intended to allow for both the devolved and the Westminster authority in respect of different issues? In the past, we have seen attempts in the House to change the rules on inquest to provide for secret inquests, and to provide for inquests in which coroners could be sacked and others appointed, the implications of which are very sensitive in Northern Ireland, not least in relation to many cases, even some of the outstanding inquest cases, from the troubles, or some cases in which new inquests are being requested.
Other Members have raised the issue about the National Crime Agency, which I do not want to leave unaddressed. My party colleagues have been working with others to get as many of the issues resolved as possible. Our concerns are genuine and do not relate to trying to prevent asset recovery or other powers being fully exercised in Northern Ireland. Nobody has demanded and defended strong powers of asset recovery and wanted them robustly used more than the SDLP, which is why our initial concerns were about the establishment of SOCA potentially undoing the good work of the Assets Recovery Agency. However, we do have concerns, with which hon. Members should be familiar, in relation to the primacy of the Patten policing model and the primacy of the Chief Constable accountable to the Policing Board.
First, we are concerned that that was significantly breached in relation to the St Andrews agreement by the rerouting in relation to national security so that even MI5 liaising with the PSNI would be beyond the purview of the Policing Board or the Police Ombudsman, and we do not want the National Crime Agency compounding that. The Secretary of State is aware, as I have informed her, of our concerns about how SOCA’s pursuit of some people is being abused by MI5 putting those same people under untoward pressure to work for it, putting them in a position of real and likely threat. We want those issues resolved. I cannot look in the eye those people who come to me with genuine concerns and stress and say, “Yes, I believe in your concerns. I am trying to give representation to them,” and then blandly go along with other changes without getting the necessary safeguards. The problems are real, but I believe we can come up with real answers to them. I commend those in my party and others who have been working to get those answers.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I welcome the opportunity to debate the principles of a Bill that will have a significant impact on the way in which our relatively immature democracy in Northern Ireland may develop in the years ahead. I fully acknowledge that we have travelled a considerable distance, and—as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan)—in a very positive direction, but much work remains to be done.
We want to work with the Government to bring about the economic renewal of our local economy, and for that purpose we must consider a number of ways of rebalancing the economy. We are also concerned about the unfairness of many of the welfare reform proposals. We do not oppose the principle of welfare reform, but we do oppose a number of its probable consequences. Many people who are already disadvantaged will become even more disadvantaged, and many who are currently in work will find themselves out of work and, possibly, in a grave financial position.
Those are the challenges that face any Administration or Executive, and they also face the devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland. We want to work with the Government to meet those challenges. We also want to work with the Government, and with the Irish Government—they being the co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement—on proposals for a comprehensive reconciliation process, because that is one of the aspects of a divided society that has not yet been fully addressed.
I recall that several years ago, when I was a Minister in the Department for Social Development, there were proposals for shared housing and shared neighbourhoods. Some of us had already done a great deal of work on that—work that began a considerable time ago, not just a few weeks ago—when others had not bought into the process. I am glad to say that they have done so now, and I hope that our aims will be fulfilled. However, there is still much to be done to help victims, to produce a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, and to ensure that everyone fully embraces the concepts of equality and human rights.
There are undoubtedly some good things in the Bill. Progress has been made towards greater transparency in relation to political donations, and most of the political double-jobbing is to be terminated. The Bill also covers issues connected with electoral registration. I was glad to hear from the Minister that he intended to ensure that there would be a door-to-door canvass, and that money had been provided for the purpose. All of us, including the Government, should take a proactive approach to ensure that everyone has proper access to a franchise, and should encourage people—irrespective of the party for which they vote—to exercise their franchise. That is the only way of enabling them to have a say in the shaping of their local democracy and the democratic process.
There is one great mystery at the heart of the Bill, and I should like to get to the bottom of it. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide the answer to my question—in conjunction, obviously, with the Secretary of State. I refer to the proposal to extend the term of the Northern Ireland Assembly by a further year and to hold elections not in May 2015, the date presented to our electorate, but in May 2016. The Government appear to have performed a U-turn. Why the change? It is fundamental that such action should not be taken without the permission of the people, who gave the parties a mandate to govern for four years rather than five. Indeed, the Secretary of State’s consultation paper acknowledged that
“There are serious constitutional implications in extending the term of any elected body after it has been elected”,
and since then the Government have generally poured cold water on the extension proposition.
We have heard arguments about the need to bring Northern Ireland into line with the other devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, but they do not stack up. The Secretary of State’s consultation paper states:
“The Government does not believe that there needs to be uniformity across the…UK”.
More important is the fact that electors in Scotland and Wales knew before they voted that they would be electing Governments for an extended five-year term. In Northern Ireland, this is being imposed on people. The “conformity with Scotland and Wales” argument does not solve our mystery.
Mr Gregory Campbell
The hon. Lady is elaborating on the fact that the term of the Assembly is being extended by a year, and that that is being done without asking people for their permission. Is she suggesting that there should be a referendum to ask people if they want to vote again before they have decided that they want to vote again? In what way should people be asked other than through their representatives here in Parliament?
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Member for East Derry for his intervention. [Interruption.] He knows perfectly well that we had a mandate, and that those of us who were elected to the Assembly—some of us are no longer there—had a contract with the population of Northern Ireland for four years, and not five years. I believe that we should not delude the public, but should conform to what was in our contract with them.
Dr McCrea
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady has suggested that we should conform to the wishes of the general public. My hon. Friend was elected to a constituency in the House of Commons which is termed East Londonderry. Has any Member a right to change the name of my hon. Friend’s constituency? Is it in order?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
That is not a point of order, but is a point for debate in the Chamber. Members are responsible for what they say in the Chamber. It is not a matter for the Chair unless it constitutes disorderly conduct, and it is not disorderly at the moment.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With respect, the names of constituencies are set by legislation, not by what any one Member may say in the House. I repeat what I said a moment ago. This is a matter for debate, because it does not change the name of the constituency as laid down by Parliament.
Ms Ritchie
I accept the essence of the point of order. I acknowledge that the constituency is probably classified as Londonderry East, but my shorthand for it happens to be “East Derry”. I do not think that there is any particular difference of opinion. [Interruption.] May I continue?
There was the equally weak explanation that although doing so would save money, it would be unmanageable to hold two or three different elections on the same day. Wrong again! The Secretary of State’s consultation paper acknowledged that, if it was required—I quote for the purpose of accuracy and veracity—
“both the Chief Electoral Officer and Electoral Commission are confident that three polls can be delivered”.
So “administrative difficulty” does not solve the mystery.
Could it be that, while the Government’s consultation paper questioned the idea of extending the term of the Assembly, citing grounds of democratic legitimacy as well as questioning any practical need at all, the Government changed their mind as a result of the responses that they had received during the consultation exercise? Was the Secretary of State overwhelmed by consultees pressing for the extension of the life of the current Northern Ireland Assembly? No; that is not the answer either. Several political parties, including my own—the SDLP—and the Ulster Unionists, as well as the Green party, Conservatives and others, were emphatically against this anti-democratic proposal. The DUP and the Alliance were in favour of it, and Sinn Fein did not participate in the formal consultation exercise. Overall, of those consultees who responded directly on this question, 85% were against extending the Assembly term.
At this point the Secretary of State might say that a combination of the DUP, Sinn Fein and the Alliance can command a majority in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which represents broad support for the extension, but the Secretary of State has already acknowledged that she had a letter from those parties as far back as June 2012, some three months before she embarked on her consultation; she knew then that the leaders of those three parties all wanted to extend the life of the Assembly. Indeed, elsewhere in this Bill there are provisions aimed at correcting the anti-democratic nature of the Minister of Justice’s current position, which has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) and my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle. The Secretary of State already knew the views of these parties when she set the height of the bar that had to be cleared if the proposal to extend the term of the Assembly was to go anywhere.
In full knowledge of the views of the parties of the OFMDFM—the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—the Secretary of State summarised the issue in February this year by saying:
“The Government has consistently made clear that any move to extend the length of the current term could only be made if there was a clearly demonstrable public benefit, and a very large measure of agreement in Northern Ireland.”
The Secretary of State further concluded that the responses to the consultation
“tend to suggest that there does not exist, as yet, significant agreement to this proposal.”
I am sure the Secretary of State would not disagree with what she said then.
That does not help us much with the solving of our mystery, however. The Secretary of State set a clear test of a
“very large measure of agreement”
and concluded that the agreement demonstrated so far had not been “significant”. So in February of this year, in full knowledge of the various political parties’ views on extension, the Secretary of State was against it. What changed?
The Secretary of State also set the test of a “demonstrable public benefit”, but there clearly is not one. OFMDFM Ministers can argue that five years might give the Executive more time to demonstrate its worth, but in fact the opposite is the case. The Secretary of State’s paper of February of this year commented on the “opinion frequently voiced” about
“the perceived inertia of the Assembly”
and concluded that
“extending the term would only add to this.”
In addition, the CBI expressed concern in its consultation response that, at the end of a four-year programme for government, an additional year could just be a year of unproductive drift. Indeed, the proposal to extend the term takes little account of the very significant public disbenefits of moving to 2016, such as having the election so close to the 100th anniversary of the Easter rising, when certain political extremists will try to raise, and then exploit, community tensions on the nationalist side. There are also sinister elements in loyalism that will try to do the same around the important world war one centenaries. That is not a great time to have an election for a fixed five-year term in a fragile democracy.
So, with no “large measure” of agreement and no “public benefit”, what could have made the Secretary of State change her mind? Could it have been the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee? After all, the views of the Committee on Standards in Public Life were given considerable weight in the Bill’s provisions on double-jobbing. No, however, it is not the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, because, as its Chairman, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), said earlier, it did not support the proposal to extend the term either. Indeed, when the Secretary of State met the Committee in March this year, she stated:
“But it is quite an unusual thing to do, and we would have to be clear about the benefits it would bring, the additional achievements that could be made by the Executive in that extra year, and also have a very clear case made publicly to that effect by the Northern Ireland political establishment.”
So even as late as March this year, the Secretary of State seemed to have no appetite for extending the term of the Northern Ireland Assembly, yet by 9 May, when this Bill was published with the explanatory document, all that had changed. All the consultation responses and the Secretary of State’s own decision criteria had been cast aside in just a few short weeks. What changed the mind of the Secretary of State remains a mystery, and it is a mystery that she must unlock; indeed, the Minister must unlock it here tonight, and it will need to be explored further in Committee.
I believe the decision to extend the Assembly term is an atrocious anti-democratic, and potentially dangerous, development, and flies in the face of most of what the Secretary of State has ever said on the issue. I can find no rational explanation for the change of heart in the Command Paper that was a response to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report. The Government do not provide much enlightenment in unlocking the mystery, except that they wish to be consistent with Scotland and Wales in extending the terms of the existing mandates. The Government and Secretary of State have ignored a vital point, however: that the people of Wales and Scotland were aware of the change to the fixed-term mandate before casting their votes in May 2011. The position in Northern Ireland was totally different. The people of Northern Ireland were not involved in this, and they voted for a four-year mandate. The only person who could do something to overrule the Secretary of State is the Prime Minister himself. Is a prime ministerial intervention the answer to our mystery?
So I put it to the Minister, who will be responding to the debate: how often, and when, did he and the Secretary of State discuss this matter with the Prime Minister? Did the Prime Minister direct the Secretary of State to concede the Assembly’s term extension to those who lobbied him for it? And we know who lobbied him for it: the DUP, Sinn Fein and the Alliance party. If he did, what explanation did he give? Can the Secretary of State, or the Minister of State, as it will be in this instance, tell me what impact this sordid U-turn had on the credibility of the Northern Ireland Office and will have on any future NIO consultations? What faith will the people of Northern Ireland have in such consultations? The NIO and the Secretary of State must never forget that she and her equivalent in the Irish Government are the custodians of the Good Friday agreement. [Interruption.] This is no laughing matter, because when we went to vote in the Assembly elections in 2011 we voted for a four-year mandate, so the people will feel duped. Given the weight of evidence against the extension of the Assembly’s term, surely there is some way in which the Government will be prepared to reconsider this fundamentally anti-democratic measure. Obviously we look forward to discussing the issue further in Committee—or perhaps we should start lobbying the Prime Minister.
Ms Ritchie
I wish to make a little more progress and then I would be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he can provide the answer to this mystery, as it is important that we find a solution to it. We need to work closely together, in partnership, and we need to ensure that we are able to sustain and maintain our democratic integrity. That is done in the best interests of the wider population of Northern Ireland: not only do the people demand it, but they deserve it, because for many years we lived and worked in that divided society, which in many ways still exists. We were living in the cauldron of violence and terrorism, and that was wrong. I am glad to say that that is largely diminished and we must now move forward into a new scenario.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for Down South for giving way. She has discussed great concerns about the issue relating to the Assembly elections, but had she the same concerns about the change of time scale for the council elections? Did her party express concern when the time scale was changed?
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Obviously, we have been dealing with the review of public administration in the period of various Ministers, including at least three from the DUP when the RPA was being discussed.
Ms Ritchie
I have not finished this point and I wish to do so, if the right hon. Gentleman will let me. Obviously, there would be concerns, but I also know that it was the DUP and Sinn Fein that insisted that these arrangements for new councils be pushed ahead with—I know that from my colleague the Minister of the Environment.
Mr Donaldson
Of course, this is not without precedent because the Northern Ireland Assembly was elected in 1998 on a four-year mandate by the people but that was extended to 2003 with the full support and connivance of the very party that now protests against the very thing that it and the UUP supported back in 1998 to 2003. So it may be that the answer to the mystery is a bit closer to home.
Ms Ritchie
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I think that there have been some memory losses here. [Hon. Members: “Oh no.”] Oh yes, because I can well recall, as can my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) and for Foyle—the latter was Minister for Finance and Personnel and subsequently Deputy First Minister—the considerable periods of suspension, when the people of Northern Ireland suffered dreadfully as the DUP sat outside the Executive and did not participate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The entire Chamber is debating this Bill, not just the hecklers in one corner of the Chamber. I would appreciate it if we could listen to each speaker courteously. Perhaps we will be able to stop the heckling now and continue with the point being made, bearing in mind that another debate is also scheduled for this evening.
Ms Ritchie
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am mindful of your advice on this matter, so I will move towards a conclusion. We have had an interesting debate this evening on the issue.
Although I would like to see that mystery unlocked this evening, there is also a need for a wider conversation that addresses the next phase of devolution. There is a need to devolve telecommunications and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to Northern Ireland, and we must also consider the character of constitutional discussion and the requirements to secure and advance policing. I will never forget that the SDLP, along with the Ulster Unionists, brought about that change in policing. My party, many times, single-handedly worked to bring about that new dispensation in policing.
Justice must be discussed, as well as the rights and equality achievements of recent years, and we need a deeper recognition from London of the nature of the Northern Ireland economy. We require further debate about those issues—not reserved to certain individuals, but in this Chamber and with these Ministers—and about our welfare profile and the impact of welfare changes on the economy of Northern Ireland and on the general health and well-being of our local population, the potential for the bedroom tax and the geopolitical considerations of housing and social housing location in Northern Ireland. Above all, the unfinished work of reconciliation and healing must take place within the north, on the island and between Britain and Ireland, and we must consider how London can move away and move with the Irish Government to help us to address issues to do with the past.
It is important that we discuss all those issues within the emerging politics that are Northern Ireland and that are the island of Ireland. We all look forward to such a participative democracy on these issues and to getting answers about how the decisions were made about moving from four to five year mandates. The people did not elect Members to the Assembly for five years, but for four. As that is the kernel of the Bill, I feel that the people I represent deserve an answer.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I am warming to this idea of using shorthand for parliamentary constituencies. Perhaps in future I will refer to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) as the Member for a river in Londonderry, and perhaps the SDLP will think again—
Mr Donaldson
It might be longer, but, considering the length of the hon. Gentleman’s speech—[Interruption.] Length seems to be very important indeed.
I want to deal with the issue raised by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) about extending the term of the Assembly. This year is the year of culture in Londonderry and I think the SDLP should consider entering some of the competitions, particularly storytelling. The hon. Lady would tell a very good mystery story indeed.
Let us deal with political history and reality. The principle that the hon. Lady seeks to express is that when the public vote for an elected body for a fixed term, if we seek to alter that term we should go back to the people before we do so. In the stakes of political U-turns, political changes of mind and the irony of taking up a position one day and then advocating the opposite, the SDLP must take first prize.
The Assembly elected in 1998, after the Belfast agreement, was elected for a four-year term. I accept that there were periods when the Executive did not function, but Assembly Members continued to be paid and to hold office throughout that period. There was no election until November 2003, I believe. Mathematics was not my strongest subject at school, but I know enough to say that November 2003 back to May or June 1998 is a lot more than four years. Did we hear the SDLP— the largest nationalist party at that time—say, “This is dreadful! We must go back to the people. We must have an election”?
Mark Durkan
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I, as leader of the SDLP at the time, advocated that the election, if it was to take place, should take place at the due time, on the due date. The British Government of the day said, “No. We have negotiations going on with the Ulster Unionist party and Sinn Fein. They need the summer to work at this and to move things on. They need more time.” I opposed moving the election day, and I imagine that John Reid, who was misquoted earlier, could confirm that that was the position I stated to him as Secretary of State.
Mr Donaldson
Just as, no doubt, the SDLP opposed the extension of local government terms that occurred in Northern Ireland. Let us not hear this drivel about how it is somehow undemocratic in principle to move the date of an election. When it suited the SDLP’s political purposes to have the term of the Assembly extended, the term of the Assembly was extended by fiat of the Northern Ireland Office—not even by coming to this House.
Mr Dodds
Given that these points were made so strongly by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), it is right that we get the facts right. As for local government, this is not ancient history. Only in the last mandate, the term of local government was extended from elections in 2009 to elections in 2011, so that instead of serving four years, councillors had six years. The SDLP did not object—[Interruption.] It did not object. In fact, it supported the move.
Mr Donaldson
I thank my right hon. Friend for making precisely the point that I have been making: when it is politically advantageous for members of the SDLP to do something, principle does not come into it, but when they consider themselves potentially disadvantaged—I am not sure why they feel they in particular would be disadvantaged by this provision of the Bill—all of a sudden, they find a principle on which to take a stand. Well, we are not into revisionism. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you study the psychology of Northern Ireland, you will find that there are two different approaches to history: there is the revisionist approach, where you rewrite the facts to suit your argument, depending on where you are standing at the time; and then there is the approach that says that what is fact is fact, and it should be recorded as fact. On this issue—
Mr Donaldson
I think I have given way enough. The SDLP is backpedalling furiously on this issue. SDLP Members know the reality: they have decided to make a point on the Bill tonight, but it is a bogus point—one on which their own record, when it is subjected to scrutiny, does not stand up for a moment.
Today, we have heard from the leader of the SDLP about the need to make progress towards reconciliation. On this point, we are agreed: we do need to make progress towards reconciliation; we do need to address the issues of the past. I too was struck by the comments made by young Hannah Nelson last week at the Waterfront hall. She said, yes, we have a past and we most certainly cannot forget what happened in the past. We must acknowledge the hurt and the pain suffered during those dark, dark years of the troubles, and the victims need to be acknowledged and recognised. But we also want to help to move Northern Ireland forward. I really do not think it is helpful when during efforts to move Northern Ireland forward and to get a discourse, a dialogue, going about how to deal with those matters, people resort to old insults such as, “All you lot are bigots.” That really does not engender the sort of political climate we need to make progress on reconciliation. What must the young people of south Belfast be thinking this evening, when their Member of Parliament stands up in the House and describes the leading party of one side of the community in Northern Ireland as a bunch of bigots? Is that conducive to the kind of reconciliation that the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) claims he wants to achieve?
What does not help reconciliation is having political parties that posture as being the moderate voice and, at the same time, take actions that can have only one effect, which is to cause hurt and pain on the other side of the political divide in Northern Ireland. That is why I challenged the hon. Gentleman on the point about reconciliation. It does not help when, in Newry and Mourne district council, councillors from his party support the renaming of a children’s play park in Newry after a dead IRA terrorist—and not just any dead IRA terrorist but a terrorist who was convicted of a number of offences, including possession of a weapon, which was used in the murder of 10 Protestants in Kingsmill in south Armagh.
One might think that a progressive party that claims to be a moderating voice and which wants to promote reconciliation might reflect for a moment on the fact that supporting the naming of a children’s play park after someone with such a record might be offensive to a section of our community, and might cause hurt to the families of those killed in the Kingsmill massacre. It might be a retrograde step for our wish to move Northern Ireland beyond the dark days that we witnessed in the past.
Mark Durkan
The right hon. Gentleman rightly speaks passionately about the feelings in this instance of the relatives of those who were murdered in such a vicious, sectarian way at Kingsmill. I have been on the record, as have party colleagues, both publicly and privately, saying that we thought what our councillors did at that time was a mistake. I have subsequently been advised by those councillors that this was not the first naming of the park—it was named 10 years ago, and the vote was simply to confirm the original decision. When the decision was first made, no objections were made by any Unionist councillor present, and the vote that my party colleagues supported was also a vote for a procedure that would ensure that it could not happen in future—nothing could be named in such a way again. I fully accept his criticism, but I urge him to look at the wider facts, and in saying so, I do not detract in any way from the important point that he has made in relation to the relatives of the Kingsmill massacre.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. We have gone a little wide of the Bill in the exchanges that have just occurred, but I think that this matter has been well aired on the Floor of the House. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman returned to the specific provisions in the Bill.
Mr Donaldson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We welcome most of the Bill’s provisions. However, we will want to table a number of amendments in Committee. The past few years have been difficult and challenging. As the Secretary of State said—and she was echoed by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)—the Bill, and the manner of the Bill, represents a mark of progress. We are beginning to deal with issues that one might describe as reasonably normal. Nevertheless, there is a legacy that we still need to address. I am not sure that the Bill is the right vehicle for taking the initiative, but there is a need to address elements of the legacy.
Like many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have not always regarded elements of the peace process as something we could fully embrace. It has been difficult—I accept that it has been difficult for both sides in Northern Ireland—and challenging. Elements of the peace process have caused people a lot of pain and hurt, not least the early release of prisoners, and so on.
However, there is one aspect that goes to the heart of the sense of injustice felt by many victims in Northern Ireland on both sides of the community. I am disappointed that the Bill has not yet provided us with an opportunity to address this and I think it ought to do so. That relates to the definition of a victim. In Northern Ireland at present—this is hard to believe, but it is true—a victim of the conflict, if I may use that term, is defined as anyone, no matter who or what they were, who lost their life in the course of the troubles.
Let us consider that for a moment. It includes, in effect, the people who pulled the trigger, who wore the balaclavas, who were members of illegal organisations, who planted the bombs and who skulked in the shadows if they lost their lives, sometimes through their own actions—killed by their own bomb, as in the case, for example, of Thomas Begley in the Shankill bombing in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). Thomas Begley blew himself up with his own bomb and murdered nine—I think it was—innocent people that day on the Shankill. Thomas Begley, under the definition of a victim, is as much a victim as the innocent men, women and children whom he killed that day on the Shankill road.
Equally, the definition covers the attack that occurred in Loughinisland in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Down, where six people were killed in a public bar while watching a World cup football game. They were killed by loyalist paramilitaries. The irony is that every one of those six victims is equated with the people who committed the murders. If, for example, one of the loyalist group that killed those six men subsequently lost his or her life, they would be regarded as a victim.
I cannot come to terms with that. I cannot believe that in dealing with the past—and we must address the legacy issues—we can continue to go forward with a definition that says, “If you were a child walking down the street or going into a fish shop on the Shankill road with your mother on a Saturday afternoon and your life was cruelly cut down, you are the same as the person who, that morning, planned the attack, primed and transported the bomb to the scene and then detonated the bomb.” I cannot accept ever that it is right to equate the bomber with the innocent civilian, no matter who or what side the victims came from.
Naomi Long
The current definition of a victim is a very sensitive issue and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is something that we need to discuss, but I take issue with what he suggests. The definition of a victim ensures that the needs of everyone who is a victim—for example, the mother of the bomber, who may have suffered real pain and grief, in the same way as the husband of an innocent person who was blown up—are addressed in the same way. What it does not do and what it should not do is create moral equivalence between the two people. We have to be careful how we treat individuals who have suffered, but accept that the definition does not create a moral equivalence, because it should not and it does not.
Mr Donaldson
The problem is that it creates a legal equivalence. That is the difficulty we have. When it comes to administering victims services—I was the victims Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive for a time—it creates a problem. When I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly I introduced a private Member’s Bill to change the definition of a victim, and I hear the point that the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) is making but, for me, the person who was engaged in a terrorist act when he or she lost their life ought not to be legally equated, even if in our minds they are not morally equated, with their innocent victims. I believe that is a matter for Parliament to address, which is why in considering the Bill we will want to explore it further with the Government. I am not convinced that there will be the circumstances in which we can get a political consensus in Northern Ireland on the definition of a victim, simply because of the nature of the parties we are dealing with.
The hon. Member for Belfast East talked about moral equivalence. I believe that Parliament has a moral responsibility to examine this issue, for the victims back home in Northern Ireland and indeed the victims here. I have talked with victims of bombings in Belfast and met victims’ groups here in London. I have met people who lost loved ones or were badly injured, for example in the Canary Wharf bomb, and they feel the same way. They do not believe that there should be this legal equivalence.
In conclusion, although we welcome many elements of the Bill, we believe that there are things that need to be addressed, and we look forward to raising those further in the course of our consideration of the Bill.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
When my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) sat down to plan how best to celebrate her birthday, which is today, she probably had in mind some clubbing in Coatbridge, rather than sitting here for the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. However, I like to think that the evening she has spent in our company has been rewarding. I have no doubt that the whole House will join me in wishing her the happiest of birthdays and hope that this occasion has been something of a present for her.
I think that those who gently denigrated the Bill as some sort of sweeping-up Bill, portmanteau Bill or bits-and-pieces Bill missed the fact that crucially important business has been discussed here tonight. As we heard in the last speech, some of the most important issues we ever discuss in the House have been heard on the Floor tonight. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the calm, sensible, serious and, above all, positive way in which she introduced the debate, and she was optimistic where optimism could be justified. I think that it was a first-class presentation that set the tone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), whom we must now call the senior shadow Secretary of State, as we have new categories, spoke marvellously. Listening to him speak about his adventures, and from the number of times he appears in Northern Ireland, one might wonder whether there are not dozens of doppelgangers, or Coaker clones, because how else could he be in so many places at the same time? I think that we are simply fortunate that there is just one of him, but one with an enormous amount of energy. His comments about the Theatre of Witness production of “From the Rubble” at St Ethelburga’s church were extremely well made, and we should all listen to that and perhaps see it ourselves. He also mentioned the National Crime Agency, as a number of Members did later, which I think is one of the many aspects that will be discussed in Committee, for there is much business to be done there.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, showing his usual great respect for the House by flying in from Belfast, and probably missing his lunch, rightly paid credit to the role of the Committee—[Interruption.] He is nodding rather painfully, which implies that he did miss his lunch, so I hope that he has a decent supper tonight. Certainly, his work on pre-legislative scrutiny has been greatly appreciated.
The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) used an expression that we kept returning to in different forms. He talked about the stability that we take for granted. I will add that we must never take it for granted. He also introduced the role of Tony Blair. I was as delighted as the next person to hear the great former leader of our nation mentioned on the Floor of the House—[Interruption.] No, we need to hear about him more often. John Major was also mentioned, and for all I know Martin Mansergh and Albert Reynolds might have been mentioned, but I must have missed them. It was, as ever, a wise, serious and sagacious contribution from the right hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) tested the tolerance of the House. He claims to have spent many a year scoffing Ulster fries. The evidence before us—this slim youth in a well cut, well fitting suit and hardly a spare microgram of avoir-du-poids about his person—rather indicates that the closest he has ever come to an Ulster fry has been through the window of a café. However, he has time to make up for his past transgressions.
The hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), I am glad to say, referred to a comment made by the shadow Secretary of State in our previous debate—that devolution does not mean disengagement. That is one of the most crucial statements we have heard and we must never, ever forget it.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) took us on a marvellous, magnificent tour d’horizon through the rolling mists of history. I knew that as soon as Lough Erne was mentioned, the “dreary steeples of Fermanagh” would come in somewhere; it had to happen. The hon. Gentleman spoke with that mixture of erudition, elegance and grace for which he is so well known.
On the subject of erudition and grace, I turn to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who again showed that, when it comes to understanding the basis of what we are talking about and cutting through the persiflage, very few can match her. She drew the House’s attention to the fact that this is only the second uninterrupted full term of the Assembly. We must never forget that; we are that close to how things used to be.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) referred to his grandfather from County Mayo and his experience on the Somme; I think the hon. Gentleman was immediately signed up to the Mayo Association on the basis of that. It was a good contribution that reminded us of how close the links are between our islands and how the bloodlines flow in both directions.
Rather worryingly, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) started to go into a cost-benefit analysis of representatives. A few Members looked a little anxious as he went down the various costs, values and benefits. When he then whipped from his pocket a series of multiple passports, we wondered whether he was supplementing his income with a bit of printing on the side. However, we all know that the hon. Gentleman is above that sort of thing. If, however, he happens to have a spare passport, I am sure that he will let us know.
I do not think I have ever heard the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) speak more movingly than he did tonight. We have heard some superb speeches from the hon. Gentleman and tonight’s was absolutely magnificent. He talked about moving at a proper pace, which is very important. We must realise that we cannot achieve everything overnight. He also talked about the increase in employment, particularly high-skilled employment, in his constituency. He then mentioned his proud history of topping the poll over 40 years in multi-Member constituencies. I am a great admirer of the hon. Gentleman’s music, of which I have quite a collection. One of my favourites of his songs is entitled “Still Blessed”. May I say that his constituents are still blessed?
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) once again revealed to us the sophisticated, cosmopolitan ambiance of Derry in referring to the “tapas Bill”. I have sat in Sandinos wondering what on earth “tapas” were—I thought they were something water came out of. [Interruption.] The Minister of State wants to know what “tapas” are; if somebody does know, perhaps they will tell him. The hon. Member for Foyle made the point that the “tapas Bill” had only slim strips of meat in it. I would say that there is a lot of meat and that even more will be discovered in Committee. It is very important that we pick up on these points.
Extremely important points were raised about donations from the Republic of Ireland. We cannot forget or stop talking about this issue. There are people who feel strongly where their homeland is and cannot accept talk of not receiving donations from somewhere just over the border.
The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) talked about the positive direction of travel. She also rather went off on an Agatha Christie track about the mysteries of South Down. Personally, I prefer Colin Bateman to Agatha Christie. If Colin Bateman were to venture a little south of Belfast, perhaps South Down, there is a mystery there for him to work on.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), with his marvellous analysis of revisionism, proved yet again that in certain parts of these islands only the future is certain and the past is always changing. He finished on an extremely serious point when he talked about the legacy, which is an issue that we cannot forget.
After all the speakers we have heard today, I have but one regret. There was one voice missing. I am a great admirer of the crystalline clarity—the pellucid prose—of the Strangford Seannachie. Sadly, that proud voice was silent tonight, but I suspect that we will hear it again, and again, and again.
Very important business has been discussed on the Floor of the House and will be discussed in Committee. There are clearly huge issues regarding representation, donations, transparency and the role of the Justice Minister that have not gone away and still need to be considered. We have had a good Second Reading debate; I do not think anyone can deny that. On occasion we have ranged rather further and wider than many of us thought we would, but it has been to a good end. We now have a basis for a proper discussion in Committee.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and close with my initial comment: the Secretary of State spoke very wisely, sensibly and warmly when she introduced the Bill, and I thank and pay credit to her for that.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mike Penning)
It is a privilege and an honour to wind up this debate, which so many people have taken part in. I think that I counted 16 hon. Members who participated, and that will now include me, with some 20 interventions, so there has been a lot of generosity.
At the outset, let me reiterate the points made about the G8 and say how proud I was as Minister of State to be at Aldergrove with the Lord Lieutenant for the arrival of the Heads of State and Prime Ministers and to be the greeter on the tarmac. It was an honour and a privilege to be able to welcome the eight biggest leaders of the world to Northern Ireland, and then to receive the sort of comments that I have been getting back, particularly in the past couple of days from the Japanese, who were here early, stayed in the centre of Belfast, and were simply thrilled. Many people had concerns before they came—I think that is understandable—but Northern Ireland has shown them the way forward.
I pay tribute to the work of the Northern Ireland police force and the other agencies, particularly the 3,800-plus police from Great Britain who volunteered to come over to be part of the G8 and make it such a safe event. We now look ahead to the world police and fire games and the marching season. Perhaps I am being slightly naive, but I am very positive and believe that even though we may have some difficulties throughout the summer, Northern Ireland wants to go forward, as we have been saying.
I was a little concerned when the drafting of the Bill took place. Putting the word “miscellaneous” in the title of a Bill means that we will have a very wide-ranging debate on lots of different things. We can have that wide-ranging debate in Committee, which will be on the Floor of the House for clauses 1 to 9. It is right and proper that the debate has the time that it needs not only here, but up on the Committee Corridor.
I will not go through every hon. Member who has spoken, which the shadow Minister did brilliantly. I thank him for his kind comments about the Secretary of State. Hopefully he will say nice things about me in the future, but I very much doubt it. We have had a wide-ranging debate, as is right. Many hon. Members do not agree with each other on certain issues to do with the Bill and with how Northern Ireland is progressing, but this is where such issues should be debated and thrashed out.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) said that this Bill might not be the right place to talk about victims. I tend to agree with him on that. We need to find a way in which that debate can take place, but this miscellaneous Bill might not be the right place. However, I will consider the amendments that are tabled.
The Government considered carefully what could be in the Bill as normalisation progresses. I agree with the many hon. Members who have said that we need to be careful. We do not want to lose what we have got by going too fast, but we do not want the situation to stagnate.
I am sorry if the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) feels that there has been some kind of conspiracy. I will not go as far as the shadow Minister. I assure her that not just the Secretary of State but the Government have looked carefully at extending the term. Having said that, I have had no conversations with the Prime Minister about it and I do not think that the Secretary of State has either, and she has sat through nearly the whole debate. The decision was made by us in the Northern Ireland Office and by the Government. I believe that extending the term to 2016 is right and proper. I hope and expect that the other devolved Assemblies will take that forward. A consultation did take place, but one large party did not take part in it. However, it did give its views to me and the Secretary of State.
Mike Penning
I will not give way, because I have to sit down in the next few minutes, but there will be plenty of time to debate that matter in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading.
The Government are adamant that we want to move towards openness about donations to political parties. I think that everybody agrees that it would be wrong to bring that in retrospectively. We will not expose people who have already given donations in good faith to that.
The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) said that there is no longer such a risk. I hope that I am summarising her comments correctly. All I can say is that every day, I consider appeals against refusals for close protection weapons and home protection, where the system has ruled that somebody does not need those things.
Mike Penning
No, I will not give way.
I have to consider such decisions every day because the situation is not normalised. If one person is put at risk, that is not right. We consider such cases individually and the security agencies and the police are there to help us with that.
It is wrong in a democracy to say that if a person is not willing to put themselves at risk, they should not be able to donate. In a democracy, we want people to participate. We want people to stand for office. We have heard about the bravery of people who have stood for office, whether in a council, at the Assembly or in Parliament, over many years. However, there are other ways to be brave in the democratic process. There are people and families who want to support politicians and participate in local democracy. It is important that people and companies want to put their hard-earned money into a political party. It helps the party and it helps to promote democracy within their society. We will look closely at that matter.
There is nothing personal in stopping dual mandates. I assure the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) of that. We are just following the trend of the political parties in Northern Ireland and putting into statute what was started many years ago.
There are matters that we can discuss at length in Committee and there will be amendments that we can consider. However, we must realise what the Bill is about. It is about process and the normalisation of Northern Ireland. It is about ensuring that Northern Ireland can get as close as possible to the democracy and institutions that the rest of the United Kingdom has, which is what we all want. I have not had time to go through every comment and detail. We will address some of them in correspondence before the Committee stage, so that hon. Members know the Government’s view. This has been the sort of good and wide-ranging debate that the House is renowned for, and is exactly the sort of debate that we should be having. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
northern ireland (miscellaneous provisions) bill (programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill:
Committal
(1) Clauses 1 to 9 shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
(2) The remainder of the Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Committee
(3) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(4) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 18 July 2013.
(5) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
(6) When the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Public Bill Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill shall be proceeded with as if it had been reported as a whole to the House from the Public Bill Committee.
Consideration and Third Reading
(7) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(8) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
Programming Committee
(9) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House or proceedings on Consideration or Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(10) 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.—(Mike Penning.)
Question agreed to.
Backbench Business
Careers Advice in Schools
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
If you could take 10 minutes, Mr Birtwistle, I think we will be able to get the other speakers in.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of careers advice in schools for 12 to 16 year olds.
I will do my best to keep to 10 minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for putting this subject forward for debate today. One of the main reasons that I wanted this subject to come before the House was so that I could set out the business reasons for careers advice. There is a major boom in manufacturing that is being put in doubt by a lack of skills and the age profile of the people working in the industry. I will provide some statistics relating to my constituency of Burnley. Cities Outlook 2013 placed Burnley 10th in the country for private sector job growth: growth of 3.5% in the past 18 months against an average of 1%. That is a remarkable recovery, and it happened because we are a manufacturing town. Burnley has climbed 16 places to 22nd out of 63 UK cities in the recovery from recession, and is rated as No. 1 out of 63 cities for the proportion of jobs in manufacturing. We are one of the top manufacturing towns in the country.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend, coming as he does from my home town of Burnley, for securing the debate. With engineering and manufacturing companies reporting recruiting difficulties because of skills shortages and too few students choosing to study engineering and manufacturing, does he agree with the North West Business Leadership Team’s recent report, “Skills for Industry”, that the creation of a single, signposted point of contact to aid recruitment into these fields—a recognised organisation for employers offering jobs, and for students and their careers advisers who are interested in applying to do engineering and manufacturing—is urgently needed?
Madam Deputy Speaker
This debate ends at 10 pm. I would like interventions to be brief and to follow the courtesies and convention by being relevant to the point being made by the hon. Member at the moment the intervention occurs. We will then get everyone in.
Gordon Birtwistle
I have read that report and I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
The Paris air show took place recently and it is a fantastically successful showcase for the British aerospace industry. We are a small country, but we are second in the world for aerospace manufacture. I spoke to Martin Wright, the chief executive of the North West Aerospace Alliance. I said, “You must be absolutely delighted with what has happened at the Paris air show, with Rolls-Royce and Airbus getting big orders.” He said, “Yes, we are absolutely delighted, but we have a major problem: the capacity is full. We cannot produce the product we are selling at the Paris air show.” When I asked him why, he said, “Well, there are plenty of companies doing it, but the problem is they come up against a brick wall of skills shortages.” As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, the skills shortages happening now are of major concern to business, but even worse are those that will happen in future. We need to resolve that problem.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The aerospace firm Magellan, which employs many people and apprentices in Northern Ireland and my constituency, has a co-ordinated plan working with schools for 12 to 16-year-olds and those going into further education. Is that the sort of plan the hon. Gentleman would like to see across the United Kingdom?
Gordon Birtwistle
Yes, that is what I am trying to persuade the Government to do.
Why careers advice? Careers advice for young people should start at aged 11 when a child leaves junior school and moves into secondary school.
Gordon Birtwistle
Yes, and even earlier.
I want to share some examples with the House of the problems there are with our careers advice provision. I spoke to a young lady who went to college in Blackpool. When it came to choosing a career, she said she wanted to be an engineer. Her teachers and careers advisers said, “You’re far too clever to be an engineer. You should be a doctor or a lawyer.” She said, “Well, I can’t stand the sight of blood and the last thing I want to be is a lawyer.” She got a job as an apprentice at BAE Systems at Warton and last year was awarded the apprentice of the year award. BAE Systems sent her to university and she is now on a fast track to management within the company.
The second example is of a young gentleman who went to college in Chester. When he left Chester, he went to Oxford. He was at Oxford university for three months and hated it—he thought it was a complete waste of time and that he was spending money for no return—so he left and got a job as an apprentice at Airbus. When he had served his time at Airbus, the company sent him to university, and he is now a section leader with Airbus. He was pleased to tell me that he had just bought a brand-new Mini and had been delighted to go around on a Friday night, pick up his Oxford friends and take them out for a drink. He had been earning while learning—that is our new apprentice slogan—and so could afford to buy a new Mini, while all his friends who went to Oxford were having problems, could not get a job and had debts coming out of their ears. He was happy to take them out for a drink in his brand-new car on a Friday night.
A wide range of careers advice is required from age 11, but what can we do about it? What careers advice is being offered in our schools? I suggest it is minimal. It is minimal because many of the people giving it have only ever been teachers and unfortunately have never been in the workplace—there are jobs, particularly in Burnley, they do not even know exist. There is light on the horizon, however: there is a company in Burnley called Positive Footprints. A young lady called Lesley Burrows, along with three of her friends, Josh, Lynne and Sarah-Jane, set up this company. She is working in a couple of schools where she has set up a virtual jobcentre. From age 11, every time a child comes to school, they will walk through a jobcentre in which is displayed every job available in Burnley and the surrounding area. Those young people can see what is available and can approach one of these four people and ask them, “What is this job?” Positive Footprints can then advise them on what the job is and the child can decide whether they fancy doing it. When they reach 14, they can apply for one of the jobs, so Positive Footprints will show them how to apply for a job, how to write a CV, how to get a reference and so on. And if they really fancy that career, they can speak to the company and ask whether they can go and see what it does. In that way, the young person can be aware of what the job involves. That is the right way forward, and I see no reason why the Government should not adopt such a system to show young people what the future holds.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I am really impressed by my hon. Friend’s story about the female entrepreneurs, and by the young lady to whom he referred earlier who had decided to do an engineering apprenticeship. Does he agree that it is really important for young people to be made aware of the vast number of opportunities out there, and of the GCSEs and A-levels that will help them to fulfil their potential rather than simply do what they feel they might like to do?
Gordon Birtwistle
I agree entirely. We need to show young people what is available in the big wide world. Unfortunately, the advice that they are being offered at the moment is coming from a narrow band of people in school and from their parents at home. There is far more in this world than those people know about.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman has referred to positive opportunities. Does he agree that it is important not to stereotype young people? For instance, not every engineering job is meant for a male; such jobs also offer opportunities for females. Does he also agree that more such jobs that were at one time thought not to be for females should now be offered to them?
Gordon Birtwistle
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That young lady in Blackpool was an absolute star. She and a group of young people sat round a table with me, and half of them were young ladies. They were all working at BAE Systems producing Typhoon jets, the finest and fastest jets anywhere in the world. They showed my how they fitted the enormous engines into the aeroplanes and how they wired them up for their missile systems. I was proud of what they did, and I was proud of them for doing it.
The problem is: can we afford to take these extra measures? I agree with the Government when they say that we have to chop back revenue spending. We have to cut the deficit, but this would be investment spending. We have to invest in the young people of the future. That might cost a little, but we will get a return on that investment year after year. Basically, we cannot afford not to do this. We have to be able to afford to do it; otherwise, our young people will be out of work, our industries will be bereft of quality staff and the skills will disappear as older men and women leave their jobs. I asked the biggest company in Burnley about the age profile of its skilled engineers who screw together the thrust reversers that fit on the back of the Trent jet engines that Rolls-Royce makes. I was told that their average age was 47. In another 20 years, those guys will have gone. Who will replace them? At the moment, there are very few people who could do so. We have to get on with it.
Fiona Bruce
Is my hon. Friend aware that the same applies to electrical engineering? Dutton’s in Middlewich in my constituency is having to fly in engineers from Europe and Ireland to supplement the skills that it can find here.
Gordon Birtwistle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. This is happening in every business. It is happening not only in mechanical engineering but in electrical engineering and construction engineering.
We need to train young people for the future, and that starts with careers advice at school. We need to show young people what is available, what they need to do and how they can get involved with the appropriate industries. The Minister is a young woman and she knows what is going on in the world. I am confident that she will take this on board. I hope that she understands that careers advice for young people is an investment that this Government have to make.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), who should be commended for securing the debate. Like him, my interest in these matters stems principally from my role in supporting manufacturing in Parliament, and from the feedback that he and I have received from our meetings on that subject.
In the current economic climate, in which all sides agree that youth unemployment is still unacceptably high, it follows that the issue we are discussing is of paramount importance. Governments of any political make-up have a duty of care to ensure that young people are given the best possible opportunities. Careers advice in the UK, however, is extremely patchy and often of poor quality, and frequently both. The problem has not been improved by some of the reforms that the Government have introduced.
In the short time available, my aim is to outline the two main areas where I feel careers advice is suffering: first, the fundamental lack of consistency in the offer of careers guidance to students up and down the country; and, secondly, the concerns that I and, I know, many employers have about the quality and standard of careers guidance as it relates to the needs of our economy. I will conclude by offering suggestions about what the Government could do to reverse this worrying trend.
The first area where I believe problems of careers advice lie is the fact that it is often not delivered. One of the conclusions in the Education Committee’s report, “Careers guidance for young people: the impact of the new duty on schools”, published earlier this year, was:
“The Government’s decision to transfer responsibility for careers guidance to schools is regrettable...this has led, predictably, to a drop in the overall level of provision.”
I understand that more than eight out of 10 schools across the country have reduced the careers advice provided to pupils, and that dedicated careers services have frequently been axed.
In my borough of Tameside, where my constituency is based, Government cuts to local authority budgets have meant that careers advice and guidance services for young people have been fundamentally slashed—first by 65%, and then a year later by a further 50%. The effects are already becoming clear, as a recent study by the Education and Employers Taskforce showed: 12 to 16-year-olds have widely mismatched job ambitions, with a clear lack of understanding of what jobs are out there, of how to get them, and of the pay and expectations that go with them.
It is clear that this transfer of responsibility has exacerbated a postcode lottery in careers advice, which the Government appear to acknowledge in their response to the Select Committee report, by accepting
“that some schools are still adjusting to their responsibilities under the new duty”.
The question we must ask tonight is whether pupils are getting the information they need to make informed career choices. The evidence at the moment says that they are not. This has to change.
My second point is about the quality and standard of careers advice, particularly with regard to the needs of employers. As a vice-chair of the associate parliamentary manufacturing group, I hear from many manufacturing companies that feel that young people have little or no understanding of their sector or their employability needs. Those points were vividly illustrated by the hon. Member for Burnley. Only recently, John Cridland told the Government that careers advice is on “life support”, and that not enough was being done to help youngsters in a rapidly changing job market.
It is important to remember that both pupils and employers suffer. A CBI report recently found that employers felt 55% of school leavers lacked the right work experience, with this being a real problem in the manufacturing industry—an industry that I and many colleagues believe is absolutely vital to this country’s economy.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making some powerful points. Like me, he is passionate about manufacturing. I would like to hear what he would suggest the Government do to bridge the gap between the needs of young people and the needs of employers. With BAE Systems in my constituency, I am passionate about that subject.
Jonathan Reynolds
I would like to see a number of specific things applied to all aspects of career advice. In manufacturing, one of the principal things to change is the perception. I find it incredible that some people still believe that manufacturing is somehow a dirty industry and not the high-tech example that we see in BAE Systems. Challenging gender stereotypes is another highly important issue for manufacturing. What may be harder to achieve is getting it across to people that while BAE Systems and similar companies are important, it is the associated supply chain that really generates the wealth and the opportunity for jobs. My constituency predominantly has companies of that sort; it would be valuable if we could get more information out about the success of those companies, particularly in export markets where many are doing very well relative to the rest of the economy.
I am pleased that the Government have said in response to the Select Committee’s report:
“Good careers advice should be informed by labour market intelligence…grounded in the realistic context of the needs of today’s employers”.
I also welcome the commitment that there will be a
“strengthening of the relationship between the National Careers Service and Local Enterprise Partnerships.”
However, more action is needed to support such overarching themes and changes. The Government have said that in carrying out the new duties, schools are expected to work in partnership with employers as appropriate. What direct, on-the-ground support does the Minister envisage will be made available to schools to allow that to happen?
In an economic climate in which jobs are already scarce, careers guidance for 12 to 16-year-olds appears to be in emergency care. We often hear about the danger of a lost generation, and the not in education, employment or training figures are unacceptably high. Therefore, high-quality and readily available careers advice, appropriately matched to the needs of our economy, is absolutely vital. All is not lost, however; the Government can do a lot to remedy the situation. They do appear to be listening, and they have accepted that there is more to do, particularly in helping local authorities meet their statutory needs. A more fundamental change of attitude is needed, however, so that careers advice is not seen as an afterthought, but is at the heart of a child’s education—I agreed with the Minister’s heckle on the hon. Member for Burnley, that such advice must begin earlier than the age of 12.
Schools need more help—both financial help and guidance—from the Government, but it does not necessarily have to be at high cost. Crucially, to raise standards and quality across the board, I believe Ofsted should inspect careers advice in schools. I know that Ofsted has requested that, and the Government are currently reviewing it.
I hope the Government listen carefully to all that is said in this important debate. I hope that they take on board some of the constructive suggestions, which I hope they will hear. We all want a system that meets both the Government’s objectives and the needs of the employers in our constituencies, and I hope the Government will bring forward further plans to help promote that.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
It is an honour to follow distinguished Members from the north-west—it is interesting to note that all those who have contributed to the debate so far, with one honourable exception, have come from the north-west of England, and that shows the enthusiasm and commitment across the House on this vital subject.
I am delighted to speak in this debate on careers advice. Like my hon. Friend the Minister, I spent most of my career in business. She fully understands the importance of enterprise, initiative and risk taking. I remember the burning passion she expressed in her maiden speech to increase the focus on maths, science and technology, and to move them from geek to chic— I agree with that, and I leave it to hon. Members to decide who has been most successful in taking that forward.
Like the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), I want to focus my remarks on careers in business, in relation to which pupils have historically not been well served by careers advice. One of the key questions children should be asked is, “Hands up, who wants to have a career in business?” In the past, the answer to that question has too often been equivocal; that answer not only shapes the life chances of young people but has a major bearing on the competitiveness of this country. It is absolutely vital that we encourage more pupils to embrace the culture of enterprise and that we signpost that career trajectory for them.
The days of careers advice being simply a one-to-one meeting between a careers adviser and a pupil in a room somewhere in a school, looking at some book, have long gone. That model is hopelessly out of date, is 20th century in its focus, and fails to notice that young people have embraced new technologies and new approaches to gathering information. I believe passionately that we need to look at completely new models to engage youngsters—practical business engagement projects, which signpost ways into careers, that are relevant to young people and to what needs to happen in the world of business.
I welcome the Government’s moves to create the National Careers Service and to require schools to secure independent careers guidance on a full range of education and training options It is also right, and critically important, that clear destination measures are published, so that we know the outcomes of such activity. I hope that the destination of many more young people will be a career in manufacturing, enterprise and commerce. Like many others, I await with interest the report of the Ofsted thematic review. I want to see how we can raise ambitions, help people to improve their skills, and raise awareness. We should never be shy of taking on those important tasks.
Sadly, according to a recent CBI survey, 70 % of employers feel that school leavers do not demonstrate enough business awareness. An Ofsted report on business education, published in June 2011, went further, saying that students taking part in business-related education often had
“only vague ideas about the economy”.
That must change.
In 2012, just 58,000 pupils in England chose to take GCSEs in business studies, whereas 70,000 took GCSEs in drama and nearly 98,000 took them in physical education. Of course, a GCSE in business studies is not the only, and perhaps not even the best, benchmark of business education, but if a dedicated course in business studies is demonstrably not appealing enough to young people, or rigorous enough to be endorsed and recognised in further and higher education, we need to think about how else we might work the thread of business, economics and enterprise into the skills set and the career trajectory.
It is a sad fact that too many of our students are not particularly likely to be “signposted” into thinking about business skills and the need for a career in business. They are also unlikely to continue their business education after graduation. I am glad that the Government have woken up to the idea that it is about time to step up a gear in the global race.
Australia has just conducted a nationwide consultation on the place of economics and business in a future-orientated school curriculum. It plans to start introducing business and economics themes into formal education at an earlier stage than was suggested by the hon. Member for Burnley, when children are only 10. Australia’s aim is to ensure that the resulting knowledge, skills, attitudes, beliefs and values encourage students to participate in economic and business activities, so that the country can compete fully in the Pacific rim. I believe that we should take every possible step to improve our own country’s competitiveness on the international stage.
It is vital that we bring more local business leaders into the classroom to put the case for business and act as positive role models. What we need and want are careers in action, not careers in abstract. Local champions can bring much-needed experience to schools, nurture talent, and excite pupils by showing them what can be achieved and how to set about achieving it. The Federation of Small Businesses has recently been trying to increase by hundreds the number of schools and colleges that engage with businesses, and is encouraging many of its members to become school governors. I believe that its work is vital. Much more can be done in schools to prepare pupils for their future careers in our future economy.
This is not just about the classroom, however. We need to build on best practice in extra-curricular activities. Exceptional work is being done at All Hallows Catholic college in Macclesfield, where enterprising students in all age groups have been encouraged to set up their own small businesses, face a “Dragons’ Den”-style panel of judges, and engage with local businesses—Manchester United, for one. When finalising their business plans and marketing strategies, they receive input from those businesses. What is more, the profits that they make are put back into the local community, and into the work that is done to support those in India who are needier and more deserving. Those amazing activities have completely changed the culture in the school.
More businesses need to come forward to engage with schools. Siemens, in nearby Congleton, recently involved local schools in a “rollercoaster challenge” to interest people—particularly young people—in engineering. Competitions such as that are practical ways of making young people think about what they could do with their careers, and about their GCSE choices. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), would be keen to agree that, further south in Cheshire, Bentley is providing fantastic work experience.
I could move on to talk further about apprenticeships, but time does not permit me to do so. There are so many options that we can bring to bear to help us in this vital task. Winston Churchill wrote in his inspiring book, “My Early Life” that the world was made to be
“wooed and won by youth.”
We need to embrace that sentiment in the way we provide careers advice, to help the next generation of business leaders in the UK to be not only highly skilled, but properly advised and fully motivated to improve the nation’s economic competitiveness.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
We have had an interesting, if petite, debate. All Members present share a belief in the value of careers guidance, but that might not be shared by the Government Whips Office.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) on securing this important debate. He spoke brilliantly and passionately about rebalancing the economy and how that might be undermined by skills shortages, with particular reference to the aerospace industry and the question of a gender divide and the number of young female engineers. I take on board, too, his point about the challenge of providing careers advice in schools. That is why the Opposition thought it was an error to take £200 million out of the previous career Connexions service, which did not serve to follow the policy through into schools.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) spoke brilliantly about patchy careers advice and the effect that can have. He rightly highlighted the critique provided by the Education Committee, which said it was regrettable that the careers advice function had been moved into schools. He spoke, too, of the axing of dedicated careers services. We have seen that right across the piece, which is why this debate is so important. The Government careers policy is directly opposed to everything the hon. Member for Burnley seeks to put in place to rebalance our economy. My hon. Friend also spoke very well about the mismatching of jobs to ambitions. We should also note the comments of the Government social mobility tsar, Alan Milburn, about young people not doing the right A-levels, and then seeking to go to university with very good grades only to find that they have been poorly advised as to what degree to pursue.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) drew on his career in business to argue strongly for a more business-focused careers guidance, and for getting business advocates into schools. Like us, he is hopeful that the destination measures will provide some degree of clarity. He contrasted the business GCSE with the drama GCSE, but that was a little unfair, I think, as one of the great business strengths of modern Britain is our drama industry—our cinematic and theatrical industries. He was right, however, to urge that business advocacy in schools.
The Labour party agrees with the Education Committee that independent careers advice and guidance has never been as important for young people as it is today. We also start from the point that this is a question both of social justice and of rebalancing the economy.
It could be argued that bringing careers guidance into schools has crippled potential pathways to technical and vocational education for many students. While the academic route of following GCSE, A-level and then maybe a degree is clearly understood by many teachers, providing more specific advice about vocational qualifications, traineeships and apprenticeships, and how to marry that with a level 3 qualification, takes real knowledge and understanding of the system, which those who are asked to advise in schools might not possess. If we want greater achievement in our technical and vocational sector, we need to get talent into those quarters. Moreover, it is simply not in the interests of schools to outline alternative routes, and for a Conservative-led Government usually so attuned to the threat of producer interest, the allocation of careers advice to schools has been an own goal. Very few schools have the bravery to explain to their pupils the full diversity of further education and vocational pathways while the loss of their pupils’ funding stream is at stake. We recently heard evidence from an excellent teacher from one of the Harris academies, who said, “We bring in outside external guidance and we tell them to tell our pupils that they cannot go to the college up the road. We have no interest in losing those funding streams.” What we then lose as a country is the capacity to go down vocational and technical routes that are more complicated to pursue.
We are troubled not only by the impartiality aspect, but by issues of funding, insufficient practical guidance, a poorly defined approach to how we share best practice, a capabilities deficit and an accountability regime that is nowhere near robust enough. We look forward to the Ofsted thematic review, which I understand has now been pushed back to September, clarifying some of these issues.
On funding, the Labour party acknowledges that in the current fiscal climate it is not appropriate to provide additional funding, but the Government should not present the withdrawal of the £200 million that used to fund careers advice as consequence-free. Schools have each faced a £25,000 stealth cut as a result of this money not being transferred along with the statutory duty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde suggested, we need to know what actions the Minister is taking to provide guidance and support, and to disseminate best practice. As I understand it, head teachers have to know the names and addresses of CORGI-registered boiler technicians for their schools, but they have no guidance about or lists of qualified careers advisers. Head teachers can fix the boiler but when it comes to their pupils’ careers they are not necessarily given the right amount of information.
Let me end by returning to the Government’s social mobility adviser, Mr Alan Milburn. He wrote:
“High-quality information, advice and guidance”—
on careers—
“is crucial in helping young people to develop ambitious but achievable plans, which are more likely to lead to positive outcomes.”
He dedicated his career to improving careers services, raising aspiration and increasing social mobility, yet only this weekend he criticised the Government’s “half-hearted” and incoherent approach in this area. He said:
“I don’t get the sense that this is sufficiently part of the DNA of what this government is about”.
I very much hope that the Minister can convince us otherwise, or else we are facing exactly the kind of skills shortage and unbalanced economy that the hon. Member for Burnley so wisely warned us of this evening.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) on securing this debate and on his role as apprenticeship ambassador. He came up from an apprenticeship and succeeded, and that sends a good signal to young people today. I am delighted to speak in this debate. I am sure that hon. Members know that the reason my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Skills is not here is because he is so committed to Department for Business, Innovation and Skills policy that he is trialling shared parental leave.
I agree with what hon. Members have said about there being a mismatch on skills. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley pointed out that many businesses are struggling to recruit people with skills in maths, science, technology and engineering, and we have figures suggesting that 23% of businesses have identified skills shortages, particularly in that area. One thing I am passionate about is promoting mathematics, the subject with the highest earnings premium at A-level, at degree level and beyond. One of this Government’s aims is to ensure that within a decade the vast majority of students will be studying the subject to 18. At the moment, this country has the lowest proportion doing so in the OECD. That is a major reason why we do not have enough engineers coming through, either from apprenticeships or at graduate level.
We know that an hourglass economy is developing across the globe, where higher levels of skills are going to be required of all our people. We need to ensure that students have good advice and as high an aspiration as possible from a very early age. I think it is too late to start this in secondary school; the evidence suggests that many children, especially girls, form clear ideas about the kinds of career they will go into when they are in primary school. It is very important that we see the role of primary teachers as also helping to develop aspirations and broaden horizons. I was pleased recently to speak to the Personal Finance Education Group, which, as well as talking to children about how to manage money, is also keen to talk to them about which careers will lead to the greatest long-term rewards. One thing it is very keen to promote is engineering. I am very pleased that it is going to primary schools to do that.
We are also revising the new design and technology curriculum so that there is much more of a focus on industrial application, and are working with businesses to ensure that it is flexible and can offer that. I know that many local primaries in my constituency are already doing such work and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) that we need to convince people that they can be chic and geek from an early age, so that more students do such subjects. I think people can be chic and geek now.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) that careers must be at the heart of a school. That is why we have integrated such provision as a core duty for schools. Subject choice and career choice go hand in hand and year after year we have seen too many students closing the doors on careers they could have had by not making subject choices that keep their options open. It is entirely sensible that schools should have that duty. I was at Springwood high school in King’s Lynn on Friday and I saw the provision working well in practice. The school does tremendous research on the local and national jobs market, seeing what careers are available; encourages students to aspire at all levels; works with local employers; and runs visits to universities around the country. Each student has a teacher mentor who ensures that they get good advice all the way through. I do not think that careers advice is a one-off—it is the role of schools to ensure that they do not just talk about future careers but encourage students to choose subjects, to try harder and to work at things that will be successful in the future.
The school has independent advisers, too, and the new destination measures we are introducing give schools a strong incentive in that regard. The best schools, of course, are already doing that. What is most important, however, is something that we have not discussed enough in the debate—that is, the subject choices students make, particularly at the age of 14.
The Government have introduced the English baccalaureate, which has encouraged more students to study triple science and languages, keeping careers options open. We know that the CBI has said that 72% of businesses want students who study languages. We are also introducing the tech bac from 16 to 18 so that there is a high-value qualification, including level 3 maths and an occupational qualification. There are strong, rigorous options for technical and academic education. We are also introducing a new computing curriculum so that students learn to programme from an early age, which is vital to fill the massive shortage we have in technical occupations.
Schools have a strong incentive to deliver. I do not think that there was a golden era of careers advice. In fact, Alan Milburn, whom the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) is fond of quoting, admitted that
“throughout our work, we have barely heard a good word said about the careers work of the current Connexions service.”
That was the service provided under the previous Government.
We have introduced a national careers service, set up by the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), and given schools a strong role so that they can help students not just with aspirations but with critical things such as subject choice. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools has said that we will consider Ofsted’s thematic review of careers to ensure that we make any changes we have to make. Our aspiration is for every student in this country to use their talents to the maximum and have strong aspirations for the future.
Gordon Birtwistle
My role as apprenticeship ambassador for the Government brought me to believe that we had to do this—[Interruption.] I am not a tsar. Russians are tsars, and I am not a Russian. I will never be a Russian.
As apprenticeship ambassador, I have met dozens of young people and I can only say that I am immensely proud of them. They are leading this country into the future. A young lady at Blackpool was told that she was too clever to be an engineer and that she should be a doctor or a solicitor, and her parents did not speak to her for a month when she went to BAE Systems. That young lady epitomises what we should have. She is top of the pile.
Speaking to those young people made me believe that we need to invest in them. We need to invest in the careers advice they need. That is not a waste of money—it is good for the country and good for social returns. For many years, it will give this country the people to drive us on in a secure future with a rebalanced economy. Let us get on with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of careers advice in schools for 12 to 16 year olds.
Business without Debate
National Railway Museum
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
On Friday, the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and I were presented with this massive petition about the National Railway museum in York, which is quite simply the world’s best railway museum. If you want to see the original engineering drawings by George Stephenson for the Rocket, they are there; if you want to see the engine that 75 years ago set the steam engine world speed record, the Mallard, it is there. The petition is signed by Steve Hughes, editor of The Press, York’s daily newspaper, and 13,500 other people from the City of York.
The petition states:
The Petition of Steve Hughes, Editor of “The Press” York and the people of York,
Declares that the Petitioners note with concern that the National Railway Museum, one of the most treasured attractions in York and the UK, and one of the world's best transport museums, is threatened with closure.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the National Railway Museum remains open.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001185]
Police and Crime Commissioners
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Twenty-six years and 13 days after his original election, I call Mr Keith Vaz.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I had no idea you were keeping count so very carefully, Mr Speaker, but thank you for reminding me.
I am delighted to be able to raise the issue of police and crime commissioner accountability on the Floor of the House tonight. I am pleased to see the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice here to answer the debate, having appeared before the Select Committee on Home Affairs only last week.
On 15 November 2012, 41 police and crime commissioners were elected, representing a total population of 48 million and covering individual populations of up to 2.6 million people, earning salaries of between £65,000 and £117,000 a year, and between them controlling billions of pounds of spending on police in England and Wales. Since 2010, the Home Secretary has embarked on what can only be described as a revolution in policing: whole organisations have been changed, some have been abolished, some merged, and others are at this moment in a state of limbo. Names that we have become used to, such as the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the National Policing Improvement Agency and police authorities, have been or will be replaced by the College of Policing, the National Crime Agency and 41 elected police and crime commissioners. The police commissioners were introduced to bring a democratic element into the new landscape of policing. I fully support the vision behind them, which is one of the democratic accountability of our police service.
Allegations today that undercover officers spied on the Lawrence family are just one of a number of recent events in policing that have shown why this new element of democratic accountability is vital to the landscape of policing. In creating the commissioners, the Home Secretary was seeking to construct a new and better, more accountable policing edifice. However, it has become clear that there may be a number of structural faults, and if these are not addressed quickly, this gleaming new building will collapse.
The birth of the commissioners was a long and difficult one. The original election date had to be changed, voters did not receive a formal election mailing—they were asked to look at websites—and there was a record low turnout. In Devon and Cornwall, Commissioner Tony Hogg was elected by only 5% of the electorate. In Wales, at a Newport polling station, not a single vote was cast. The commissioners are a new breed, although some of them are known to us. Six commissioners are former Members of Parliament, including Alun Michael from South Wales, Jane Kennedy from Merseyside, Paddy Tipping from Nottinghamshire, Vera Baird from Northumbria, Sir Graham Bright from Cambridgeshire, and Tony Lloyd from Greater Manchester.
Subsequent to their election, the first actions of some commissioners were to make appointments to their offices, which vary hugely in size, from 40 staff in Tony Lloyd’s Greater Manchester office to just four in Vera Baird’s office in Northumbria. There are 16 Conservative, 13 Labour and 12 independent police commissioners. The House will know that there has been much controversy over political appointments. The Committee heard from the West Yorkshire commissioner, Mark Burns-Williamson, for example, who appointed the wife of his party’s regional director in Yorkshire and Humberside, who oversaw his selection, to become his deputy on a salary of £53,000. Both the Labour West Midlands commissioner, Bob Jones, and the Conservative Northamptonshire commissioner, Adam Simmonds, made political appointments to the post of assistant commissioner.
Not a week has passed without articles in newspapers about the activities of some commissioners, and I shall give just four examples. Newspapers reported that three police officers were arrested after allegedly leaking details of Cumbrian Commissioner Richard Rhodes’s undeclared expenses to the press. Richard Rhodes has written to my Committee to clarify the position, and we have published his letter on our website. The Mail on Sunday ran a splash raising questions about the office of the Thames Valley commissioner, Anthony Stansfeld, who is the Prime Minister’s local commissioner. Last week, the Watford Observer said that in April alone, in his capacity as Hertfordshire commissioner, David Lloyd accepted hospitality with outsourcing companies Serco and Capgemini. It was also revealed by the newspapers that the Surrey commissioner, Kevin Hurley, ran a private security firm, and it was claimed that that was a conflict of interest. Mr Hurley denies that. The House and the public need to decide if that is just press speculation or something more serious reflecting general unease about the activities of some commissioners.
So much is not known about the commissioners that the Select Committee decided to produce a report to set out all the issues and to provide an easy way to refer to what the commissioners were doing, effectively creating a central register of interests. I want to thank Richard Benwell for his hard work on the Committee’s register. Our report was prompted by a lack of transparency: the fact that the Government refused to collate such a register themselves led to our decision to produce one.
In May 2013, four commissioners had still not published the required budget data online: Humberside’s Matthew Grove; Norfolk’s Stephen Bett; North Wales’s Winston Roddick; and Suffolk’s Tim Passmore. Twenty-three commissioners have yet to publish the full statutory information required.
Despite the permanent secretary telling the Committee on Tuesday that he had e-mailed his own staff saying that the Home Office needs to be much more transparent, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has refused to disclose details of meetings that have taken place between the Home Office and commissioners. His excuse was that it was on the website, yet he answered in full a similar question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) on 12 December. Ministers need to be open and transparent with Members of the House when they ask questions about police and crime commissioners, rather than referring them to Home Office websites.
Transparency is vital to allow a full and fair analysis of the momentous decisions that some of the commissioners have to make. The biggest power they wield is the ability to hire and fire chief constables. This month Gwent’s commissioner, Ian Johnston, apparently forced the chief constable of Gwent, Carmel Napier, to retire. The reason he cited was that she was hostile to the idea of commissioners and their relationship was “never going to work.” We hope to hear from both the Gwent Commissioner and the former chief constable at the Committee in the near future. In Lincolnshire Commissioner Alan Hardwick’s suspension of Chief Constable Rhodes was later reversed by a High Court judge, who called it “irrational and perverse.” Ten chief constables have resigned or retired since November 2012.
The police and crime panels are meant to hold commissioners to account on all these issues. They are the only groups standing between commissioners and a four-year period in which they can, in effect, do whatever they like. However, as soon as the cold light of scrutiny was shone on them by the Committee, we found that these panels were often compromised by political allegiances, and some lacked the guidance, legal advice and legal powers that they required. The Kent police and crime panel never scrutinised Commissioner Anne Barnes’s decision to appoint a youth and crime commissioner on a salary of £15,000. Gwent’s commissioner, Ian Johnston, admitted to a group of Labour Gwent MPs that until the details of his meeting with Chief Constable Napier were leaked, he had had no intention of informing the panel of the full details of her departure.
The Lincolnshire police and crime panel did not meet for two months to discuss the suspension of Chief Constable Rhodes. The panel chairman told the Committee that it received poor and confused legal advice and in the end the chairman had to write to the Minister asking what to do. Just a few days after appearing before the Committee, Lincolnshire’s panel chair, Councillor Ray Wootten, resigned after “inadvertently misleading” the Committee. Apparently it was he who was confused, not the legal advice that he had been given. He and the other panel chairs we heard from, Councillor Patricia O’Brien in Suffolk and Councillor Peter Box, issued a plea that the Home Secretary had left them alone in their mammoth scrutiny task and they needed more help and support to achieve proper scrutiny.
The situation is so serious that Sir Hugh Orde, one of the country’s most distinguished police officers and the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, has branded the system for holding commissioners to account
“the worst system you can possibly have”
and demanded a meeting between chief constables and the Home Secretary—an astonishing statement from someone as senior as Sir Hugh, and a statement that I hope the Government will listen to. I hope that when the Minister replies, he will tell the House when and where this meeting between Sir Hugh and the Home Secretary will take place. I hope he will not refer me to a website.
London’s own police and crime commissioner, Mayor Boris Johnson, and his relationship with Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan commissioner, is proof that with proper scrutiny, the system can work. We can also look to Leicestershire, where Commissioner Sir Clive Loader and Chief Constable Simon Cole get on very well indeed. We want to see relationships like this replicated across the country.
Her Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary, Tom Winsor, recently told the Committee that he thought there was scope for the inspectorate to have a greater role in the new landscape. HMIC should take over publication of the central register of interests started by the Committee, as well as the register of chief constables’ interests, which still does not have a home. The chief executive of the College of Policing, Alex Marshall, should ensure that police and crime panels have a representative on the college’s board, and indeed the college should provide them with training, guidance and legal advice.
As the level 2 transfer deadline approaches, some commissioners will choose to take over important matters such as procurement. The Home Secretary has said that she is looking at commissioners taking over 999 contracts, including for ambulance and fire services, which is a most interesting idea.
A number of these issues would never have arisen in the first place if the Government had done as the Select Committee recommended in our report on the new landscape of policing published earlier this year, in which we suggested the introduction of a “Magna Carta”. This would be an agreed document, signed by police and crime commissioners and chief constables, setting out the rights and responsibilities of the various parties.
There is unquestionably a very important role for commissioners in the new landscape. I want to pay tribute to the work that many of them do; it is no easy task to take the first steps in a completely new and important area of policy. The police need to be accountable to the taxpayer for the money they spend, the priorities they choose and, indeed, the mistakes they make. However, we must ensure that there is a sound process in place for making commissioners accountable. After all, we will have to wait another three and a half years until the next election, and nothing can be done until then. That is why my colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee have agreed to conduct a major inquiry into commissioners on the anniversary of their elections. We want the public to have their say on this important issue. If the police commissioners are to assume their place as the bedrock of more transparent and accountable policing in the Home Secretary’s new landscape, we must get the process right, and we must get it right now.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) on securing the debate and am grateful for his support for the Government’s vision of a more accountable police service. He made the standard disobliging remarks about turnout at the elections, but I should point out that 5 million people voted, which is approximately 5 million more than the number who elected anyone who sat on a police authority.
The police and crime commissioners have been in office for six and a half months, and in that relatively short time they have made a significant impact. Crime has fallen by more than 10% under this Government and has continued to fall since the PCCs were elected, against the challenging economic climate. PCCs not only represent the most significant democratic reform of policing we have seen; they are also proving to be central figures in helping to cut crime. In the past six months all the PCCs have published their police and crime plans and engaged with the public in a way that police authorities did not, and indeed could not. PCCs have made pledges and put in place measures to improve services offered to victims and to protect the vulnerable from those who would prey on them.
The right hon. Gentleman listed a series of newspaper articles criticising PCCs and said that they were appearing almost weekly. I merely observe that articles that are critical of Members of this House appear almost daily, but that does not mean that parliamentary democracy is a bad thing. Newspapers are there to criticise, and elected representatives are there to defend their position.
I am genuinely puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman’s objection to looking up information on websites. The internet is common these days and many can access it; it is the easiest way for the public to access information. He is as capable as anyone in the country of accessing information on a website.
Keith Vaz
When a Member of Parliament asks a question of a Minister about when they have a meeting with a police and crime commissioner, the Minister should answer the question rather than saying, “Wait until it is published in three months’ time”. That is my point. I have no problem in accessing the internet.
Damian Green
I am delighted to hear it. As I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman at the Select Committee last week, this Government are the most transparent ever. Previous Governments, including the Government of whom he was a leading and distinguished member, did not routinely publish the meetings their Ministers had in the way that my ministerial colleagues and I do.
I do not accept at all the right hon. Gentleman’s implication or accusation that the Government are in any way trying to hide information about meetings. Indeed, as he pointed out, I replied in some detail to the shadow Policing Minister about a meeting I had with police commissioners. Any imputation that such meetings are covered up is factually inaccurate.
As a result of the arrival of police and crime commissioners, we are seeing the development of innovative and challenging thinking that cuts to the heart of crime reduction and prevention in our communities. That thinking is the work of a disparate group of individuals who are nevertheless united in their commitment to a single goal that cuts across party politics or ideological leanings—that of cutting crime, reducing the harm that comes to our citizens from those who would wish to do them harm, and making our streets and communities safer places to live.
Those innovations, brought about by the police and crime commissioners, can be split into three broad groups: challenging the criminal justice system to deliver for victims and the vulnerable; challenging local partners to play their part in cutting crime; and challenging forces to drive the changes needed to ensure that front-line services are maintained and improved.
Let me illustrate some of the ideas being brought to life. In the first group, we see examples such as Martyn Underhill, the independent PCC for Dorset, who is developing a victims bureau where victims are supported throughout their journey through the criminal justice system by a single point of contact. Another example is Shaun Wright, Labour PCC for South Yorkshire, who is allocating extra funding to assist the work to prevent child sexual exploitation.
In the second group, Matthew Ellis, the Conservative PCC from Staffordshire, has focused on the interaction between the police and those with mental health issues. He is looking at how officers can reduce the time spent with such individuals, without compromising the service to those who need it. Sue Mountstevens, the independent PCC from Avon and Somerset, is establishing a business crime forum for business leaders to provide input into policing best practice on such areas as CCTV security, security staff and joint initiatives. That will be coupled with prevention work with communities and schools.
In the third group, we are seeing PCCs challenge forces to drive essential changes. PCCs of all kinds are looking at how the police can work more closely with the fire service. Sir Graham Bright, the Conservative PCC from Cambridgeshire, has begun work to exploit better the existing IT systems to provide the opportunity to automate and improve the flow of information across the force. That work is designed to get key information to the officers on the beat when they need it and provides the opportunity for the public to access the police quickly through digital means.
Such innovations have not come about by accident, but by design on the part of the individual PCCs. That is a direct result of the Government achieving what they set out to do all along with the introduction of PCCs—to shift accountability away from Whitehall into the hands of locally elected representatives, who understand the needs and the priorities of the people in their areas far better than policy makers in Whitehall ever could.
The right hon. Gentleman implied that some kind of accountability gap is developing between Whitehall and PCCs. That is not the case. This Government have given serious thought to how we can improve the accountability of the entirety of policing, not just the leadership, and that is why we are seeing improvements in the information that is available to the public. In the case of PCCs, the Home Secretary rightly retains backstop powers that we do not envisage using, but the day-to-day management, governance and oversight of the forces have transferred into the hands of PCCs. The legislation that underpins PCCs is enabling legislation, not preventive legislation. The supposed accountability gap is a fiction created by people who cannot bear to see the transference of accountability away from Whitehall, where it was held for so long—indeed, for too long. The truth of the matter is that what we have seen demonstrates that we were right all along. The challenges and, indeed, controversies that we are seeing are the product of PCCs doing the job they have been elected to do.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly made a point about the availability of information. I share his desire for increasing transparency. We are working towards ensuring that key elements of the information required by legislation are published on the national police.uk website. We are confident that this will enable the public to access even more easily the information they need to hold their PCC to account. Under the specified information order, PCCs have to publish a register of interests, including every pecuniary interest or other paid interest, budgets, contracts and tenders, senior salaries, expenses, and key decisions. We have been clear that it is not the role of central Government to establish and maintain a national register of interests. This is not co-ordinated because the public want to hold their own local PCC, and not all 41 PCCs, to account.
Significant structures and safeguards are in place to ensure that PCCs are able to fulfil the role that the Government intended for them. PCCs already benefit from appropriate checks and balances, as befits their status as democratically elected individuals, through locally elected councillors with strong powers to question the PCC, through the statutory framework that underpins the office of PCC, and ultimately, of course, at the ballot box. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, PCCs work every day in the full gaze and scrutiny of the media.
Specific safeguards include the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, which brought PCCs into being. That is enhanced by the Policing Protocol Order 2011, a document that has been commended in the House of Lords for its ease of comprehension. These documents clearly set out the powers that police and crime panels have to provide supportive scrutiny to their relevant PCCs. Those powers include, but are not limited to, the power to ensure that the appointment of a chief constable is subject to the scrutiny and the potential veto of the panel; the power to ensure that the dismissal of a chief constable is open to proper scrutiny and follows clear procedure; and the power to require that information held by the PCC is made available to the panel and therefore to the public.
If there have been failings in the system—the failings that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—they may be the result of chairs of panels, and panels themselves, having a lack of understanding of the powers they hold and the role they fulfil. We are confident that panels have the powers they need to fulfil their scrutiny roles. He mentioned the incidents in Lincolnshire. As he knows, the chairman of the panel there wrote to the Home Office asking for advice about whether he could hold a scrutiny meeting. I wrote back to him saying that he could, and he chose to ignore that advice. With the best will in the world, there is not a lot more that the Policing Minister can do when asked for advice than to give it, and if the chair of the panel—former chair; he has subsequently left the job—chooses to ignore it, that is a matter for him.
The protocol is explicit:
“At all times the Chief Constable, their constables and staff, remain operationally independent in the service of the communities that they serve.”
That could not be clearer. Regardless of which PCC is in office, the police have the discretion to use their judgment when deciding who to investigate or arrest, and must by law be wholly without influence of the PCC.
There have been several high-profile cases where the performance of the chief constable has been challenged by the PCC. That is a positive symptom of the shift in accountability from Whitehall to PCCs. It is right that the role of chief constable and the post-holder are open to challenge, and that PCCs have the mandate to challenge them on behalf of the people they represent. It would be a disservice to PCCs and chief constables, who are professionals, to suggest that they would be unable to maintain a professional and productive working relationship having come through any such challenge.
There has been criticism of the size and structure of the offices of PCCs. Indeed, we have heard some tonight from the right hon. Gentleman. There are significant variations. In the examples that he gave, that is partly because of the difference in size between Greater Manchester and Northumbria. However, PCCs have the mandate and the knowledge to determine what is needed to carry out their remit. Who else is better placed to judge that? Equally importantly, all information regarding the offices of PCCs is available to the public, so people will be able to take into account the value for money that their PCC has delivered when they next cast their vote. That is also true of the appointment of deputies and other figures who support the PCC in their duties. Whether those appointments are appropriate or necessary is not for me to say; it is for the public to judge at the ballot box.
PCCs have been complying with the requirements that we made on them to be transparent. The Elected Local Policing Bodies (Specified Information) Order 2011 requires PCCs to publish key information. That includes a register of interests that must include all other pecuniary or paid interests, expenses, budgets, contracts and tenders, senior salaries, and key decisions. The intention is for the public to use that information to hold PCCs to account. I would contrast that with the situation that used to obtain with police authorities.
Police and crime commissioners are doing much that all Members of every party can be proud of. Those actions are a function of the shift in accountability from Whitehall to PCCs. The innovation and ambition in PCCs’ plans for their areas are testimony to their dedication to the role, their commitment to the people of their areas and their desire to make a real change, which is precisely what is happening. It is evident to me that PCCs are doing exactly what Parliament had intended and many of them are doing it extremely well.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Cabinet Office
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Lefroy
13. To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent steps he has taken to give small- and medium-sized enterprises greater access to Government contracts.
[Official Report, 19 June 2013, Vol. 564, c. 737-8W.]
Letter of correction from Chloe Smith:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on 19 June 2013.
The full answer given was as follows:
Miss Chloe Smith
It is this Government's policy to increase the Government's direct spend with SMEs to 25% and spend with SMEs across Government has steadily increased since 2010 as a result of the steps we have taken. We have required all Departments to put in place plans to ensure that their spend with small companies continues to increase.
The correct answer should have been:
Miss Chloe Smith
It is this Government's policy to increase the Government's spend with SMEs to 25% directly and in the supply chain and spend with SMEs across Government has steadily increased since 2010 as a result of the steps we have taken. We have required all Departments to put in place plans to ensure that their spend with small companies continues to increase.
Written Statement
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Middle East Peace Process
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
I would like to provide the House with an update on the middle east peace process, following recent visits by myself and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The search for middle east peace remains an urgent global priority in 2013. At the start of this year we were clear about the overriding need for the United States, supported by the international community, to lead an effort to revitalise the peace process. The events of the Arab spring, particularly the threat posed by conflict in Syria, make the need for progress even more pressing. We therefore deeply appreciate the leadership which the US, and particularly Secretary John Kerry, are showing on this issue. Britain stands fully behind these efforts to revive the peace process. We remain in close contact with the United States. On 12 June in Washington, the Foreign Secretary discussed with Secretary Kerry the prospects for progress on the peace process and stressed UK support for his efforts.
The Foreign Secretary visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories on 23-24 May, to demonstrate UK support for US efforts to bring about credible negotiations. He met with key figures from both sides, including Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas, and welcomed their clear commitment to a two-state solution and to work to achieve peace for the Israeli and Palestinian people. With both parties, the Foreign Secretary set out the urgent need for them to show bold and decisive leadership and engage seriously with US efforts. The Foreign Secretary made it clear that there was no credible alternative to Secretary Kerry’s initiative.
The Foreign Secretary set out the UK’s commitment to seeing a negotiated two-state solution. We want to see a sovereign, viable and contiguous Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, living in peace and security alongside a safe and secure Israel and their other neighbours in the region, with Jerusalem the shared capital of both states and a just, fair and agreed solution on refugees, and where both prosper and both enjoy privileged partnerships and enhanced trade relations with the EU.
The Foreign Secretary also underlined UK concern about Israeli settlement activity and the threat this poses to the two-state solution. He visited a Bedouin family in the E1 area of the west bank, where he heard about the impact of the Israeli occupation on vulnerable Palestinian communities, including the threat of house demolition and the issue of settler violence.
I subsequently visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories on 11-13 June, to reinforce our support for US efforts and the priority of serious engagement. In Israel, I met Justice Minister and chief negotiator Tzipi Livni, International Relations and Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s personal envoy Isaac Molcho. In Ramallah, I met Palestinian President Abbas and Prime Minister Hamdallah (who has since resigned), and paid another visit to the village of Nabi Saleh in the west bank. I also visited Gaza and southern Israel, to understand the impact of movement and access restrictions on the livelihoods of ordinary people, and the reality faced by families who live in fear of rocket attacks. We are clear that a solution to the problems of Gaza is urgently needed, that economic restrictions should be lifted and that any negotiated two-state solution must include Gaza—Gaza is a fundamental part of a future Palestinian state.
Both the Foreign Secretary and I made it clear to our Israeli and Palestinian partners that maintaining the status quo is neither desirable, nor practicable. As Secretary Kerry has said, a stalemate today will not remain one tomorrow. We are running out of time to achieve a two-state solution as the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate. Yet any alternatives would be harder still. There is no such thing as a one-state “solution”, only a one-state reality, which would not fulfil the legitimate national aspirations of the peoples of either side.
The parties, and we, currently face a choice: either we move towards peace, with the strong support of the region and the wider international community, or we face an uncertain and dangerous future. This is why the Government will continue to do all we can to support US efforts. In this context, we will discuss specific steps the EU can take in support at the EU Foreign Affairs Council on 24 June. And we will continue to work actively with the United States, the Israelis and Palestinians, and our other international partners including the Arab League, to achieve peace before the window for a two state solution closes.
Grand Committee
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Andrews)
My Lords if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, Amendment 14F is quite a narrow probing amendment. At the start of our deliberations today, perhaps I should just make clear that although we have some concerns about the fragmentation of the new local audit regime—an amendment to cover this will be forthcoming on Wednesday—we accept the broad technical means by which the Government seek to implement its framework, drawing on the Companies Act 2006 and the Audit Commission Act 1998. Our probing should be seen in that context.
The Companies Act 2006 sets out who may be treated as holding an appropriate qualification for the purposes of acting as a statutory auditor. A Secretary of State can include in this persons who are qualified to audit accounts under the law of a foreign country and someone who holds a professional qualification in a specified foreign country. For these purposes, an EU state is not treated as a foreign country. These provisions are specifically excluded from operating under the Bill, so can the Minister please confirm, under the local audit regime, what is the position of individuals qualified in an EU country regime, especially given the broader nature of local bodies’ audit? What is the rationale for excluding other foreign qualifications, which are included in the Companies Act? I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, the Government believe that the Bill provides for sufficient suitable qualifications to be recognised for the purposes of local audit. As the noble Lord said, this amendment seeks to find out about the qualifications and, in particular, the approval of overseas qualifications from non-EU countries for the purpose of statutory audit. It also sets out the conditions that will need to be satisfied relating to the assurance of professional competence of those holding an overseas qualification.
Section 1221 provides for approval of all those in a specified country who are qualified to audit accounts or only those who hold specified qualifications in that country. In the case of the latter, the Secretary of State may specify any additional requirements to be satisfied. The section allows the Secretary of State to recognise an overseas qualification only if there is comparability and/or equivalence of treatment of United Kingdom qualifications in the country in question.
For local audit, an auditor will hold a suitable qualification if it is one recognised under Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006 or if it is another qualification recognised under the Bill. If a third-country audit qualification has been recognised for company audit through the application of Section 1221 of the Companies Act 2006, it would be deemed an appropriate qualification for local audit. I must stress that we would expect anyone employed under those circumstances to have experience of local audit as carried out in this country. I hope that will help the noble Lord and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister. I may have missed it, but what provision allows the Secretary of State to take account of a third-country qualification? I ask because the Bill specifically omits the provisions of the Companies Act which permit that. I was trying to spot the precise bit of the Bill that allows that to happen. I think it is entirely appropriate that it does—if it does—but if the noble Baroness could give me the particular reference, that would be good. Presumably for EU nationals, the position has not changed. Whatever EU directive applies, they would be entitled to be considered, as indeed someone with a UK qualification would be in Europe.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, EU auditors may be subject to an aptitude test if they practise local audit in the United Kingdom on a permanent basis. Under all these provisions, the expectation is that people would be qualified, as they are in the United Kingdom, to carry out local audit. We shall come to that further on, because it is the qualifications that will matter. We would not see any dilution of the competence of auditors, whether they come from here, the EU or non-EU countries. Have I still not answered the noble Lord’s question?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Perhaps we might deal with it in correspondence. I was just trying to see the particular reference that allows back in the approval of those with third-country qualifications. I can see the provision that takes it out of the starting point, which is the Companies Act 2006. I think there may be something else coming from the Box.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, it is blindingly obvious—the provisions in paragraph 8 of Schedule 5 to the Bill, which amend the Companies Act. Why did I not think of it immediately?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I think I am grateful for that follow-up. I shall read the record to see that it remains blindingly obvious. From what the noble Baroness has said, I do not disagree and am supportive of the provisions and facilities made in the Bill. It is important that there is no lessening of standards, whether a qualification is an overseas one or a UK one. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 14F.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this amendment relates to Schedule 5 again, which relates to the new regulatory framework for auditors of local public bodies. It draws heavily, as we have discussed, on the framework contained in the Companies Act 2006, the provisions of which, as I have said, have our broad support. Schedule 5 applies Part 42 of the 2006 Act to local audits, as it does to statutory audits, but with some exclusions. The purpose of this amendment is to understand the exclusion of Section 1215(2) to (7) of the Companies Act.
Section 1215 takes us back to the subject of independence, and requires a statutory auditor to resign immediately on becoming prohibited from acting because of lack of independence, and this requirement is imposed similarly on local auditors. However the legal sanctions which underpin the failure to comply with this requirement for statutory auditors appear to have been omitted in the case of local audits. Doubtless the Minister will tell me that it is blindingly obvious and covered somewhere else. Could she draw my attention to a specific provision? I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we may need to explain to Hansard that I was joking. The new audit framework sets out robust arrangements to provide confidence in the independence of the local auditor. This amendment seeks to replicate the criminal offences in Section 1215 of the Companies Act 2006 in the local audit framework, as the noble Lord explained. We have chosen not to replicate these particular criminal offences as we consider that there are other, more suitable mechanisms to do so—in short, the disciplinary powers of the recognised supervisory bodies and the ethical standards raised by the Financial Reporting Council.
The rules and practices that the recognised supervisory bodies will put in place will cover the independence of the auditor. They will also outline the disciplinary sanctions that could be applied if the independence requirements were found to have been breached. This could ultimately include the withdrawal of registration, and other sanctions could include that the firm responsible for the audit would not be able to accept new audits or particular types of audits, that a person may no longer be a responsible individual and that a specific employee may no longer be involved in audit work.
The Government have also been mindful of not introducing any new offences unless there is a compelling case to do so. Even though these offences are in the Companies Act 2006, they would be considered as new offences if applied to the provisions in the Bill.
That is the explanation. I hope that the noble Lord will be happy with it and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am certainly going to withdraw the amendment. If I understand the position correctly, there will be a difference of approach between local audit and the Companies Act provisions, where private sector auditors will continue to be subject to this regime. In a sense, they will still be subject to the supervisory requirements for local auditors that the noble Baroness outlined. Is that correct?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I think it is correct. As I suggested, the Financial Reporting Council issues ethical standards for auditors, and those cover the integrity, objectivity and independence of auditors, and it applies in the audited financial statement. Therefore, I think that we are covered from that point of view. We have also been working with regulatory partners, including the Financial Reporting Council, to decide how these may need to be applied to auditors of local bodies. Therefore, I think that some discussion is still going on about the matters that the noble Lord has raised.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I will not dwell on it but I thought that one of the objectives of the current exercise was to align local audit with private sector audit arrangements. This seems to be creating a divergence. However, I am not sure that there is going to be further fruitful discussion on this. I hear what the Minister has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) The requirements must in particular take full account of the need to understand the wider scope of public audit covering the audit of financial statements, regulatory, propriety and value for money.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as we discussed, Schedule 5 is concerned with the eligibility and regulation of local auditors. It covers independence requirements, the qualification requirements, the monitoring of audits and the inspections. The requirements that may be specified to be an appropriate qualification, enabling a person to act as a local auditor, include their qualification experience, practical training, examinations passed and so on. However, this amendment specifically requires that, in evaluating whether somebody has an appropriate qualification, regard must be had to the need to understand the wider scope of public audit. In fact, this is an issue that also runs for the Financial Reporting Council, which is of course to be the overall regulator.
The scope of public sector auditing was raised at the pre-legislative scrutiny committee—in particular, during the exchange with Mr Steve Freer, the chief executive of CIPFA. On 20 November 2012, he said in response to Question 378:
“Over the past 20 or 30 years—the period in which the commission has been in operation—we have seen that the entry of firms into this market”—
that is, the public sector market—
“is quite difficult. That reflects the fact that the transition from private sector auditing, which firms are clearly extremely good at, to public audit is not straightforward; it is very challenging and difficult”.
He went on to explain that the firms currently involved in public audit work would tend to set up specialist divisions. The responsibilities of auditors in the public sector include not only statutory functions in relation to financial statements but statutory functions in relation to being satisfied that there are proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of resources.
It is clearly vital that an understanding of and an ability to undertake this wider role is part of an appropriate qualification for local auditors. The Minister will doubtless tell us that it is implicit in the requirements that may be specified in paragraph 8(5) of Schedule 5, but the amendment would make it explicit. It gives us the chance to probe the Government’s assessment of how many firms are likely to be in the market for local audit work, certainly for principal body audits. We are told that there were just 13 firms which prequalified when the Audit Commission outsourced its in-house practice, although only seven firms were appointed. Schedule 5 provides for the register of auditors of be maintained. When is it expected that the register will first be published and when might we have sight of the draft regulations? In particular, can the Minister say something more about the Government’s assessment of how many firms are likely to be in the market for local audits, and will they be appropriately qualified and have an understanding of the wider role of public audit? I beg to move.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for raising this issue, because I know it is one of concern. Indeed, it was one of the concerns, as I think he mentioned, expressed by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, best known to us all as CIPFA. One of the concerns that it raised in its Second Reading briefing was that the wider scope of public audit has not been fully embedded in the Bill. This is perhaps an example of that. CIPFA makes the point, which those of us familiar with local government will understand very well, that public audit is a good deal wider than private sector audit. I do not think I need to labour the point. We are looking forward to the Minister’s response, which I see she is eager to give us.
Baroness Hanham
Too eager, perhaps. I say at the outset that we are absolutely clear that the auditors must be competent, appropriate and steeped in local government finance. We should start there, with that as the interest common to us all, to make sure that any changes are made in the most appropriate way so that we can be sure of getting the same high standards of auditing that taxpayers expect and to which they have been accustomed.
The Bill sets out a pretty robust regulatory regime. The National Audit Office will have to develop the underpinning code of audit practice and produce supporting guidance that will set out how auditors perform their role. What this means, essentially, is that the boards going for public audit will not change. In addition, the future local audit framework will require all auditors to be suitably qualified and competent to carry out local audits.
The Bill requires auditors to hold an appropriate qualification. This is either a qualification recognised under Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006, for a statutory audit, or another qualification recognised under this Bill. The Secretary of State will be able to make regulations setting out the minimum requirements that other qualifications will need to meet in order to be recognised for the purposes of local audit.
It is clearly crucial that local auditors are, as I have said, suitably qualified, that they attain an appropriate qualification and that that demonstrates that an individual understands, among other things, auditing standards, accounting standards and audit procedures. These standards and skills must be applied to audit assignments regardless of whether they are in the public or private sector.
However, while holding an appropriate audit qualification is necessary, it is not sufficient in itself for those individuals within firms assigned responsibility for signing audit reports of local bodies. What is important for local audit is that auditors have the skill and experience of local audit, which includes understanding the wider scope of public audit. As such, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary as the Bill requires all individuals to have this appropriate level of competence to carry out local audits, regardless of whether they hold a qualification under Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006 or another one recognised under the Bill. This critical requirement regarding competence is set out in paragraph 27 of Schedule 5. The amendment would apply only to the other qualifications recognised under the Bill, and not those recognised under Part 42 of the Companies Act.
It maybe helpful for me to outline briefly how the framework works for the companies sector and then explain how the framework for local audit will ensure that all local auditors understand the wider scope of public audit, thus removing the need for this amendment. Under the Companies Act, it is for the recognised supervisory body to set out the requirements for approving those individuals who will be responsible for signing audit reports for companies. The requirements established by the recognised supervisory bodies are subject to agreement and oversight by the Financial Reporting Council. Once an individual has been approved to sign an audit report of a company, it does not follow that they could sign such a report for any company. That individual would need to be competent to sign the audit report of the specialism of that particular company; they would need to have the relevant skills, experience and knowledge of the relevant subject matter of the company or industry in which they work.
We are replicating this framework for local audit. The recognised supervisory bodies for local audit will have responsibility for approving the individuals nominated by its member firms for signing the audit reports of local bodies. This will also be overseen by the Financial Reporting Council. Under rules that it will agree with the Financial Reporting Council, a recognised supervisory body will approve an individual to take a key responsibility in the audit of a local body only if that individual has an appropriate level of competence to carry out local audits. A firm that cannot demonstrate that a nominated person has recent experience of auditing a local body and understands the wider scope of local audit will not be considered competent and therefore cannot be approved by the recognised supervisory body.
To provide further assurance on this issue, I should also say that there are established standards and professional obligations with which firms must comply regardless of whether they are appointed to a company or a local public body. In particular, the international standard on quality control requires all firms to have policies and procedures that ensure that individuals have the right knowledge and experience to undertake a specific engagement. For local audit, this would mean that a firm could not put forward an individual to be responsible for a local audit if that individual did not understand the wider scope of public audit. If it did so, it would be in breach of its obligations and would risk breaching the terms of its registration with the recognised body.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, raised the question of CIPFA and the discussions that have taken place. It may be helpful for noble Lords to know that I recently saw and had discussions with CIPFA about this, and it is being closely involved in discussions that are going ahead with the council, so its views are well taken into account. We recognise that it is probably one of the very few bodies with qualifications that continue to exist for auditors who will be required to do this work.
The register will be published when we see the draft regulations, which will be available at the next stage in the Commons. The register will be published in 2016, in time for the local appointment of auditors. We have discussed the question of how many firms will be able to do this, and I remember saying earlier that we hope and anticipate that smaller local firms will be able to get their staff qualified, if they do not have that qualification, so that they can bid for contracts. We expect that the smaller, new contracts will open up the market to smaller firms. We are anticipating that this will not just be the big four or the bigger four and three bidding—which I think got us to seven before—and that there will be increasing competition. We believe that there should be plenty of smaller companies available, once local authorities start to appoint their own auditors.
I hope that has picked up the points on the register and those made by CIPFA. I know that it is involved in what is going on to ensure that these regulations and qualifications are satisfactory.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for a very full reply. It is very helpful to have that on the record. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for his support for this line of enquiry. I note that the register will not be available until 2016, but it is good that the draft regulations will be available when the Bill goes into the Commons. I think we shall have to see the outcome of that and how many local firms end up in a competitive position in the market. One of the fears is that those firms that are active in the local audit market currently do it through specialist divisions. They have the financial clout to invest in the training in these sorts of arrangements. I think we would have common cause in wanting there to be a number of firms in the market—certainly it should be expanded from the existing base. I am somewhat sceptical about whether that would be achieved. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, this amendment removes an unnecessary provision from paragraph 16 which is a supplement to paragraph 15 of Schedule 5. Paragraph 15 substitutes Section 1248 of the Companies Act 2006, with which I am sure noble Lords are all familiar. It enables the Secretary of State to direct a relevant authority to retain an auditor to carry out a second audit in certain circumstances.
Paragraph 16 substitutes Section 1249 of the Companies Act 2006 and inserts supplementary provisions about second audits. Subsection (3) states that a direction given to retain a second auditor may be enforced by injunction, which exactly replicates the wording in Section 1249 of the Companies Act. However, given that all public authorities, unlike companies, are subject to judicial review, we now wish to remove subsection (3) which refers to the use of an injunction; this is clearly not necessary. Should a relevant authority fail to comply with the direction relating to a second audit, an action could be brought for judicial review. This is currently the way in which local public bodies are brought to account. This is a minor and technical amendment that removes an unnecessary provision. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for the explanation of this amendment, and I have no problem with it. My question was about what alternative the Government had in mind by deleting this enforcement by injunction. The Minister dealt with that; it is by judicial review. As to being familiar with the Companies Act 2006, I have a great affection for it; it was the first piece of legislation I ever worked on. I spent days carrying the bag of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, around committee rooms on it, although do not ask me what is in it. I support this amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, Clause 20 covers the general duties of auditors of a health service body and sets down the areas on which the auditor must be satisfied. These include that the body has made proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of its resources. Clause 20(4) precludes the auditor’s opinion on the accounts making any reference to this requirement unless he is not satisfied in that matter, so the auditor cannot positively state that he is satisfied that the body has made proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of its resources. Obviously, an informed reader of the auditor’s report would be able to interpret what appears to be silence on this, but it seems an odd restriction. Perhaps someone could explain its purpose. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, either my noble friend Lord Wallace or I will reply to the amendments. In this case it is me.
The amendment would remove the provision for auditors to report on value for money only when they are not satisfied that the authority has made arrangements for securing value for money. This would result in every audit report containing a specific conclusion on value-for-money arrangements.
I hope that it will help the Committee if I start by setting out why the Bill provides for value-for-money conclusions to be included only where the auditor is not satisfied about the arrangements. The provision relates only to the reporting of the results of the audit. The local auditor will still be required to carry out work to confirm that the arrangements for securing that value-for-money arrangements are made. The technical standards for that work will be set out by the National Audit Office in the code of audit practice that it will produce.
The report of the auditor is a detailed and technical document. The Government are of the view that for health bodies—in this clause we are referring only to health bodies—the audit report should contain those matters that are most important to the reader. We consider them to be: the opinion on the true and fair nature of the accounts; for those bodies that are directly funded from resources provided by Parliament—which includes all bodies that are now part of the health service—to confirm that the funds have been used for authorised purposes; and any cases where arrangements to secure value for money are not appropriate. This approach would provide for greater focus and attention where value-for-money arrangements are not in place.
The provision in the Bill also aims to bring consistency for all health bodies. Currently, the audit opinions of health commissioning bodies and NHS trusts contain a specific opinion on value-for-money arrangements. The audits of foundation trusts do not, so we are taking the opportunity to bring all reporting into line and to improve the clarity of auditor reporting in the health service. I stress that the work carried out by the auditors is the same, whatever the reported opinion.
I hope that that provides greater understanding of what we are doing and that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. If not, I look forward to what he is going to say.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, as ever, for her explanation. I remain somewhat bemused about why there could not be positive reporting in this area, although it is not a matter that I intend to pursue. I accept that, whatever the outcome, the nature of the work and the task in hand would be undertaken in any event.
The Minister said that the opportunity had been taken to align foundation trusts and other health bodies’ provisions, presumably, from what she said, in favour of the foundation trust formulation. Is that right?
Baroness Hanham
Yes, my Lords. At present the other parts of the health service are required to have value-for-money audit reports. Foundation trusts do not. The noble Lord is correct that it is being amalgamated under the foundation trust umbrella.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful for that further explanation. I am bound to say that it did not give me much greater comfort. Given what has gone on with some foundation trusts—I think we will come on to them later—and how many reports there have been about the nature of their financial circumstances, they do not seem to be a good precedent on which to focus an alignment of practice. Perhaps we will pick up that issue later in our proceedings. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“(d) a person who fell within any of the provisions under paragraphs (a) to (c) at a time to which the information or explanation required by the local auditor related.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is another quick one, I expect. This amendment relates to an offence under Clause 22. Clause 21 provides for an auditor’s right to documentation and information. Clause 22 makes it an offence without reasonable excuse for a person to obstruct the process or to fail to comply with any requirement of a local auditor. A person guilty of an offence can be subject to a fine on summary conviction. A local auditor can recover reasonable expenses in connection with proceedings alleged to have been committed by certain persons from the relevant authority. Those persons include, for example, a member or officer of the relevant authority. The amendment seeks to makes certain that the right to recovery runs, albeit that the person committing the offence is no longer a member or officer of the authority. This raises the issue of when an offence might have been committed when it includes, for example, continuing failure to provide information or explanations by somebody who has ceased to be a member or officer and perhaps put themselves in that position deliberately. This ties the position back to Clause 21(8)(f), which brings such individuals within the scope of those from whom the auditor can seek information. We do not want anyone to escape by jumping ship or, indeed, for the recovery of costs to be precluded in those circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, Clause 21 gives auditors a right to access documents and information that they consider necessary for them to exercise their functions under this Bill. Clause 22, as the noble Lord has just explained, provides that a person who obstructs the auditors’ rights under Clause 21, without reasonable excuse, commits an offence. Clause 22 enables the auditors to recover their expenses from relevant authorities in connection with offences committed by members or officers of the authority.
This amendment enables me to highlight two improvements we have made to the Bill since we published it in draft. First, we have included former members and officers of a relevant authority within the duty to provide information and explanation as required by the auditor. Secondly, we have increased the provisions supporting the auditors’ recovery of their costs. Auditors will be able to recover reasonable costs from the authority being audited for their time. We expect that the contracts between the auditor and relevant authority will also enable this, but to remove doubt, the Bill includes specific provisions to enable the auditors to recover costs or expenses for specified functions.
As I have set out, Clause 22 enables the auditors to recover reasonable expenses incurred from the authority as a result of any offence committed by a member or officer of the authority or a person within a connected entity of that authority.
This amendment would extend the provision set out in this clause to enable auditors also to recover expenses regarding offences committed by former members or officers of an authority from the relevant authority. This is a matter to which we gave some thought when we were strengthening the provisions supporting the auditor to recover costs and expenses incurred in undertaking its functions. We concluded that there are some circumstances under which it would not be right for a relevant authority to be required to fund these costs automatically; for example, where a person was a member or officer at the time to which the information or explanation relates but commits the offence of obstructing or not complying with the auditor after they have left the position. Rather than legislating to provide for such rare situations, we consider that it would be preferable for the relevant authority and auditor to agree via their contracts how the auditor’s costs and expenses would be covered in such an unusual situation. I hope my explanation allows this amendment to be withdrawn.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think his explanation confirms what I thought was an issue about somebody who was involved and who had committed an offence but subsequently left the organisation. In those circumstances, if I understand the explanation, that precludes the recovery of the auditor’s reasonable expenses. Did I understand that correctly?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My understanding is that it means that the recovery of the reasonable costs does not automatically fall to the authority. If the person who had left the employment of the authority was unreasonably obstructing the provision of the information—refusing to give it—there are circumstances in which the reasonable costs might indeed fall on him or her; that would be a matter to be agreed in the contract between the auditor and the authority.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful for that. I missed that part of the explanation originally. If we are not saying that the costs are not going to be recovered, if it is not the audited body, it is going to be the individual. I am grateful for that explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wills
“Auditors right to documents and information of private contractors
(1) A local auditor has a right of access at all reasonable times to audit documents from private companies that the local authority have contracted services to during the last financial year.
(2) A local auditor must publish any audit documents, obtained under subsection (1), as part of a local audit publication.”
Lord Wills
My Lords, both this amendment and Amendment 18A, which is grouped with it, seek to improve transparency in these new arrangements for local government. Such transparency is key to greater accountability and therefore to better government and over and over again we have seen what damage can be done when transparency is smothered. The NHS has provided some tragic examples recently, as the Francis report into Mid Staffs and the Grant Thornton report for the Care Quality Commission have both shown.
The work carried out by private contractors for local authorities will often be of equal importance in the way that it involves issues of public safety, but it may also raise other issues of concern to the public such as corruption. The public should also have rights of access under the Freedom of Information Act to the work carried out by local auditors, because they are the ultimate clients of those auditors. Those auditors may be carrying out their tasks for a local authority, but that local authority serves the public.
The amendments are particularly necessary because the Localism Act envisages that a growing proportion of local authorities’ functions will be carried out for them by private companies under contract. If the authority carries out the work itself, then all information about that work is subject to the Act and subject, of course, to the exemptions in the Act. But the public’s right to information is less straightforward when the work is done by a private contractor. Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act establishes that the right of access is to information which a public authority holds. Section 3(2)(b) of the Act provides that information which another person holds on behalf of the authority is treated as held by the authority itself.
However, how much of the information a contractor holds about the contract is held on behalf of an authority? The answer is not self-evident. The contract itself may specify that particular information is to be treated as held on behalf of that authority or it may say a specified type of information must be provided to the authority if it asks for it, to help it answer an FOI request. But what if such a provision applies only to a very limited class of information? The effect may be to exclude the public from access to any information which is not specifically mentioned. The amendments will help, I think, to overcome any such oversights.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I speak briefly in support of my noble friend’s amendment concerning freedom of information. He has opened up a very important area of discussion. My understanding—as he said—is that the Audit Commission, as a public authority, is subject to freedom of information but that those private sector firms appointed to undertake local public audits are not. The purpose of the amendment is to put them in a position where they would be subject to freedom of information. My noble friend made a good case for this.
As I understand it, there was a consultation on that in 2011 and the Audit Commission’s response was that it was sensible for auditors to be brought within the Freedom of Information Act, adding that it would be necessary to make it clear that freedom of information requirements applied only to information held in support of the functions of local public auditors. My noble friend made a good case.
In relation to Amendment 17, I am not quite clear about the extent to which my noble friend wishes this to proceed. It talks about the audit documents from private companies to which the local authority has contracted services. It is sometimes, possibly frequently, the case that it is not just one entity that is providing services. There is a whole range of sub-contractors in the chain and I am not sure quite how it would work in those circumstances. However, I believe that my noble friend has raised a very important point and, like him, I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I recognise the importance of this transparency issue. I suppose that I should start by declaring an interest as someone who has received a number of parking tickets from Wandsworth Council. It strikes me as odd that I have never received any parking tickets from Bradford Council. London councils must be sharper on the draw on this, and of course they use private contractors rather more than do councils in Yorkshire and, for all I know, councils in Newcastle.
There was considerable consultation on this issue, and I regret to tell the noble Lord that one thing that came back most strongly from it was a fear that this sort of provision would increase audit fees.
Amendment 17 seeks to give auditors a right of access to the audit documents of companies with which local authorities have entered into contracts and a duty to publish those documents. Following consultation, we believe that the Bill provides sufficient powers for local auditors to access all documents and information that they need in order to undertake the audit and that they have powers to publish those documents, and that therefore the amendment is not needed.
Clause 21 includes a broad power that enables auditors to access all documents and information that relate to the relevant authority which the auditor thinks are necessary to support him or her in undertaking the audit. These rights apply not only to documents and information held by the authority, its members and staff but to documents and information held by other persons—including the authority’s contractors—that the auditor thinks are necessary to undertake his or her statutory duties in relation to the audit of the relevant authority. Clause 22 makes it an offence to obstruct the auditor’s power to obtain these documents and information or to fail to comply with the duty. These provisions are very similar to those under the existing Audit Commission Act regime, which have not proved to be lacking.
In terms of publication of documents, the auditor is able to refer to information and documents from private companies in audit reports where these are appropriate to the audit of the local authority. In addition, the Government’s code of recommended practice for local authorities on data transparency encourages local authorities to publish all expenditure over £500, as well as copies of contracts and tenders. All councils are publishing spend above £500 and many provide contracts information. In late 2012, we consulted on updating the code and making it mandatory through regulations, and we will publish a government response later this summer.
Amendment 18A would amend the Freedom of Information Act so that auditors appointed by local authorities are defined as public authorities and are subject to the provisions under that Act. Auditors appointed by the Audit Commission are not currently included within the remit of the FOI Act. When we originally consulted on the future of local audit framework in spring 2011, we asked whether the future regime should bring local auditors into the Freedom of Information Act. After considering the broad range of responses to the consultation, the Government concluded that there was no compelling case to bring the auditors’ public office functions within the remit of the FOI Act.
There are two key reasons for that. First, we believe that doing so would add little to the existing provisions within the Freedom of Information Act and this Bill. Local authorities are already covered by the Freedom of Information Act, and therefore these requests could be directed at the local authority. Secondly, all respondents to the question—I stress “the respondents”, not the Government—said that they thought that bringing auditors into the Freedom of Information Act would increase audit fees.
In addition, the Bill already supports local transparency and local electorate access to the auditor in a number of ways. For example, the Bill retains all the existing rights for electors to inspect the statement of accounts and audit documents, and to raise questions and objections with the local auditor. Schedule 11 to the Bill enables an auditor to release material in response to this, unless it could prejudice the effective performance of the auditor’s functions.
I hope that that provides assurances that the new regime will support openness and transparency at all stages of the audit process. Auditors will have access to all documents and information that they consider relevant to the audit, local authorities will publish information relating to expenditure and contracts with private firms and local people will be able to inspect the accounts and raise objections with these assurances.
Having debated many previous amendments on other Bills with the noble Lord, I suspect he may nevertheless say that he is not entirely satisfied with all this. If he would like to talk to the Government between Committee and Report, we would be happy to do so, but I hope that, with those assurances, he will be prepared, at this stage, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wills
First, I am very grateful to the Minister for that response and for the offer to talk to the Government. I will be very happy to take it up. He is not right that I am not entirely satisfied with his response; I am not at all satisfied with his response. Indeed, I find myself rather saddened by this resiling from the fundamental principle of the importance of transparency. It is in the coalition agreement that the coalition Government are committed to greater transparency. After all the evidence we have seen from the NHS in recent months, I would have thought that the Government would have been persuaded of the importance of that commitment but, sadly, we have the same old excuses that are always trotted out when freedom of information and greater transparency are proposed.
For all that the Minister says that local authorities should be able to provide all the information needed under freedom of information, he did not address the specific examples that I gave to show why there may be cases where the current provision is not adequate in which people will not be able to gain access to the information to which they are entitled. I hope that when he and his officials read Hansard, they will look at that again before we meet so that we can examine this particular case because existing provision is not adequate and neither is the provision in this Bill.
On the question of audit fees, again I had hoped that I would have pre-empted some of these arguments but it is, I have to say, pathetic for the Government to accept this argument. This is an argument for a steady withdrawal of transparency from the public in terms of local government as more and more services are contracted out, as the Government wish, rightly or wrongly, because that is envisaged in the Localism Act. There was a lot of discussion of it when that Bill was going through. As that happens, there will, according to the argument just advanced by the Minister, be decreasing transparency. That stands to reason. The provisions in this Bill are not adequate for that, so I am very disappointed.
Finally, I shall withdraw the amendment for the time being, subject to further discussions with the Minister and officials, but I ask Ministers to reflect on this. There will be abuses of power in local government. Wherever power resides, whether in local government or anywhere else, such as in the National Health Service or in central government, power is abused. Nearly always, greater transparency and freedom of information are the key to preventing, or at least mitigating, the effect of such abuses of power. We have seen it over and over again. So at some point in the future, unless changes are made to the Bill, this Government will be in the dock for having had the opportunity to increase transparency and having refused to do so. The consequences will then be visited, perhaps on some future Government, and some hapless Minister will have to stand up, as we have just seen Health Ministers do twice in the past few months, and apologise to all those who tried to get the information and were denied it and will then have to take remedial measures. Ministers have a chance to do something now before further damage is done. I hope they will think again.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, will the Minister clarify something? I think part of his answer was that all the transparency that is needed is provided for in the Bill and the regime that we are discussing. In that case, why is there concern about additional audit fees? What extra transparency is being forgone to keep those audit fees down if they would rise if my noble friend’s amendment is pursued?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I take the noble Lord’s cynicism about it always being a question of costs, although costs are not entirely a negligible issue at the moment for any of us. We had better pursue through further discussions the particular examples that the noble Lord raised and the question of how far into the internal workings of private contractors one needs to go to be sure that one is getting the value for money and service that one really requires.
Lord Wills
I am very grateful. My noble friend reinforces the point about the pathetic nature of the Government in accepting these arguments about increased audit fees. They really need not be there. These auditors are getting access to a very lucrative new stream of work and they should pay the price to the public in making information available.
Lord Beecham
Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, what is the present position when a contract is let by the local authority for a particular service in terms of the audit? What is the relationship of the district auditor to a council-commissioned contract in relation to its own service? Does he have access and is he subject to the same disclosure requirements that my noble friend seeks as if the council itself were directly providing that service?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My clear understanding is that auditors do have access to the relevant accounts of the contractor, but that would probably differ a great deal from one contract to another. I therefore need to make sure that in saying that they have access I am talking about all the cases rather than some. It may well be that a number of contracts differ one from the other.
Lord Wills
Again, I am grateful to my noble friend, who has made an important point. We will return to these issues in private discussion and I hope that I can persuade the Government that they need to be a little more robust in responding to the consultations. They often are, but not in this particular case. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“Comptroller and Auditor General: prescribed persons
The Secretary of State will undertake that the Comptroller and Auditor General be added as a prescribed person for the purposes of the public interest disclosure provisions.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the pre-legislative scrutiny committee reminds us that in many instances serious cases of financial or governance failure are not identified through the audit itself but are brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities by individual whistleblowers. This matter could hardly be more topical. It is vital that robust protections are available for individuals in all relevant bodies, including health bodies.
So far as whistleblowers are concerned, currently the Audit Commission is a prescribed person under the 1998 public interest disclosure provisions. Its appointed auditors are also prescribed persons. The Public Interest Disclosure Act protects from recriminations employees who make disclosures about a range of subjects. Whistleblowers can claim protection by disclosing their concerns either to an employer or, if they prefer, to another organisation authorised to receive disclosures—a prescribed person. The commission provides a confidential public interest disclosure line for employees of councils and NHS bodies where they are unable or unwilling to report internally. Once employees contact the commission, the commission alerts the relevant auditors.
The Bill makes no mention of whistleblowers, and this is an area that needs to be strengthened. We believe that, while appointed auditors should remain a prescribed person, there should also be another prescribed body which could pass on information to an auditor—for example, in cases where employees are unable to contact the auditor directly or where, as the ad hoc draft Bill committee suggested, they may not be comfortable approaching a private auditing firm that has a commercial relationship with the local body or council.
The draft Bill committee recommended that the Comptroller and Auditor-General should take on this role in the future, and that is what the amendment provides for. We may be at one with the Government on this issue and the NAO can provide a hotline for whistleblowers. If the Government are to provide this by order, what requirements will be placed on the NAO as to what it does with the information provided? The Audit Commission would currently, as I said, forward any disclosures to the relevant auditor. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I shall respond briefly, but I can also pick up some extra points that the noble Lord raised.
The Government, in response to the committee that undertook the scrutiny of the draft local audit Bill, have already indicated their intention to make the Comptroller and Auditor-General a prescribed person under the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 1999. It is not necessary to include this in the Bill, as we intend to do it by making an amendment to the order following the closure of the Audit Commission.
On the powers of the NAO, at present it is the auditor that considers a disclosure in the context of the existing statutory powers and duties—for example, in relation to considering whether to make a public interest report on the matter. We do not think that it is necessary or appropriate to duplicate this by giving additional powers to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. This mirrors the current arrangements.
The noble Lord also asked why the Bill did not say anything about whistleblowing. We do not believe that it is necessary for the Bill to include provisions around that matter, because that is covered in other legislation. The Audit Commission and its auditors are included as prescribed persons in the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 1999. Amendments will be made to that order to designate local auditors and the Comptroller and Auditor-General as prescribed people—that is, the people to whom whistleblowers can go. The Comptroller and Auditor-General will not necessarily have a duty to investigate those concerns as a disclosure in the context of the existing statutory powers and duties—for example, in considering whether to make a public interest report on the matter. We do not think that it is necessary or appropriate to duplicate this by giving extra powers to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, as I said.
I hope that it is clear that we are not in any way trying to reduce the role of whistleblowers or to put them under any sense of restriction from acting in such a way. There will be a very clear route concerning to whom whistleblowers can go, and they will be protected, as they are at the moment, from any retribution if they do that. I hope that that gives the noble Lord a satisfactory explanation.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, again, I thank the Minister. I accept entirely that there is no attempt to dumb down the role of whistleblowers and that that will be fully supported. What is it that the Comptroller and Auditor-General is expected to do with information provided to it as a prescribed person which does not go to the local auditor?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, exactly as happens at the moment, the Audit Commission directs whistleblowers to the relevant auditor, who is the person in power to take appropriate action. Whistleblowers will continue to be able to go directly to the auditor, as I said, and we extend that to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who will refer it back again to the local auditor to take up.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful for that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the amendment amends the requirement that a local auditor must notify a relevant authority’s auditor panel before making a public interest report and requires the notification to be made when the report is made. There was a very strong recommendation from the pre-legislative committee that an auditor should be able to raise a public interest report without prior reference to the audited body’s auditor panel or audit committee. This amendment would fulfil that recommendation in the knowledge that the Bill is an improvement on the draft, which required consultation with the auditor panel.
Public interest reporting is, of course, a vital part of public auditing and assurance. There is a statutory requirement in the Audit Commission Act and the Bill that we are considering. Under Section 8 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, the appointed auditor is required to consider whether to issue a report in the public interest of any significant matter coming to his or her notice in the course of an audit and to bring it to the attention of the audited body and the public.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the Bill retains the auditor’s duty to consider whether there are any issues on which he or she should make a public interest report, and auditors will use their professional judgment to decide whether to do so, as they do now. The auditor must inform the auditor panel before issuing a public interest report.
These two amendments would change the auditors’ consideration of whether to issue a public interest report. Amendment 17B would require the auditor to inform the independent auditor panel at the same time as, rather than before, issuing a public interest report. Amendment 17C would place a duty on the National Audit Office to provide advice and support to the auditor, if asked, before and during the issue of a public interest report. The noble Lord made that very clear in his opening remarks.
I understand the intent behind these amendments but do not consider them to be necessary. First, regarding the requirement on the auditor to inform the auditor panel, I should explain that we have refined this requirement in the light of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee’s recommendations. The draft Bill required the auditor to consult the auditor panel before making a public interest report, but the Bill now requires the auditor only to inform the panel before issuing a public interest report.
As we have discussed, an auditor panel has a key role in overseeing the independence of the relationship between the auditor and the relevant authority. We believe that this requirement on the auditor to inform the panel supports the panel’s role in overseeing the independent relationship between the auditor and the audited body. We would not expect the panel to try to influence the auditor in the discharge of his or her functions or on whether to issue the report. In practice, auditors will often need or wish to discuss issues with persons within the relevant authority when investigating the matters under consideration to ensure a full understanding of the situation and to gather the evidence. I therefore do not believe that it is necessary or particularly desirable to make this change.
Secondly, on the role of the National Audit Office, the Bill already places a duty on the Comptroller and Auditor-General to produce and maintain the code of audit practice and provides a power to issue guidance in support of the code. These will support auditors to undertake their full range of functions under the Bill, including the issue of public interest reports. We do not believe that placing a duty on the National Audit Office to provide guidance is the right approach. Auditors are accountable for their actions and will exercise their professional judgment when deciding how to undertake their functions. Individual auditors will base decisions on their professional judgment, supported by their firms. This is how it operates now. The Audit Commission issues guidance but does not seek to influence the auditor’s judgment. I think it would be fair to say that the Comptroller and Auditor-General would stand behind the auditor. The guidance will be there, and I am certain that under it if the auditor wished to seek further clarification, it would be perfectly possible under this legislation for them to do so from the National Audit Office or the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
Auditors will still have a statutory duty to consider whether they need to make a public interest report. That will occur at the time of informing the panel or subsequently, and they do not need to do anything more than inform it and tell it they are going to do it, although they may discuss it if necessary. Their professional judgment will decide whether a public interest report is necessary. Nothing will change in that respect, and the Bill provides for auditors to recover reasonable costs.
Finally, the noble Lord raised foundation trusts, which appoint their own auditors but have a regulator. Monitor said to the draft Bill scrutiny committee that there is a rigorous monitoring system which detects problems early and tiered support and intervention from Monitor to help resolve problems before they escalate, so the system is different. Also, auditors have qualified accounts of foundation trusts which demonstrate that they are not reluctant to give bad news or to raise issues as necessary.
I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with those responses and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for her reply. The point that I was trying to make was that, since foundation trusts have appointed their own auditors, the lack of public interest reporting has been equated with concerns about how independent auditors are and whether they feel that they have the strength and support to issue those reports. I take the point that some of them may well have had their accounts qualified, although I do not know on what grounds. I think that it may help to put the issue in context if we could have a note on how many foundation trusts have had their accounts qualified and in what respect.
I accept entirely that the Bill as it stands is a considerable improvement on where the draft Bill was on these issues. In a sense, the amendments that I was seeking to press are relatively minor, although I suggest that they are important. The noble Baroness made reference to the importance of the auditor panel being informed before the report is issued. I am a bit unclear as to what it is then expected that the auditor panel will do. I think that in a lot of instances there will, as the Minister said, be engagement along the way before we get to the final document. However, the difference between it being done when the report is issued and before that suggests that there is a perceived role for the auditor panel before the document is finally issued. It is another hurdle, and that is what I was seeking to avoid with this amendment.
I well understand the point about the NAO and the code of practice, and that that will be the route. However, from what has been said, whether it will replicate the sort of sounding board that the Audit Commission has and currently exercises for auditors who are contemplating developing thoughts around public interest reporting, I am not sure. I do not think that I got the sense from the Minister’s reply that that more proactive engagement was expected. If it were not, that would be a loss, but perhaps the Minister will follow up on that.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make it clear that the NAO, while issuing the guidance, will also be behind the auditor, who will be able to discuss issues with it and receive support. The Audit Commission will, as in the past, provide the backbone to the auditor and clarify how to go ahead. That will not change, and I think that there will be strength in that.
We have not really covered this but the noble Lord’s amendment would effectively mean that the auditor about to issue a public interest report would not have discussed it with anybody outside. He would have to issue the report to the panel and the council at the same time. The ability to go to the auditor panel and say, “This is what we are about to do, this is what we think is wrong.”, would, first, probably just give the auditor panel responsible an opportunity to know that something was coming up which it would need to be aware of. Secondly, it would possibly give the auditor the ability to discuss a particular issue with someone independent of the council. I do not think that that would in any way be a retrograde step; it would give strength to the auditor.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thought that I said when moving the amendment that I recognised that in many instances there would be engagement with the auditor panel or the audit committee, or whatever the final formulation might be, but that I was keen to ensure that there was not another loop in the process at the point that the auditor concluded what he or she needed to do. There might be no engagement at all. It might be an issue that affects the relationship between the auditor panel and the authority involved. It was a case of not wanting to put in an additional loop right at the end of the process without in any way restricting or precluding the opportunity of engagement along the way, which I imagine would be the norm.
There was one other point. If the Minister covered the issue of indemnities, I was at fault and missed it. I should be interested in the Government’s view on that issue.
Baroness Hanham
The noble Lord is right that the new framework does not replicate the Audit Commission’s indemnity scheme, which funds legal expenses faced by auditors as a result of their exercising their functions. We believe that it is appropriate for private audit companies to bear the risks and costs for any consequences resulting from the exercise of their functions, covering by definition anybody who is employed by them. Furthermore, we do not believe that this will unduly deter auditors from exercising their functions. The Audit Commission’s indemnity has very rarely been called upon.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I understand that; we have been through that before. I can see that it would not be the norm, but if there is no ability to give indemnity on some basis, what if we have a repeat of risks of the Westminster council sort, and 14 years of litigation? I accept that we are in a different era, but on technically complex issues, will that not discourage auditors from issuing that report?
Lord Beecham
If I might add to my noble Friend’s question, will that not deter smaller firms from engaging in the tendering process?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am not sure that the Westminster case is very helpful now. We are a very long way down the line. As others will know, it was not a straightforward case by any stretch of the imagination. The legal action was taken to recover the surcharge, so it was not only to do with the report, but with trying to surcharge the councillors.
If the company concerned appoints an auditor, it has to stand behind them as well. That would be the expectation of indemnity in this case. I am sure it will not be unique to a company to have to do that. With regard to small auditors, the situation would remain the same. They would presumably cover themselves for the risks.
I hope the explanation is sufficient. If not, and the noble Lord has other points that I have missed, perhaps we can pick them up by correspondence.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful for those further points. I do not think we are a million miles apart on this; our differences are perhaps fairly narrow. I shall reflect on our discussion. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 17B.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, Clause 26 draws on Section 16 of the Audit Commission Act. This allows a local government elector for an area to make objections in respect of matters where the auditor could make a public interest report, or where the auditor could seek a declaration that an item of account is unlawful. Where objections are received, the auditor must decide whether to take action under these powers.
The purpose of the amendment is to open up some debate around the circumstances where the auditor does not need to consider an objection, circumstances which do not appear to be spelled out in the Audit Commission Act. The amendment introduces a slightly higher threshold for the auditor not to consider an objection, by adding that the auditor must have reasonable grounds for considering that exemptions apply. The Minister may say that this is implied by the current wording. We have no problem with the auditor being able to ignore frivolous or vexatious objections, or indeed an objection that has already been considered. The reason of disproportionate cost is somewhat more problematic and requires potentially more refined judgment—especially when it may involve governance issues rather than considerable sums of public money. Of course, there is a get-out clause in that these provisions cannot be used to avoid the action of an auditor who has serious concerns as to how an authority is managed. Is it envisaged that there would be guidance on this matter—part of the audit code, perhaps? Would the Minister expand on the Government’s views of the parameters of this particular provision?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the Bill retains the rights of local government electors to question the auditor, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has said. They can raise objections, if they think that there are matters that the auditor should report on in the public interest, or items that they think constitute unlawful expenditure. The auditor can decide not to investigate an objection—and noble Lords have mentioned the frivolous or unconstitutional—if he or she thinks that it meets certain criteria.
Amendment 17D replaces the basis for an auditor not to consider an objection from “thinks that” to “reasonable grounds for considering”. This means that an auditor would be required to meet a reasonableness test before being able to decide not to investigate an objection. Following consultation, the Government decided to modify the objection process. The Bill, therefore, gives an auditor the discretion not to consider an objection in certain circumstances—where the auditor thinks that the objection is frivolous or vexatious, or it repeats an objection previously considered. The auditor has further discretion to not consider an objection if the financial value is disproportionately small when compared to the cost of the auditor’s time in investigating the issue, as long as the auditor does not think that the objection might raise concerns about serious failures of leadership or management within the organisation.
These specific exclusions are new and we think that providing the auditor with discretion not to consider objections as outlined can help to avoid circumstances where an authority—and therefore the taxpayer—incurs significant additional costs for auditors’ time in investigating an objection which is vexatious, or for the other reasons I have mentioned. Auditors will continue to use their professional judgment in exercising this discretion, as they do now for all their functions. We believe that this amendment would add an additional burden and cost in that an auditor would need to meet a reasonableness test before deciding not to investigate an objection. The auditor’s independence and professional exercise of duties is sufficient to ensure that this will be undertaken properly.
I hope that the noble Lord will accept the explanation and withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I will not pursue the issue. I was with the noble Baroness until the end, when the comments about a reasonableness test being an extra burden were outlined. If it is envisaged that undertaking a reasonableness test is a significant event, then that is all the more reason to have it because, presumably, it is a meaningful process. I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“(2A) The court may also—
(a) order that any person responsible for incurring or authorising expenditure declared unlawful shall repay it in whole or in part to the body in question and, where there are two or more such persons, that they shall be jointly and severally liable to do so;(b) if the expenditure declared unlawful exceeds £2,000 and the person responsible for incurring or authorising it is, or was at the time of his conduct in question, a member of a local authority, order him to be disqualified for being a member of a local authority for a specified period.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this amendment concerns the declaration that an item of account is unlawful. It draws on Section 17 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, which contains similar provisions, although this Bill does not give the Secretary of State power to sanction an item of account which is contrary to law—unless it is tucked away somewhere else in the Bill, in which case perhaps the Minister would let us know. However, the Audit Commission Act does give power to the court to order a person responsible for incurring or authorising unlawful expenditure to repay it in whole or in part to the body affected. It can order that the person is disqualified from serving as a member of a local authority for a specified period. These powers seem to be missing from Clause 27, and the amendment simply seeks to rectify the omission by using the wording from Section 17. The Minister will doubtless say that it is blindingly obvious that these powers are covered elsewhere. If they are, it would be helpful to know where—and, if not, why the exclusion?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, there is a sort of déjà vu about this amendment. The power of surcharge, as the noble Lord said, enables auditors to recover money from individuals whose actions caused losses to their councils, and was taken out in 2000. It was first introduced in the 19th century, and it is felt to be quite unnecessary in modern local government. In its 1997 report on standards in public life, the Nolan committee concluded that surcharge was an “archaic penalty”; what was archaic in 1997 is surely even more so today. Moreover, surcharge was unfair because of the technical difficulties in calculating the relevant sums, which could be well beyond the means of the individuals involved and bore no relation to people’s ability to pay. This could result in damage to families as property and assets were disposed of to pay the surcharge.
I note that this amendment offers no protection to those who act in the belief that the expenditure that they were authorising was lawful, meaning that, as it stands, the amendment might result in councillors or officials having to make a substantial payment as a result of a decision that they make in good faith. Following the abolition of surcharge, the Standards Board regime was introduced to prevent personal misconduct by councillors in office. Unfortunately, the Standards Board regime became a vehicle for petty and malicious complaints so, in 2012, we abolished it and put in place new arrangements for the conduct of councillors. These new arrangements include tough new rules to prevent genuine, wilful corruption, with councillors having to be transparent about their pecuniary interests. The auditor can himself, or after a concern has been expressed, raise the issue of a public interest report, as we have just discussed. We have backed up these rules with a criminal penalty for the wilful disregard of pecuniary interests, giving the courts the power to impose a fine of up to £5,000 and to disqualify a guilty councillor from office.
Surcharge is archaic but, what is more, it is unnecessary. I hope, with my reassurance and a reminder of things as they stand, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I think that I had better move swiftly on. I am grateful for that explanation and a bit of a history lesson, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“(d) where two or more auditors are appointed in relation to the accounts of a relevant authority, other than a health service body, the power to issue an advisory notice may be exercised by the auditors acting jointly, or by such one of them as they may determine”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment 17FA. I have now noticed that the point that it seeks to cover is, I think, dealt with in Clause 7(7). Clause 27 is concerned with advisory notices and who can issue them. Under Clause 7(7) it seems clear that, in the case of joint appointments, it can be done jointly or by either one of the joint auditors, which was the point that I sought to cover. The same point comes up with regard to who can make an application for judicial review, although I notice that, in Clause 30, the reference is to the Senior Courts Act 1981. The Audit Commission Act, unless it has been amended since, makes reference to the Supreme Court Act 1981. I ask for confirmation on those points and beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the noble Lord is correct that Clause 7 dealt with this. However, I think he has a winner coming, because the amendment has raised concerns about its exact correctness. We will ask parliamentary counsel to have a look at this before the next stage. We will probably, or may, return to it and I will advise the noble Lord, in which case, which way. It clearly needs a tweak. I hope the noble Lord will be happy that he has moved us in one direction and will be willing to withdraw the amendment, although, as I say, I think we will be looking at it again at the next stage.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister. I knew there was some reason why I moved this amendment. Can the Minister deal with the point about the reference to the Senior Courts Act and the Supreme Court Act? What is the difference there? Something has happened along the way, I guess, to make each of those separate expressions meaningful in its context. It may be that the Ministers would wish to write on that, unless there is a meaningful note from the Box
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I will certainly write, but I also think we will check. That seems to be the first thing to do. The noble Lord has raised yet another interesting point on this amendment and, if I may, we will come back on both those aspects.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is a probing amendment concerning advisory notices. It would appear that this regime has replaced the prohibition order regime contained in the Audit Commission Act 1998, but with some key differences. Advisory notices can be served if an auditor considers an authority is about to make a decision that would be unlawful or lead to unlawful expenditure. Under the advisory notice regime, the decision or course of action would be unlawful unless the authority, having reflected, considers it appropriate to proceed. This would appear to contrast with the prohibition order procedure, whereby, unless the order revokes it, the action or decision remains unlawful subject to an appeal to the High Court. Is that correct? Presumably, the risk of proceeding when faced with an advisory notice is that the order would seek a determination from the court that the expenditure involved is unlawful, so the onus has been switched from the local authority to the auditor. Can the Government explain this changed approach?
Our specific amendment was to delete the protection given to auditors from any loss of damage alleged to have been caused by the issuing of the advisory notice, which was issued in good faith. This mirrors the protection given in respect of prohibition notices and raises the question of who is to suffer the loss if there is one. Obviously, this is not without its importance given the difficult financial times that local government is in.
Can the Minister also take the opportunity to spell out for us the difference of treatment of health service bodies where the duty of the auditor is just to refer equivalent circumstances to the Secretary of State and the National Health Service Commissioning Board? What follows from this? I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, my note is rather short; it is getting briefer by the minute. The Government think it is important to retain this exemption in order to support the auditor’s ability to undertake the important function according to their professional judgment without fear of facing a damages claim, which, even were it not upheld, would be costly and time-consuming to defend.
Auditors generally report on things that have happened, their opinions on the accounts and the issue of public interest reports, and apply to the court for a declaration that there has been unlawful expenditure. The power to issue an advisory notice is forward-looking, seeking to prevent the authority taking some action that could be unlawful. It is possible, therefore, that auditors will have to act quickly and action may be based on partial evidence. The limitation of liability is to give the auditor some protection to enable them to use their professional judgment. We think it would be right to continue the protection.
With regard to the noble Lord’s questions, the Audit Commission Act includes advisory notices. No major changes have been made to the power to issue an advisory notice. It is still there. This mirrors existing provisions under which the auditor can issue an advisory notice if he thinks that the authority or an officer has undertaken or is about to undertake an unlawful action: a decision on carrying unlawful expenditure, unlawful action or entering an unlawful item of account. There are detailed requirements about the contents of the advisory notice and how it should be served. Within seven days of issuing an advisory notice—this may be something that requires quick action—the local authority is going to have to serve a statement of its reasons for putting forward the advisory notice.
The noble Lord asked me about the difference from the health service. I think I may be able to answer that question—it would seem that I will be writing to the noble Lord to clarify this point on health service bodies, except that I can tell that him that the clause contains the current requirement for local authorities. An equivalent requirement for health bodies has not existed previously and is not required because the governance arrangements for health bodies are different. Health bodies are consolidated into the accounts of the Department of Health and are covered by the requirements of Managing Public Money issued by Her Majesty’s Treasury. As such, they are accountable to Parliament for their expenditure, not to local people. The difference between the two is in the process. Under those circumstances, I may not need to say that I will write to the noble Lord on health service bodies. He will tell me whether he thinks I have answered his question and the others. I hope that I have given him a satisfactory explanation.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Indeed, the Minister has given me satisfactory explanations. It appears that my copy of the Audit Commission Act is not quite up to date because it certainly has references to prohibition orders. I imagine that, somewhere along the way, that was adjusted to advisory notices.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we will check the matter the noble Lord has raised. I will write to him about that. He will tell me whether he is happy about the health services bodies, in which case, I will not need to write to him.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I can exempt the Minister from writing on health service bodies. I am happy with the explanation and to receive a note on the broader drafting point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Fraser of Carmyllie
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, on 22 June. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble and learned Lord’s family and friends.
Central Asia
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Waverley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential for instability in Central Asia.
Viscount Waverley
My Lords, in drawing attention to my non-conflicting interests as listed in the register, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)
My Lords, the UK is keen to work with the Governments of central Asia to promote a stable region. We do, however, assess that there are a number of challenges to stability in central Asia, in particular transnational threats, including those from Afghanistan, inter-regional issues such as ethnic tensions, and bilateral disputes. We are working with central Asian Governments on a number of initiatives funded by the tri-departmental Conflict Pool to help them meet these challenges, and we continue to monitor progress.
Viscount Waverley
My Lords, I thank the Minister. She appears to agree that security and stability in the strategic geopolitical priority region of central Asia, including Afghanistan, are paramount. However, trans-boundary upstream/downstream water issues and disputes, industrial pollution, population demographics, drawing on limited resources, the aftermath of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, an underlying trend of extremism, and hard drug transit along the northern routes supplying the northern and western markets, all compounded by areas of poverty and human rights concerns, are challenges and troubling indicators in this region of high potential—
Baroness Warsi
I know that the noble Viscount comes to these matters with great expertise and knows the region incredibly well. The Government believe that to help the central Asian states, the best thing we can do is help to strengthen their political institutions to improve governance, increase accountability and support the rule of law. The noble Viscount has asked a wide-ranging question and I shall probably have to write to him in some detail in order to answer it fully. However, I can assure him that in opening our embassy in Bishkek in 2012, for example, we are now one of only three EU member states with embassies in all five of the central Asian states, and therefore we have the reach that will enable us to deal with some of these incredibly difficult issues.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, was not the message sent out by my noble friend during her tour of the region that we want to do business with them, and if that is what they are offering, we will not give them a hard time on human rights? Considering that both Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are countries of concern to the FCO and that human rights abuses in all the central Asian republics are a prime cause of instability, could we address this imbalance? Will the Prime Minister take up human rights during his forthcoming visit to Kazakhstan?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord raises an important point. As the Minister with responsibility for central Asia and human rights, I do not think it is a question of either/or. It is important that the economic foundations of these countries are strengthened. It is important that issues around poverty are dealt with and that civil society too is empowered to raise these challenges. In every country that I visited in central Asia, of course we discussed the potential opportunities for them and for us, but in every country human rights was right at the top of the agenda. As the noble Lord said, both Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are countries of concern in our annual human rights report.
Lord Davies of Coity
My Lords, to what extent does the Minister feel that the people of central Asia have benefited from our involvement there?
Baroness Warsi
Central Asia is a wide region and I would have to take it country by country. A lot of the work that we have been doing in Kyrgyzstan on support for civil society means that there is an incredibly vibrant NGO sector there, and many in Turkmenistan are feeling the benefits of the work that we are doing on Turkmenistan’s economy. I have no doubt that the work we are doing in central Asia has a positive impact.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, the Minister obviously recognises that these countries of central Asia have great potential to do each other harm, but also potential to do each other good. Should the Government not encourage some form of sub-regional co-operation of the countries around Afghanistan, in which undertakings against interference were given and economic co-operation was given a boost?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord may be aware that the Istanbul process, which involves the regions as well as other countries, deals with a number of confidence-building measures that are all about securing regional stability and involving central Asian states. The latest meeting took place in Almaty. We are involved in both the counternarcotics and counterterrorism parts of those confidence-building measures. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that it is important that countries in the region work together on regional stability, but it is important that they work on other issues as well.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, probably the main country of concern in this region to the general public is Afghanistan and the withdrawal. Could my noble friend the Minister please outline how Her Majesty’s Government’s strategy across the whole region is going to assist stability in Afghanistan?
Baroness Warsi
My noble friend asks a very important question. These countries are going to be the first to suffer any consequences of what might happen in Afghanistan in the coming years. They are already feeling the effects, for example, of extremism. We are working with a number of countries, both on cross-border support so that they can secure their borders and in wider work on extremism. A number of these countries have also played a vital role in our securing a northern line of communication and a drawdown route when our combat troops return at the end of 2014.
Lord St John of Bletso
My Lords, can the Minister elaborate on what is being done and what assistance is required to curb the transit of drugs from Afghanistan through central Asian corridors into overseas markets?
Baroness Warsi
As well as being the northern line of communication, it is also the northern route, tragically, for drug trafficking and crime. A large amount of those drugs end up in Russia, but we feel the consequences of these drugs on our own streets. We are working with a number of the central Asian countries to improve border security through training, and there are Conflict Pool-funded projects, for example to train Uzbek customs officers to secure borders in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. As I said earlier, we are specifically involved in the counternarcotics element of the Istanbul process. We also have representatives from SOCA who are in the region supporting our work.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, as a sailor, I see their greatest deprivation of course as not being adjacent to a lovely ocean. Clearly there are a huge number of weapons now in that region, particularly because of what has happened in Afghanistan. Are the Government content that we, as well as NATO, have taken the requisite actions to ensure that we do not add to the huge amount of weaponry within that region?
Baroness Warsi
We are incredibly cautious. The noble Lord will be aware that we have to overcome a number of hurdles before we are comfortable with supplying any sort of arms to any country. I am confident, from the work that I have been involved in with specific countries, that the items that have been given, gifted or sold absolutely will not add to the instability and security situation in those countries.
Taxation: Income Tax
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Risby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the reduction in the top rate of income tax from 50 per cent to 45 per cent.
Lord Newby
My Lords, the cost of reducing the additional rate of income tax is estimated at around £100 million per year. This takes account of the significant behavioural response associated with changes in personal tax rates. Details were set out in an HMRC report published alongside Budget 2012. The Government believe that it is not efficient to maintain a tax rate that is ineffective at raising revenue from high earners and risks damaging growth.
Lord Risby
Does my noble friend agree that, in a difficult economic environment, maximising tax revenues while avoiding the counterproductive in pursuing it is a huge task which is currently facing all European economies? Does he agree that, following the reduction of the highest rate of tax from 50% to 45%, the number of people in the highest tax category is increasing, and that the revenue generated from the highest-rate taxpayers will increase this year by 57% to over £49 billion? What conclusion does he draw from this?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I think that the conclusion I draw is that the Government always have a tricky task in maximising tax revenues, particularly at a time of austerity and when people are looking for tax changes to be fair. In that context, at the same time as the Government reduced this tax rate they introduced changes to stamp duty land tax and anti-avoidance measures on residential property which will raise several times the amount of tax lost from reducing the 50p band.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, the noble Lord has introduced the issue of avoidance. What is the Treasury’s estimate of the loss of revenue due to bonuses and other payments being held back after the Chancellor provided his friends with such an easy means of tax avoidance by pre-announcing their top-rate tax cut?
Lord Newby
My Lords, there is an awful lot of hype about what may or may not be achieved by reducing or retaining the higher rate of tax. HMRC produced its report on the matter last year and estimated that, in the short term, the cost to the Exchequer was £100 million. It said that the “direct yield” from the higher rate,
“might fall over time toward or beyond zero”.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, since this Question looks at the impact of tax policy, can the Minister give me his assessment of the impact of raising the tax threshold in this Parliament?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the effect of raising the tax threshold is that some 2.7 million low-income earners will be taken out of tax by April 2014 and that 23.6 million individuals will benefit by paying less tax.
Lord Grocott
Can the Minister explain how it was that he was able to give a very positive answer to his noble friend about, as he described it, the benefits to the Exchequer of reducing the top rate of tax, but that when my noble friend Lord Eatwell asked him a very valid question about people who had deferred taking their bonuses from the high-tax period to the lower-tax period, he said that it was impossible to speculate about it? He understands the benefits but he cannot acknowledge the simple statistic that my noble friend put to him.
Lord Newby
The absolutely bald point that lay behind the question of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is that when you do this kind of thing at the top end of tax rates, very well-off people take evasive action. That is why it is an ineffective way of raising additional amounts of money. People do not just sit there and pay the tax: they forestall it, postpone it and avoid it. This is why it was a very ineffective way of trying to raise additional funding.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what the effect was on revenue of increasing the rate of capital gains tax?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I do not have that figure immediately to hand, but it was very significant. It was more than the potential loss of revenue from reducing the top rate of tax.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, Colbert famously said that the art of taxation is to raise the maximum of revenue with the minimum of squawking. This Government are raising their revenue with a maximum of purring. Should that not make us suspicious?
Lord Christopher
My Lords, perhaps I may help. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, two or three years ago the loss to the Revenue due to anticipation was £1 billion. That was the figure that the OBR gave and it has not been contradicted. When will we know what the degree of postponement is this year? If I may say so, in my opinion both of these losses could have been stopped with a two or three-line clause in the Finance Bill, which both he and I could have written.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord overestimates my drafting skills.
Lord Peston
My Lords, according to this bit of paper the original Question asked “what assessment” the Government have made. As far as I can see, they have made no assessment. Does the noble Lord remember, from whenever he learnt some economics, that economic theory does not tell us anything at all about the optimum rate of tax? This is because people with a greater preference for leisure will work less and pay less tax, if you cut the tax. That is why economics and economists are such a pain in the neck.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I could not possibly comment on that last point. I refer the noble Lord, and indeed all other noble Lords, to the extremely comprehensive assessment made by HMRC last year, entitled The Exchequer effect of the 50 per cent additional rate of income tax.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, the Minister acceded to the point that announcing in advance that tax rates will change leads to a change in people’s habits. Why did the Government give people so long to avoid paying this tax? The proposed spending on facilities for troops returning from Afghanistan, for example, will have to be paid for over a long time. Does the Minister accept that this could be paid for much more quickly if that decision had not been taken?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the noble Baroness will remember that the 50p tax rate was introduced by her colleague Gordon Brown during his premiership and that a long period of notice was given. The rate was not introduced by this Government. As far as paying for troops who are coming back from Afghanistan is concerned, that will be paid for out of general revenue, which is the right way of doing it.
NHS: Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Monks
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to issue guidelines about public statements by NHS executives following the announcement of reviews of hospital care launched following the Francis review into Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, in the context of Mid Staffordshire, it is right that prompt action is taken whenever there are concerns about patient safety. We agree that there is a need for an authoritative voice on the quality of hospital care in the NHS. In future, the CQC, through its new Chief Inspector of Hospitals, Professor Sir Mike Richards, will play this role and provide expert judgment.
Lord Monks
I thank the noble Earl for that reply. I can well understand and share the nervousness, as does the whole House, about some NHS managements after the disasters of Mid Staffs and now Morecambe Bay. Does the noble Earl agree that it is important to avoid a lurch to the other extreme with a sort of shoot first and ask questions later culture? Does he further agree that there have recently been some instances of such a trigger-happy approach at Bolton and Leeds hospitals? In those cases the falsely accused were later completely exonerated. What steps can be taken to avoid panicky reactions which cause destabilisation and demoralisation in important parts of the NHS?
Earl Howe
I agree with the noble Lord’s general point that it is important to avoid oversensationalising or exaggerating a situation. I am not aware that official NHS spokesmen have been guilty of that in either of the two cases that he refers to. If there is cause for concern about any aspect of the NHS, it is surely right that that concern is made public. The important thing is for those public statements to be balanced and authoritative. That will be one major advantage of having as Chief Inspector of Hospitals a professional who is as widely respected as Professor Sir Mike Richards.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, many years ago, the General Medical Council imposed on registered medical practitioners an obligation to report any serious deficiencies in practice or other serious failings which they observed on the part of medical colleagues? It was a kind of medical whistleblowers’ charter. Bearing in mind what happened not only in Staffs but in Furness hospital in Cumbria, is it not time for a similar formal obligation to be imposed on executives and managers in the NHS and in relevant bodies such as the Care Quality Commission?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very current issue. As he will remember, we have introduced a contractual duty to raise concerns. We have issued guidance to NHS organisations on that subject. We have also strengthened the NHS constitution to support staff in the NHS and in social care on how to raise concerns. There is a free helpline to enable them to do that. We are considering in the context of the Care Bill the whole issue of the duty of candour. I feel sure that the noble Lord will make a valid contribution to that debate.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, communication of complex issues is a vital part of any press department’s role. Will my noble friend the Minister tell the House how large the press teams within the Department of Health and NHS England are, how much they cost the taxpayer and how their effectiveness is managed?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the latest figure that I have for the cost of the Department of Health’s media centre is for 2011-12 and is £2.57 million. I will write to my noble friend as soon as I have more recent figures. She may be interested to know that the names and contact details of each of the department’s press officers are published on the GOV.UK website. Currently, 28 Department of Health press officers are listed there. I do not have to hand the details of the number of press officers employed by NHS England, but, again, I shall write to my noble friend with that information. In the department and in NHS England, internal line management arrangements are in place to measure performance.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my health interests in the register. I was very interested in the Minister’s first response, in which he agreed that oversensational statements about the NHS are doing great damage. Has he shared that view with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State? Hardly a day goes by without the Secretary of State taking an opportunity to attack various aspects of the National Health Service. Will he take it from me that this is having a very bad effect on morale in the NHS? His right honourable friend should desist, and a period of silence from him would be very welcome.
Earl Howe
The question surely is whether my right honourable friend is saying things that are true. My judgment is that he is very near the truth, if not spot on. Most people will ask themselves whether it is the Department of Health or the press which oversensationalises things. I think I know the answer to that.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, in considering the way forward in inspections, might not prominence be given to local inspection systems? After all, a national system cannot be in all the places at once, whereas local people can see what is going on in their local area. There might be something to be said for strengthening that aspect of the inspection system.
Earl Howe
My noble and learned friend makes an important point. Of course, that will be the virtue of local Healthwatch, which will be the eyes and ears of the local community in a particular area. We have also strengthened the role of governors of foundation trusts, whose job it will be to have an equally up-to-the-minute view of their organisation’s performance.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
My Lords, I want to reinforce the message put to the Minister this afternoon and tell him what it feels like at the sharp end of the health service. Both my noble friends who have spoken echoed the comments—misquoted or otherwise—made by the Secretary of State. Those comments have caused absolute fear and I am not exaggerating. We had the CQC at our trust on Friday. Our regional person for the CQC is fantastic, the CQC’s reporting is really good and, as noble Lords know, I am supportive of it. However, will the noble Earl please ensure that the messages stop? These people carry out a really important job and if we stop believing that what they do matters, then I do not know where we go. Can we please make sure that the reinforcement of the CQC, with new people involved, will make a difference?
Bank of England: National Debt
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Williams of Elvel
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of the national debt is currently held by the Bank of England.
Lord Newby
My Lords, Bank of England data state that the Bank of England’s asset purchase facility currently holds £326.3 billion of gilts by nominal value. This was equivalent to 24.1% of the total stock of gilts and Treasury bills at the end of March 2013.
Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, if the Minister were to consult Wikipedia, he would see that the figure is rather higher. Something like a third of the national debt is now owned by the Bank of England. Given this, does the Minister agree that in time this position must be unwound, and how will this be achieved?
Lord Newby
My Lords, this measure was taken to deal with the heart attack suffered by the British economy and over a period it will be unwound. This is a matter for the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England to manage. At the point at which it feels it right to start unwinding, no doubt it will explain how it plans to do it.
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, the Prudential Regulation Authority has said that the banks must raise an additional £27 billion in capital. Will the Minister tell the House how the Government intend to make sure that this increase in capital requirements will not lead to further reductions in lending to SMEs?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Government are not responsible for the way in which banks may or may not raise capital. We are very keen for the banks to continue to lend money to SMEs and, indeed, to increase the extent to which they do it. One way in which we hope that this will happen is through increased competition in the banking sector. We hope that current trends in some aspects of that, with some of the new smaller banks lending to SMEs, will continue.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, does the Minister recall that in 2010 the Chancellor forecast that the total national debt as a percentage of GDP would start to fall in 2015? He later changed that to 2018. Now that forecast might need to be altered, given the review that he will announce on Wednesday, and further cuts. When does the Minister expect the national debt itself to start falling?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that the point at which the national debt will fall as a proportion of GDP has been pushed out by a couple of years. The statements made at the Budget showed that we still believe that it will happen in 2017-18, and the spending round being announced later this week is designed to ensure that we meet that target.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, can my noble friend explain how this process of unwinding is to take place? Does he mean that the Bank of England will sell back the same gilt-edged securities to the market and, in that case, are they likely to have the right degree of duration and so on?
Lord Newby
My Lords, at Question Time with less than three minutes to go, I cannot give a very detailed description. The key point is that the Monetary Policy Committee is committed to working with the Debt Management Office to make sure that, as and when the present situation is unwound, that takes place in an orderly manner so that we do not have undue volatility in the market.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, what contingency has the Treasury made for repaying to the Bank of England the revenues it currently receives should the Bank incur a loss on its bond holdings?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Treasury has always accepted that it might find itself paying back money to the Bank of England. The noble Lord will be aware that the original situation was that the Bank was buying Treasury bills and collecting interest on them. The Treasury was paying the interest to the Bank, which was then sitting on the interest. What we have done, in line with America and Japan, which have broadly the same scheme, is ensure that that money, which amounts to some £19 billion to date, has been transferred back to the Treasury. We have always accepted that there could be a reverse flow as bills are sold back into the market or expire, but that will take place over a significant period. We believe that it is sensible to operate in that way.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, following the supplementary question from my noble friend from the Liberal Democrat Benches, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that the requirement on banks to raise more capital will in no way reduce the amount of lending to SMEs? That is just special pleading by the banks. In fact, more capital will be enabled to be lent to SMEs. While he is on his feet, can he also confirm that a good bank/bad bank split of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group as soon as possible would also greatly assist more lending to SMEs?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the noble Lord’s views on the good bank/bad bank split are well known. As he knows, the Treasury is now looking at that. We are hopeful that as economic conditions improve, lending to SMEs will increase in any event, but I have been surprised over the past three years by the extent to which the views of the banks about the demand from SMEs for lending have not been matched by the self-professed requirements of SMEs. I think that at every stage the banks could and should have done more.
National Security Strategy
The Chairman of Committees
That Lord Levene of Portsoken be appointed a member of the Joint Committee in place of Baroness Manningham-Buller, resigned.
Energy Bill
Baroness Verma
That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Energy Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 4, Clauses 56 to 63, Schedule 6, Clauses 64 to 66, Schedule 7, Clauses 67 to 71, Schedule 8, Clauses 72 to 88, Schedule 9, Clauses 89 to 94, Schedule 10, Clauses 95 to 103, Schedule 11, Clause 104, Schedule 12, Clauses 105 to 117, Schedule 13, Clauses 118 to 132, Schedule 14, Clauses 133 to 136, Clause 47, Schedule 4, Clauses 48 and 49, Schedule 5, Clauses 50 and 51, Clause 5, Clauses 21 to 37, Clauses 6 and 7, Schedule 1, Clauses 8 to 20, Clauses 43 to 46, Clause 38, Schedule 2, Clauses 39 to 41, Schedule 3, Clause 42, Clauses 52 to 55, Clauses 137 to 142.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) Omit sub-paragraph (1).”
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, is being very courteous in hesitating a while. If I intervene for long enough, that may have the effect of clearing the Chamber almost altogether, and then we will have a little peace and quiet for him to present his amendment.
Lord Alli
My Lords, this amendment is about addressing an inequality in pensions in relation to survivor benefits that will affect a small number of people in a very unfair way.
Let me try to explain. The Equality Act allows occupational pension providers to ignore the service and contributions of gay employees prior to 2005 when it comes to paying out survivor benefits to civil partners. This stemmed from an original exemption in the Civil Partnership Act that I argued against at that time. This Bill would see the same thing happen to same-sex spouses.
I will say from the outset that the majority of occupational pension schemes have ignored this provision and pay out fully to survivors. They do this because they believe it to be fair and I recognise that and thank them for it. However, there are those that do not. Their reason is mostly cost. This is odd, as the Office for National Statistics calculates that it would cost only £18 million to the private sector.
In a past career, I was the publisher of a magazine with the snappy title of Pensions. In case your Lordships are interested, I also published Planned Savings, Insurance Age, The Savings Market and a statistical compendium called Rateguide. So I am pretty confident that no pension provider can accurately predict how many individuals within a pension scheme will be gay, how many will marry under this Bill when it becomes law or become civil partners and how many will outlive their partners, husbands or wives by a significant period. I am also pretty confident that for the one-third of schemes that do not pay out, the actuaries who run the numbers probably have already built in the additional costs associated with this amendment. Pensions actuaries—and I have met many of them—deal constantly in uncertainties around the length of life, the possibility of illness, the number of scheme members who are likely to marry and many more issues. Given that two-thirds of schemes already do, I do not understand why we cannot insist that the rest treat same-sex couples who marry in exactly the same way as heterosexual couples who marry. They have all paid in the same pension contributions.
I know from the other place that the Government think that this is a matter for the schemes themselves. However, in debating amendment after amendment we have discussed the rights of those who disagree with same-sex marriages to be able to do so, and we have resisted giving public servants the right to pick and choose what services they will give to whom based upon their deeply held beliefs. That is effectively what we would be doing here with employers and pension scheme trustees—we would be allowing pension fund trustees who genuinely believe same-sex marriage to be wrong to have the right to create two classes of spouses in their schemes. This legislation would permit it.
If we were not dealing with pensions, which are boring and complicated, but some other form of service, we would not allow this to happen. The cost to the Government is nothing. These changes were made for the public sector in 2004. I ask the Minister not to let the subject matter perpetuate an injustice into this Bill that is completely unnecessary. It is not a huge issue—£18 million does not set the world alight, but it is a kindness that we can give to a few people at the most difficult time in their life. I cannot demand that the noble Baroness do something about it; I can only ask, with the sincerity of those who have asked me to take up this issue, to take it away and see if we can do something about it. We should have solved this issue in 2004. The party opposite probably should have done so in 2010. People have waited far too long for the compassion that they deserve. I hope that we might find that in this Bill. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, I speak with some sympathy for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alli. For once, these Benches are able to say that we put our money where our mouth is. With civil partnership arrangements, the Church of England pension scheme has done exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, has suggested. I think that that is the right way forward and I hope that the Government might give this amendment consideration.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, treating a gay employee less favourably than a straight colleague under an occupational pension scheme purely because of the gender of his or her partner, is direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. This was the conclusion of the employment tribunal when giving judgment in the case of Walker v Innospec. Rather than heeding these conclusions and reflecting on the inherent injustice that this case addressed, the Government have applied to be joined to John Walker’s case in support of his employer and pension provider. They also seek to legislate in this Bill to extend the discrimination so that it applies not just to civil partners but to same-sex spouses, too.
As we know, this issue is not new. During the parliamentary passage of the Civil Partnership Bill, we considered the position of public service schemes. Initially, the then Labour Government claimed that benefits under such schemes should accrue only in relation to future service, arguing against imposing retrospective burdens. Thankfully, on that occasion the Government had a change of heart and recognised the need to secure equal treatment. The situation was similarly equalised for contracted-out schemes, while the law in relation to the state pension was also changed to allow civil partners to draw on the contribution record of their civil partners. These were welcome concessions but, sadly, the discrimination ultimately banished from other schemes remained in the case of contracted-in occupational pension schemes.
That this inequality remains on the statute book will surprise and sadden many who believed that the Civil Partnership Act gave civil partners all the same legal entitlements as spouses. The reason that the Government have given for extending rather than remedying this discrimination is a reluctance to impose retrospective costs on pension schemes. The fact that this discrimination has already been rectified in relation to public schemes rather undermines the Government’s objection to retrospection. It is far from unprecedented to take such a step but perhaps it is the Government’s position that in relation to public schemes, for which they have more direct responsibility, the basic demands of equality prevail over concerns about retrospection. I would argue, however, that the Government should not only refrain from discrimination but refuse to sanction direct discrimination by the private sector. This is the principle which underlines much of the substance of all our equality legislation.
A society in which the state refrains from discrimination but in which you can be turned away from a restaurant or hotel because you are gay is not a fair society. For decades, the love and commitment shared by gay couples was not afforded any form of recognition by the state. Prior to the Civil Partnership Act gay couples did not have access to the legal benefits available to straight couples in so many areas of life, from property rights to pensions. If this Bill is, as I believe it to be, about correcting these injustices, why are we relying on historic discrimination to justify real, ongoing inequality?
The argument goes like this. Before 2005 we did not formally recognise gay relationships, therefore gay couples cannot expect to receive the benefits they would have received had we awarded their relationships the respect they deserved at an earlier juncture. Discrimination should not beget discrimination in this way. It is surely wrong, and against the whole spirit of the Bill. I warmly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and very much hope that the Government will do what he proposes.
Lord Alli
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Alli. The best thing I can do is to endorse everything that the right reverend Prelate has said. If this is a Bill about equality, we have to treat people equally. As that is what we are told it is, that is what I expect will happen.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, a very powerful case has been made. I simply want to draw attention to what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said on this and to the oral evidence that the Minister gave to the committee, where he talked about wanting to find the fairest place to put same-sex married couples within the pensions framework. What we have heard this afternoon shows that this is not the fairest place. I would be very interested to hear how the Minister can justify this discrimination as being the fairest place.
When he gave evidence to us, the Minister gave some large sums and made it all sound incredibly complicated. He talked about £3 billion to £4 billion. It is not at all clear to me where those sums come from. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify why such large sums are being bandied around. The committee called for a full review of pension provision in relation to survivor pension benefit entitlements of same-sex married couples and civil partners to ensure that there is no unjustifiable discrimination in pension scheme provisions. What we have heard sounds like unjustifiable discrimination. We call on the Government to provide precise information about the potential costs of equalising pension rights.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I rise briefly to support this amendment. When the Civil Partnership Act went through, it was interesting to note that employers were already ahead of the law and that a number of private schemes already recognised partners. When the civil partnership law was enacted, many more then did so. It is fair to say that in this House there are people who may have forgotten more about pensions than I will ever know. However, in the greater scheme of things, this is not very much money in terms of the overall pension contributions, yet it means an immense amount to individuals; those people who are doing all the things that we would encourage others to do, like being judicious in provision for their later life. It seems to me wholly wrong that they are not rewarded in the way that every other person would be if they did the same thing.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, as my noble friend said, pensions might sound boring but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, pensions are extremely important to individuals. They do affect quality of life, so this is a very important amendment.
Liberty, to which I am grateful for its excellent briefing on this issue, is surely right in saying:
“This is an unnecessary and counterproductive anomaly in a Bill which otherwise makes landmark progress in equally respecting the rights of gay people”.
The same has been said from all Benches today.
Naturally, I recognise the anomaly that exists between the treatment of pension rights for married and same-sex civil partners. However, this Bill not only continues that discrimination but it takes forward the same distinction to same-sex married couples: in terms of these pension rights, they would be treated differently from opposite-sex married couples. This uneven treatment would, therefore, be continued. As my noble friend cogently argued, this should be an opportunity to get rid of the current anomaly rather than to extend the discrimination.
I was struck by what I thought was an extraordinary answer from the Secretary of State to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in relation to compatibility with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights on this issue. She said that the reason for treating same-sex-marriage couples as civil partners is that they could have the option either of getting married or of forming a civil partnership—and that the legislation therefore treats them equally.
This is sort of true but it goes against the whole ethos of this Bill. As my noble friend said, arguments which are made against this on the principle of retrospection are misplaced. It is clear that actuaries base forecasts on a wide range of assumptions which are not necessarily proved to be correct. In its report on the Bill, the JCHR also noted: that,
“Depending on the provisions of the scheme, pension rights of same sex spouses may not be the same as pension rights of opposite sex spouses, which may give rise to an issue as to whether this is compatible with Article 14 of the ECHR in conjunction with Article 1 Protocol 1”.
It has already been noted that the Government are currently fighting an appeal against the decision to uphold this view in the case of John Walker. However, if legislation is not amended to take account of the Walker judgment and the reliance on the European Court findings, it is likely that further action will be taken by same-sex married partners. One cannot blame them. They will seek similar redress in the courts to ensure that they, too, can access pension rights in an equal way. That would be regrettable.
Of course, I recognise that resolving this anomaly is not without cost but the real frustration is that we do not have the requisite information to debate the issue with knowledge of its full consequences. When responding to a similar amendment moved in the other place, the Minister, Helen Grant, said that,
“we do not believe that it would be right to put on schemes the significant additional and retrospective financial burdens that would arise from removing the Equality Act exception”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/5/13; col. 1144.]
However, how significant those burdens are is unclear. The House of Commons Library estimated that the potential additional cost to private contracted-in schemes would be £18 million. That is a significant figure by anyone’s estimates, but when compared with the total value of assets under management in the pensions industry it amounts to just 0.006%—as was pointed out by Mr Mike Freer on Report in the Commons. I accept that for a handful of small employers or charitable schemes this may have a disproportionate impact. However, the Government have accepted that around two-thirds of schemes already treat opposite-sex marriages and civil partnerships equally. I pay tribute to all those organisations, including the Church of England, which do the right thing.
In evidence submitted to the JCHR, the Minister for Sport and Tourism, Hugh Robertson, stated that,
“We estimate that in total the impact on both contracted-in and contracted-out private sector schemes could amount to as much as £90 million. There would be very substantial costs for public service schemes”.
Will the Minister confirm to the House the costs, additional to the £18 million identified and widely accepted, on which £90 million figure is based, and the costs for public service schemes to which the Secretary of State was referring given the 2005 regulations identified by the Commons Library? On these Benches, we believe that the financial impact of the amendment would be relatively insignificant. However, the Secretary of State is quite clear that there would be a cost. Therefore, I echo the calls from around the Chamber and from the JCHR for the Minister to publish the full evidence on which the Government based their assessment as soon as possible so that we might approach Report armed with the fullest possible view of the consequences of this amendment—an amendment which I fully support.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and all others who contributed to this debate. I understand the strength of feeling behind this amendment and the speeches that have been made. Anticipating this debate, I decided to speak directly to the Pensions Ministers today and so was able to come properly armed with full information.
First, and as I have said in other contexts and in our other debates on the Bill, in making it possible for same-sex couples to marry we have sought to build on existing legislation and not amend the structure of marriage law. The point is that we focused on allowing same-sex couples to marry. In the context of pensions, we are following what already exists for civil partnerships, as has been referred to by several noble Lords in the debate. The introduction of civil partnerships was, as we have acknowledged several times over the last few weeks, a fundamental change in our society. It was a huge step forward. The Act was complex and covered a wide range of different issues. The Labour Government at the time decided to provide this exception for defined benefit pension schemes which are not contracted-out of the state second pension. They clearly did so for a principled reason: Governments do not generally make changes to pension schemes retrospectively. That is the general approach that is taken. That decision was made in 2005 during the passage of that Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, referred to the Equality Act 2010 and suggested that it had then been open to this Government to remove the exception. It is worth reminding the noble Lord and the House that the Equality Act was passed under the previous Government. It was not a Bill that we were still debating and deciding after the election—it predated this Government.
Lord Alli
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in support of this amendment, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, who I know stayed late the other night in the hope that this amendment would come up. I also thank the Minister, in particular for taking the time to speak to the Pensions Minister and for taking a personal interest in this.
To lose your husband, wife or long-term partner is by any account a terrible experience. It is a time when you are least prepared to be able to deal with the complexities of pension scheme trustees. You just want to be left alone with your grief. Putting people through the court system to try to equalise this does not feel particularly humane. We all want our loved ones to be provided for once we go. To rely on the good will of the two-thirds of occupational pension schemes that are doing the right thing, or, if one is unlucky enough to be in the third, having to fight a battle to receive the benefit paid for by their partner, again seems wrong.
I am only asking the Government to show a bit of compassion for what is a tiny amount of money. They have already conceded the principle in the public sector. I ask the Minister to reflect carefully on what all noble Lords have said in this debate and to see whether it might be the Government’s position to resolve the anomaly in this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barker
Baroness Barker
My Lords, in moving Amendment 46ZA I will also speak to the other amendments that are grouped with it. These are a bunch of somewhat technical amendments that deal with a very difficult situation. Until now, if a person was to change their gender, there was no way in which they could remain in the marriage in which they had lived until that point. For some people in that situation, that was extremely difficult because they continued to love the person to whom they had been married. Some couples, in particular those to whom their faith was very important, found that the inevitable move to divorce was wrong. There is a widespread welcoming of the fact that in this legislation it is now possible for two people in that situation to remain in a marriage, albeit one that is now same-sex.
However, in the process of doing that the Government have, in this Bill, set up another problem. Previously, under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Civil Partnership Act 2004, when a person was going through the process of changing their gender, they could apply for what was known as an interim gender recognition certificate. A panel would recognise that they were going through the process of transition, and as I understand it it was almost like the equivalent of a heterosexual couple receiving something like a decree nisi because it was one step towards what would inevitably be a divorce. If a spouse indicated that they were in agreement with that, the matter could simply go ahead.
The problem arises when a non-co-operative spouse wishes to put a block on that process. For understandable reasons, spouses may be deeply unhappy with the situation in which they find themselves, and they can in effect block the process. I should say that I am deeply indebted to the people who have explained this to me at considerable length, and I apologise to them if I am not putting their case as well as I might.
An important piece of information for me was that a spouse cannot prevent a person from having gender reassignment surgery. They can only stop or hold up the process of recognition of somebody in their new gender, but they cannot prevent them from having the surgery. Therefore, sometimes when spouses are upset and angry they block the process of gender recognition. A common way to do that is by initiating divorce proceedings and then taking no further action so that the whole process is stopped. That can lead to a lot of difficulty, not least with the legal recognition of a person in transition, their ability to work and some aspects of their finances, although not child maintenance payments.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
My Lords, I put my name to these amendments, having initiated this debate at Second Reading, because I believe that the Bill is morally wrong. I appreciate that these are complex issues—the issue that we are discussing is particularly complex, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, illustrated—which are difficult to resolve, but the difference they can make to a transperson’s life cannot be underestimated. I illustrate this by referring to an e-mail I received after my speech at Second Reading. It was from a transperson who said that she cried tears of joy. I am sure that she was not crying tears of joy at my speech but at the fact that somebody had addressed an issue about which she felt so strongly and which was affecting her life. That is terribly important.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, also said, the Bill identifies two anomalies which govern transpeople’s lives. The legislation provides for the removal of the requirement for married transpeople who wish to apply for gender recognition to be single at the point of gender recognition. Further, a concession has been made as regards spouses’ survivor pensions, which removes a further major concern for many transpeople.
The passing of this amendment would get rid of a third anomaly for transpeople in existing marriages. As it stands, the Bill removes the obligation on a transperson being in an existing marriage, although it does require a civil partnership to be converted to a marriage before application, as otherwise an opposite-sex civil partnership would be created. However, the Bill has now introduced the concept that the non-transitioning spouse must give formal consent. It adds the requirement that spouses now have to consent to the change of their partner. No other area in law—this is a change to the structure of law—requires spousal consent to any change within a marriage. There is no need for spousal consent to end a marriage, move abroad, financially destabilise the family, apply for distant jobs, or for medical treatment. Formal spousal consent that can veto a partner’s gender recognition is a new concept in law.
The assumption in marriage law is that spousal consent is assumed. If the spouse does not consent to the partner’s actions, the spouse has the opportunity to initiate divorce proceedings. What we have now certainly goes against the view of most spouses. It may have been objected to by some but until 2003-04 it was routine for gender identity clinics to require spousal consent for the treatment of married transpeople, until it was pointed out that this was potentially a breach of the transperson’s human rights. We have the same problem again here.
The amendment has been carefully crafted. Its value is that the determination of someone’s gender will be a matter for the individual concerned and the state. No other individual is involved. A spouse may choose to expedite the applicant’s full gender recognition by including a statutory declaration of consent. However, a spouse cannot prevent an applicant’s full gender recognition by more than a year by withholding that consent. That is important. They still have rights but they are limited. In respect of interim gender recognition certificates, the Gender Recognition Act currently allows the gender recognition panel to issue interim gender recognition certificates to those transpeople who were married or in civil partnerships at the point of application.
The amendment allows an applicant in an existing marriage or civil partnership to apply for an interim gender recognition certificate, which would allow annulment or divorce proceedings to commence if required. Further, it would allow an individual who has been granted an interim gender recognition certificate to change their gender under the Act, after a predetermined period has elapsed. The Bill makes no distinction between marriages where both spouses wish it to continue and marriages where divorce proceedings have commenced. Therefore, we seem to have created the ludicrous situation that in the absence of a decree absolute, the divorcing spouse will still be required to give consent to the transperson’s gender recognition, no matter how long it has taken to get to that point in the divorce. Marriages can break down when a transperson reveals themselves to be trans. There are many points at which either spouse may decide that the marriage can no longer continue, such as the point of revelation, when treatment commences, when the transperson goes public, the point of name change or when transformation surgery occurs. All these can result in acrimonious proceedings that can drift on for many years. Known cases have gone from 17 months to six years. The amendment would avoid that situation.
The requirement for spousal consent creates one further flashpoint for couples in what is already a difficult situation. The amendment overcomes that problem as spouses can no longer obstruct but only delay by a known timescale someone’s gender recognition. That is the crux of the amendment. All the objections raised in the Commons seem to have been satisfied. It is fair to both partners and does not disadvantage the spouse. Again, it is utterly wrong in principle to hand someone’s right of identity to someone else who may be hostile to that person. It is irrelevant whether it is a widespread problem or not. That argument should not be used when talking about justice and fairness for any individual. I trust that it will not be used as an explanation for opposing the amendment. I approached this amendment with some hope, and I have enormous respect for the way in which the Minister has responded to opposition to the Bill. She has listened and responded to many of the points raised. But, on this occasion, I feel that that listening has stopped. Many people, not only transpeople, will feel betrayed and discriminated against, and there will certainly be no tears of joy if this amendment is not accepted. It is discrimination in a Bill that is designed to do just the reverse.
When the Gender Recognition Act was passed in 2004, there was no mention of spousal consent. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House why this has suddenly emerged. Can she give evidence of spouses having requested a veto? I understand that some spouses have said that they want to be informed, but being informed is substantially different from consent. It would also be helpful to know the view of the gender recognition panel, because now there will be additional documentation for the panel to process, and that will certainly have financial implications.
The transperson potentially gains significantly by gender recognition and therefore may lose significantly by not being able to achieve it. The spouse loses nothing by their partner gaining gender recognition and gains nothing by withholding consent. Does the Minister not see that this is really to do with equity of rights? Leaving the Bill as it stands and without this amendment will mean that the Government are saying to the trans community, “Somehow or other, you seem to be second-class citizens”. It will establish a precedent which may be used elsewhere. I appeal to the Minister to rethink her opposition to this amendment because I am sure that the issue will not go away. It is a matter of principle, and if her opposition has anything to do with the wording of the amendment, we would be very happy to bring it back on Report with new wording.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I, too, support these amendments. When I was a family judge, I tried a number of what for me were the saddest of all cases: where one spouse had entered into a transgender situation, particularly before the Gender Recognition Act brought justice to those people. However, that left the other spouse confused and distressed. I remember a particular case in which the wife sat at the back of the court in floods of tears when what was being discussed was how the father could become an auntie because he was in the process of changing his gender.
These are incredibly sad cases for both parties, but particularly for those who are left behind under the Gender Recognition Act. I agree totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, that those who change their gender require fairness, proper human rights and recognition, but this House also needs to remember those who are left behind. However, in doing that, there is no point in retaining a marriage that cannot exist unless it exists in a new dimension.
The two points made to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, shortly before the House sat today are extremely important. The first is that there should be a notification of the fact that the gender recognition spouse is making this application. I understand that the spouse who is left behind does not necessarily know that the application is being made. That is an injustice to that person, and it is one of the important elements in this group of amendments. The second point is this: if people cannot bring themselves to be married as a same-sex couple, as they will be able to in the future when this Bill becomes law, because the left-behind spouse cannot tolerate that, they really should not allow the marriage to continue indefinitely. It does not help either party that it should run on. The suggestion in this group of amendments—that there should be a cut-off point at six months, as there is in every other part of this—seems only just. People can then get on with bringing the marriage, which would by definition have failed, to an end. For these reasons, again, I support these amendments.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on meeting two out of the three issues that the Bill has raised for transgender people, and doing so in a sensible and calm fashion. The only outstanding issue left is the proposal being tested here—that same-sex marriage legislation gives spouses the power of veto over whether a transgender partner can have legal recognition of a change of gender. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, my noble friend Lady Gould and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, have explained the issues perfectly well. I do not think they are complex; they are very straightforward. This is an unfairness and injustice that needs to be balanced out and dealt with in the Bill.
It is an irony and a great shame that, when enacted, the Bill will affect the human rights of transgender people and take them backwards in the UK. I do not think that is the Government’s intention, and I am sure that it is not the intention of the Minister. From these Benches, we think it is important to resolve this issue, which affects a minority of people but, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, can have a very painful and lifelong effect. The Government need to address it. I hope that between now and Report, we will be able to resolve the issue.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Barker for introducing this group of amendments and also to all who have spoken in the debate today. It is an incredibly sensitive issue, and I am mindful of that in responding. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, made a powerful speech and I want her to know that I was listening carefully to her arguments. The Gender Recognition Panel has been consulted throughout as we have been drafting the Bill and it has not raised any concerns or matter that we have not been able to address.
Before I get to the detail of the amendments, let me be clear from the start—in a way it is a response to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton—that our concern in the Bill has been to ensure that as many couples as possible are able to stay married if they wish to do so following one or both spouses obtaining gender recognition. We are proud to make that possible in the Bill and it is something that we very much support.
The provisions in the Bill allow the spouse of a transperson to agree and consent to their marriage continuing as a same-sex marriage after gender recognition. It is not a block or a veto; they cannot prevent their spouse obtaining gender recognition. It is important that I make that point. I will explain in a little bit more detail, but nobody is able to stop anybody getting their gender recognition certificate—of that I can be very clear.
The Bill seeks to strike a fair balance between the Article 8 rights to respect for the private and family life of both spouses. The trans spouse has a right to be granted their gender recognition without unnecessary delay, but the non-trans spouse also has a right to have a say in the future of their marriage following their spouse gaining gender recognition. We have, during the passage of the Bill, listened carefully to interested stakeholders from the trans community. I have been glad to meet some representatives with my honourable friend Helen Grant, the Minister from another place. I am grateful to those who have been involved in the preparation of these amendments, and for the time and effort that have gone into them because I know that has been considerable.
I will turn specifically to what the amendments seek to do. The first aspect is the limit of six months in proposed new subsection (3A), relating to both spouses’ power to initiate annulment proceedings following the issue of an interim gender recognition certificate. The point is that there should be a limit of six months for annulment proceedings to start. In response to a point made by my noble friend Lady Barker and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I want to make it clear that if a spouse refused to commence annulment proceedings, the trans spouse would be able to do so. In the Bill as it stands, either spouse in the marriage is able to start annulment proceedings. It is not just in the hands of one spouse.
In terms of the second time limit of 12 months in proposed new subsection (3A), once annulment proceedings have been commenced, it is for the court to bring the marriage to an end and, upon that occurring, to issue a full gender recognition certificate to the applicant. To require the Gender Recognition Panel to issue a gender recognition certificate while court proceedings are ongoing would be to require the panel to usurp the functions of a superior court. Where one spouse is deliberately delaying the annulment process, the courts already have the power to deal with this. I will be absolutely clear: either spouse is able to bring forward annulment proceedings and once they start, they are in the hands of the court. Most annulment proceedings take three months—or, from the very outset, six months I think—but it is the court that will ensure that they continue in line with the proper process.
There is another element to the amendments, which I am not sure my noble friend covered in her introductory remarks, but to which I will respond. Proposed new subsection (3B) relates to civil partnerships. The Government do not believe that removing the right of spouses to have a say in the future of their marriage following conversion and gender recognition strikes the proper balance between the rights of both spouses. The agreement of a non-trans civil partner to the conversion of their civil partnership to a same-sex marriage is one thing—it is not the same as their agreement to the resulting marriage continuing as an opposite-sex marriage following their spouse’s gender recognition.
That covers the situation where a couple are already in a civil partnership and one of them has gender reassignment. If the non-trans spouse agrees to transfer the civil partnership to a marriage, to allow their certificate to continue, that is not the same as the non-trans spouse agreeing at the same time that they want to continue to be married to somebody who would then be of the opposite sex but who was of the same sex when they first entered into a civil partnership.
The Government and I are always prepared to listen and to take great care in responding to points raised in debate. It is probably worth mentioning that we have already made an amendment to the Bill to protect the pension rights of transpeople who receive a gender recognition certificate and are then in a same-sex marriage, so that they retain the same rights as if they were married to somebody of the opposite sex. Following the debate in the other place on the fast-track procedure, we have been considering this carefully, and I hope very much to bring forward something positive in that area on Report.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and other noble Lords asked whether a spouse is currently notified at the point of application. Under current rules, a spouse is not notified of her trans partner’s gender recognition application. This is because the marriage must be annulled before a full gender recognition certificate can be issued. The process, as it stands, requires somebody to have annulled their marriage before it is possible to get a full gender recognition certificate. However, I have only just been made aware of that issue and would like to follow up with a letter to the noble and learned Baroness, to my noble friend and to other noble Lords to explain the point in more detail.
I regret that I am not able to accept the amendment, but I hope I was able to give noble Lords the assurance they quite rightly seek. This is not about anybody having more control than the other person over the future of their marriage; it is about ensuring that there is an equal share and balance of rights between the two parties, and that it certainly is not just one spouse who has the right to annul the marriage.
Baroness Thornton
I do not think the noble Baroness has actually addressed the issue of one spouse having the right of veto. I think that is very important. Spousal vetoes are spousal consents, which we got rid of in this country many years ago. A husband actually had to consent to his wife divorcing him, for example. I ask the noble Baroness to look at this most carefully. At the moment the Bill is in danger of reintroducing into British law a new matter—the right of one spouse to veto the actions of another—which we got rid of many years ago.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I hoped that I had responded to that, because we are clear that one spouse is not vetoing somebody else’s rights. If the transperson in the marriage wants to go for full gender recognition and receive the certificate, they are absolutely entitled to do that. However, if the person to whom they are married does not want to remain married to them, then they have to make a decision about the future of their marriage. We argue that for the non-transperson, whether they wish to remain married to somebody who has gone through gender reassignment is quite a fundamental thing to have to consider. This is not saying that somebody who wants to reassign their gender is not able to do so. The issue is whether they are able to remain in the same marriage. The person to whom they are married also has some right to decide whether they want to remain married to somebody after that person has changed their gender.
Baroness Thornton
The point here is whether the effect of this is that the transperson cannot complete their transition. That is the point the Minister is not answering.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Forgive me, but I think I am. I am saying that if someone wants to go ahead with gender reassignment and their spouse does not agree to remain married to them, then it is open to them to start annulment proceedings, as indeed it is to the spouse who no longer wishes to remain married to them. Both of them have the right to start an annulment proceeding, and the person who wishes to change their gender and receive a full certificate can do that. It is not about them being unable to change their gender. They have the right to do that, and nobody is stopping them doing that. However, if the person to whom they are married does not wish to remain married, sadly they have to make a choice. They have to decide, and it must be their choice. It is not a choice that the state can make for them.
This is an incredibly difficult situation, as has been made clear in the course of this debate. Fundamentally, it concerns the decision of two people about their future. Each person has equal rights in the future of their marriage, but they must decide for themselves. These amendments seek to institute a time limit after which the state decides for them. It is not for the state to decide who people should be married to.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I would like to ask the Minister about notification. Clearly, nothing can happen until the interim certificate is provided. I understand that at the moment it is possible for the spouse not to know anything about the gender reassignment application. The sooner the other spouse knows about it the better, because mediation may be required. One does not want the parties to be in dispute, if possible. The shock to the person who finds that, for instance, her husband is no longer going to be her husband is enormous. The quicker she knows about it the better, in order to help finish the marriage decently and quietly. I understood the Minister to say that this could not be done because other proceedings had to come first. I am asking only for notification at the earliest possible stage that an application is being made. There can be nothing wrong with that, because it will do nothing other than make it certain that both spouses know what is going on.
Baroness Thornton
We are talking here about a balance of rights. I think that I would like guidance, which I would be happy to take in writing or in a meeting. The objections of either spouse might be based on religious conviction, for example, although other objections are possible, too. Equalities cases such as those of Ladele have shown that Article 9 rights need to be balanced with other rights. In this scenario, are the Government explicitly placing someone’s Article 9 rights above their partner’s Article 8 rights? I am not asking the Minister to respond to that question now, but I would like that to be part of this discussion.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I certainly accept the noble Baroness’s invitation to respond to her on that point either in a meeting or in writing. However, I can say quite clearly that the rights at issue here are only Article 8 rights; that is, each party’s right to a private family life. I shall of course respond in detail to that.
On the point raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, under current rules a spouse is not notified of her trans spouse’s gender recognition application because the marriage must be annulled before a full gender recognition certificate can be issued. In order for somebody to obtain the certificate, they would already have had to deal with the issue of their own marriage, because it is not possible in current law for two people of the same sex to be married.
I take the point that the noble and learned Baroness made about there being a need for spouses to be notified of changes sooner rather than later. Clearly, if the relationship still exists, there will in most cases be a physical awareness of the change. However, since the noble and learned Baroness has raised a serious point, as has my noble friend, I should like to consult my colleagues on it and follow it up in writing.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in what has appeared at times to be a very technical debate. There are veterans in this Chamber of the Gender Recognition Act and they will understand that, although this is a technical subject, it is also a very human one. I thank the Minister for the way in which she answered the questions which were put to her, for she deserves enormous credit.
I did not take part in debates on the Gender Recognition Act, but I know that the rights of the person making the transition were very much to the fore at the time. Therefore, matters such as notification of their spouse were perhaps not as problematic as they seem now. I absolutely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, that this not about preventing anybody making a transition but about trying to add to the tools that a couple has at its disposal to sort out their relationship. It is about enabling people to address issues at an earlier stage than they have done in the past. It is also about not allowing proceedings to drag on.
We are now several years on from the passage of the Gender Recognition Act, so we are now beginning to see people coming to us with experience of it, including some who have found themselves in this position. At the end of the day, these are families, quite often with children involved, and it is important that when there is a bitter and difficult situation it can be addressed as swiftly as possible. Perhaps these are situations in which it is never possible for everybody to be happy, but enabling matters to be resolved more quickly is beneficial for all in the end. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Deech
“(1A) The review under subsection (1) must deal with the case for amending the criteria in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 which define the eligibility of people to register as civil partners.
(1B) The review must in particular consider the case for extending such eligibility to—
(a) unpaid carers and those they care for, and(b) family members who share a house, who have cohabited for 5 years or more and are over the age of eighteen.”
Baroness Deech
My Lords, the co-signatory to this amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, has asked me to give her apologies. She is chairing the House’s EU Sub-Committee B at this moment. However, she asked me to make clear her total support for this amendment. It is nine years to the very day since the House agreed to her amendment extending civil partnerships to family members, especially in view of the financial disadvantage they suffer under, for example, inheritance tax. At that time, the Government acknowledged the importance of this issue, yet the amendment was overturned in the other place and still nothing has been done. Because there is to be an urgent and wholesale review of civil partnerships, we firmly believe that family members and carers should be first in the queue to benefit.
I have tried to persuade the House more than once to take heed of the unfair way in which carers and siblings are treated in our law, compared with those in a sexual relationship. Clause 14 provides for a review of civil partnerships and a chance at last for fairness. When the Civil Partnership Bill was passing through Parliament, an amendment to it was adopted in this House by 148 votes to 130, which would have had the effect of extending the availability of civil partnership and the associated inheritance tax concession to family members within the so-called “prohibited degrees of relationship”. The amendment was reversed when the Bill returned to the other place.
During the course of the debate in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said:
“I have great sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, when she talks about siblings who share a home or a carer who looks after a disabled relative. Indeed, she will readily acknowledge that I have put the case several times—at Second Reading and in Grand Committee—and I have pushed the Government very hard to look at this issue. There is an injustice here and it needs to be dealt with, but this is not the Bill in which to do it. This Bill is about same-sex couples whose relationships are completely different from those of siblings”.—[Official Report, 24/6/04; col. 1369.]
In the same debate, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said:
“There is a strongly arguable case for some kind of relief from inheritance tax for family members who have been carers to enable them to continue living in the house where they have carried out their caring duties. But that is a different argument and this is not the place or the time for that argument. This Bill is inappropriate for dealing with that issue”.—[Official Report, 24/6/04; col. 1374.]
During the course of the debate in the Standing Committee of the House of Commons, Jacqui Smith, the then Deputy Minister for Women and Equality, said:
“We heard a widespread agreement from Members across almost all parties that the Civil Partnership Bill is not the place to deal with the concerns of relatives”—
although she agreed with them—
“not because those concerns are not important, but because the Bill is not the appropriate legislative base on which to deal with them”.—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee D, 19/10/04; col. 8.]
There is no dissent from the desirability of extending a legally recognised partnership of some sort to related and carer couples. However, we are repeatedly told—whatever Bill is before Parliament—that it is not the right one in which to address the issue. That is not a good argument when their human rights are concerned. The situation is now even more pertinent and pressing, because the unfairness has increased. Civil partners and married couples, gay or straight, will be treated in law far better than, for example, two elderly sisters who share a house or an elderly father and the daughter who cares for him.
I first became interested in this topic because two of my most brilliant former students at Oxford were counsel for two sisters in a case that I am about to describe. One of those students now sits on the Cross-Benches, my noble friend Lord Pannick. The case to which I refer and which is the best known in this field, is that of Miss Joyce and Miss Sybil Burden, sisters, one of whom is now well over 90 and the other approaching 90. They are still alive, to the best of my knowledge, and have lived together for about 85 years. They remain single. They cared for their parents and two aunts to the end and did not allow them to go into a home.
On the death of the first sister, inheritance tax was estimated in 2008 to be about £120,000 and may be more now if the value of their house has risen. The sisters lost their case of discrimination before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. The court held that marriage was different. With respect, the judgment was unsatisfactory not only because of the narrow defeat in court but for the lack of logic. The Government took down the barriers between marriage and other forms of association by enacting advantages for same-sex couples entering a civil partnership and now, shortly, gay marriage.
The European Court of Human Rights held that there was discriminatory treatment of the sisters, but that the UK had a wide margin of appreciation afforded to it and could treat benefits differently according to status in pursuit of the aim of promoting stable relationships by providing the survivor with, inter alia, financial security on the death of a spouse or partner. The lines drawn by the court in that case will no longer exist. All will be redrawn by the passage of the Bill. The unions or marriages that the Government seek to bolster will no longer have to be heterosexual, will not have to involve sex or procreation, but need only to be stable, loving and committed. Those are to be the only criteria in future.
Many siblings are connected perhaps coolly and only by common parentage, but where there are two, such as the Burden sisters, who have lived together for decades in a loving, committed and stable relationship and sharing a home to the exclusion of all other partners, they are indistinguishable in terms of deserving recognition and support from gay marriages or civil partnerships. Any two family members or carers who stay together for decades as an act of self-determination and personal development are a recognisable and welcome unit. Treating them like married people will in fact save the state costs that might otherwise be involved in taking care of them and giving them benefits because, on the death of one of the two elderly sisters whom I mentioned, the survivor will end up paying a large amount of inheritance tax which will mean selling the home, possibly pushing the survivor into state care.
Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights forbids discrimination in rights that are granted on the grounds, inter alia, of birth or other status. There is a clear case here which must urgently be addressed in the review of civil partnerships, ideally by an amendment to the Bill. Why should consanguinity be any less important than the relationship between married and civil partners? The state should not prefer sexual relationships, which may be short-lived and serial, over blood relationships that have proved to have endured decades. The Government should show—they cannot logically—that it is reasonable or necessary to exclude carers and related couples from the new marriage. I cannot resist quoting from Irving Berlin’s “White Christmas”—some of your Lordships may remember it:
“Sisters, sisters. There were never such devoted sisters”.
How true in many cases.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
In the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, I will speak very briefly in support of this humane amendment.
I imagine that we all can think of couples who fall into one or other of these two paragraphs. As regards family members, I remember a much loved bishop, a Bishop of Lewes. It was many years ago. I believed him to be a happily married man. It was only after he died that I discovered that the woman who I had believed to be his wife was his sister. I can conceive of no reason, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has said, why those two should not have enjoyed the benefits of a civil partnership. The same applies to the unpaid carer. In our village there is a man who suffered a severe riding accident many years ago, as a result of which he is paralysed. He has been looked after with the utmost loyalty by the young man who previously looked after his horse. Once again, I can think of no reason why those two should not enjoy the benefits of being parties to a civil partnership.
It is clear to me that the amendment passed by this House nine years ago should have been accepted by the Government and by the Commons. We cannot do much about it in this Bill but we can at least open the door. I hope that we shall.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, perhaps I may make two extremely short points. First, as the previous two speakers have said, the door is now open. It is very interesting that on previous Bills the suggestion was made that this was not the right place. However, of all places, a review of civil partnership actually opens the door for what this House very properly voted in favour of before I joined it. Secondly, the effect on the Government of the day—I appreciate that there have been two Governments of opposite views, who have gone the same way on this—would be to defer the inheritance tax and not necessarily to lose it. It would not necessarily cost the Government very much money in the end. I hope that this will be looked at with more sympathy than it has been in the past.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. Indeed, it was the rejection of the sisters amendment that led me to vote against the Third Reading of the Civil Partnership Bill in another place. I thought it was discriminating and unfair to concentrate entirely on sexual relationships and not to recognise the sort of close relationship and affinity to which the noble Baroness has referred.
Nine years ago, we were told that it was inappropriate to put it in that Bill—and somebody interjects, sotto voce, that it was. Well, nine years have gone by and the commonly recognised discrimination, which has been recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others, has not been put right. We have an opportunity in this Bill to put it right. Although I hope that we do not come to a Division in Committee on this, if we do not have a satisfactory answer from my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friend Lady O’Cathain will consider retabling this or a similar amendment on Report—one on which we can vote.
Lord Alli
I wonder whether the noble Lord and the noble Baroness would accept this point. I stand by those words in relation to carers. I was deeply passionate about the issue and I offered the noble Baroness any assistance that I could, not only at the time but after the debate. I believe that carers are an undervalued group of people in our society and I have no quarrel with that proposal. However, to prosecute the case for carers by devaluing the nature of a civil partner relationship is where our paths divert. Considering the countless civil partnerships that have gone on, with the types of celebration and the nature of the relationships, does the noble Lord not accept that there is now a significant difference between civil partnership as we understand it and what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are proposing?
Lord Cormack
Clearly, that was meant to be an intervention so obviously I will respond to the noble Lord. I said at Second Reading that I accepted that civil partnerships were now a permanent part of our social fabric. Indeed, I went much further. I will not repeat what I said then as the noble Lord was in his place and heard it. I made similar comments during the debates in Committee last week. However, that does not in any way invalidate the basic justice of the case enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I support it too and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that surely he and I are concerned with justice and equity for everybody. Although I have my reservations about the word “marriage” being applied right across the board, I have tried to make it plain in my brief interventions in Committee that I accept that he and those who share his beliefs thoroughly deserve a better recognition than they have had in the past—better even than in civil partnerships. In saying that, however, I can also say, and I do, in supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that there are others in our society—siblings and carers have been named, but there are others—who deserve, if they have made a life-long commitment to each other, as have those sisters and as has the young man with the gentleman who was so severely injured in a hunting accident, a recognition of the personal sacrifice and commitment that they have made which is at least equal to the recognition that we have given to civil partnerships. I hope very much that my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace will be able to encourage us today when he comes to respond to this debate. I repeat my strong support for the amendment so eloquently moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, my understanding is that this amendment does not require the House to come to any view whatever on the merits or otherwise of the proposal. What it does is to recognise that there is to be a review of civil partnerships and it proposes that during the course of that review this topic should be included in the matters to be discussed, to be addressed and possibly to be the subject of future legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned the case of Miss Burden and Miss Burden against the United Kingdom in 2008. I regret as much as the noble Baroness that I was unable to persuade the European Court of Human Rights to find that the less favourable treatment of these two ladies—it was severely less favourable treatment—was arbitrary discrimination contrary to the convention. It does seem to me as to many other noble Lords that since there is to be a review this topic should be covered.
My only quarrel with the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is in her recitation of Irving Berlin’s song as support. She may recall that the lyric ends:
“And Lord help the sister, who comes between me and my man”,
which is perhaps not wholly appropriate in this context.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I too want to support the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on this amendment and to thank her and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, for their persistence in pressing the unfairness of the present law with regard to both carers and also family members.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made the point that the amendment does not require any particular answer to the questions but simply tries to ensure that they will get raised. The point of having a review of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is that, following the passage of this Bill, the circumstances of civil partnerships will be different. We do not yet know in what way they will be different, but they will be different because many people who would otherwise have entered into civil partnerships will enter into marriages. That seems to me to be an ideal point at which to consider whether civil partnerships should be extended to carers and other family members. If that is not the point at which we ought to do it, perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, can say what is the point at which we can tackle the unfairness which everyone seems to admit. We have had example after example of the unfairness of the present law. When are we going to be allowed to tackle that?
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, it is surely not difficult to construe the meaning of Clause 14. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, we know that the Secretary of State has agreed to arrange for the “operation and future” of the Act to be reviewed and for a report following that review to be produced. We know also, in subsection (2), that such a review is not prevented from dealing with other matters. What is absolutely clear from the debate thus far is that everyone who has spoken—those in another place, too—recognises that there is a particular injustice and anomaly in the case of siblings and carers. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on raising this question yet again. She has been a consistent campaigner in this regard. She spoke eloquently and elegantly, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said.
I would find it anomalous if the Government were to say that they cannot take this further because of the European Court of Human Rights judgment. That would be a little puzzling because obviously they have not adhered slavishly to the judgments of the European Court in respect of prisoners’ rights, for example. They have shown that they can be quite selective about that. Perhaps the Minister will, as in the past, draw on the manual available to all Ministers. I am sure there must be a little book of various forms of objection. One of them is: “This is not the appropriate vehicle”. That may well be relied upon in this case. It may not be appropriate but at least the review can include matters that Members of this noble House deem important because we feel that sense of injustice.
The genesis of the review provision is of interest. Perhaps in their desperation to get the Bill through speedily and strike a deal with the dissidents, the Government came up with the idea of accelerating the review. Historians will no doubt find of interest the bargaining that lay behind those deals. Clearly, there was an initial contradiction in the Government’s position. They placed everything on the altar of equality. Equality was worshipped and all other considerations were pushed aside. It is hardly equal if homosexual couples have the choice of either a civil partnership or marriage whereas heterosexual couples do not have that choice and must be content with traditional marriage. There is a basic contradiction there.
To end, my own judgment is as follows: one thing I have learnt over very many years is that the British people have a fundamental sense of justice. Of all those who have spoken, I commend particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. He gave some telling examples from his village and his own experience. His questions need an answer and should be addressed at some stage by this House and Parliament generally. It is surely anomalous that, following the passage of this Bill, homosexual couples with perhaps a deathbed marriage will be in a far more advantageous and favourable position relating to inheritance tax provisions and tenancy than people who have looked after sisters or brothers or cared for others, as the Burden case has shown. People who have perhaps been together for decades will continue to be disadvantaged. It may well be that nothing substantial will emerge from the review but I commend and congratulate the noble Baroness on raising this question and relying, again, on that sense of fairness in the House.
Lord Alli
At the heart of this debate is the basic premise that, given that gay marriage will occur, we should open up civil partnerships to a range of other people. We will see that in a number of amendments as we proceed through Committee. My problem with that is that I do not believe that gay marriage is being opened up as part of this Bill. This Bill creates civil same-sex marriage but it does not create equal marriage in the case of religious organisations. It is an enabling Bill and removes the prohibition for same-sex marriages in England and Wales, with the notable exception of the Church of England, which retains so many locks. The Bill preserves an inequality in religious marriages for the very good reasons we have debated throughout Committee. This is an important point in why I think civil partnerships have a very important role to play going forward.
I have listened very carefully to almost every word of the debate and I detect a real mood on the Benches Spiritual and in other religious organisations to recognise, respect and show good will to same-sex couples. When listening to the debates, there is no doubt that that movement is happening. I pay special tribute to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for the way in which he has sought to shine a new light on these relationships. I believe that before we see same-sex marriage in our churches, temples and mosques, we will see civil partnerships celebrated. We will see liturgies and special services created to bless gay couples without the churches having to change their views that marriage is between a man and a woman.
That movement forward in some religious organisations can happen only if civil partnerships stay in place for a little while longer and do not apply to these other categories of people. For example, while I support those who want civil partnerships to be extended to opposite-sex couples, civil partnerships for same-sex couples will have a unique role to play that justifies their position in a way that is not the same for opposite-sex couples. For me, that is a fundamental part of why I want to resist the extension of civil partnerships in this Bill. Religious organisations have made it clear that very soon a number of them will want to bless civil partnerships, and these amendments would remove the ability for them to do so.
In direct relation to Amendment 46A, there has been a huge amount of discussion about the fairness of these relationships but I cannot imagine that many carers or family members who share a house would wish their relationship to be solemnised before God and in the presence of their friends and family. That, for me, is the fundamental difference. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, was quite right to quote me, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, will recall that we had significant and detailed discussions of this issue during the passage of the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The other place was not sympathetic to what was being proposed because of the different aspects for same-sex couples. I really applaud the work of the noble Baroness and that of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, in trying to advance the plight of carers but I implore your Lordships to look at the role that civil partnerships will have in the context of religious organisations and allow them the ability to bless these stunning relationships in a way they see fit. It is the other side of the coin to not having gay marriage in religious organisations.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
I, too, strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has said, and I supported the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, in her earlier efforts. It is extremely disappointing to be told, “Not now, another time” or, “Not tomorrow” or, “In a little while”. How do we know that it is going to be a little while? We have no idea. Reviews do not normally take a little while and even then they may not be successful.
I do not doubt the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and his genuine support for the idea behind this, but we are told every time, “Yes, we agree with what you say but this is not the vehicle in which to do it”. What we need to be told is, if this is not, what is? We need some idea of that because the injustices mount as the years go by. Many people, who would have been helped if the original amendment had gone through, are now gone. They are dead, finished; they faced burdens which they need not have faced. I, for one, am not prepared to sit here year after year and hear, “Tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow”. Tomorrow never comes.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, nine years ago I took part in this debate, as did many others in your Lordships’ House. I was deeply moved then, as was the noble Lord, Lord Alli, by the cases and arguments put by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, which were repeated so eloquently today by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.
I agreed absolutely that we need to address the problem of inheritance for people—they may be sisters or may not even be blood relatives—who none the less share a home for a long time and then face the problem of an inheritance tax which could push them into the shadows of residential care. I absolutely accept that that must be addressed. I hoped at the time we argued this, and still hope, that this should be addressed by the Treasury agreeing, very simply—it does not need legislation—that you can roll up inheritance tax on the first death to the death of the second person. As I understand it, that is all one needs to do. The state is not denied any money, but the sibling or carer who is left does not have the threat of losing their home held over them. That is the way to go. When it comes to extending or even considering this as part of an extension of civil partnerships, I obviously have no problem with this being part of a review, but I had two fundamental objections nine years ago and they remain for me today to consider this as possibly an extension of the civil partnership.
First, a civil partnership has a legal entry and a legal exit, which is equivalent to divorce. Take, for example, a mother and daughter who enter into a civil partnership, in good faith, partly to protect the home. The daughter may be in her forties or fifties; her mother dies, she inherits and is protected. If she is in a civil partnership and five years down the line meets a man whom she chooses to marry, she has to divorce her mother—her civil partner—to enter into a new marriage with a man. She may alternatively decide that when her mother has died and that civil partnership has ended she will form another civil partnership with her own grown-up son. Therefore the property cascades down the generations without ever touching the Treasury at any point.
This can be done through a revision of inheritance tax. It cannot in my view be done through a civil partnership which has to be divorced before you can enter another one or, indeed, before you enter a marriage. The notion that a daughter can divorce a mother in order to marry somebody else, or that a sister and brother can divorce each other because they each wish to marry someone else brings the notion of civil partnership, its ceremonies of entering and its divorce, into disrepute.
The second problem, which is why I was engaged fairly heavily the last time round, is that you cannot separate inheritance advantages from social security liability. If two people, whether they are a carer and the person cared for, a mother and a daughter, or a brother and a sister, enter a civil partnership in the hope of avoiding or postponing inheritance tax, they take on mutual responsibility for each other in social security. That means, for example, that if a frail elderly mother and a son enter a civil partnership to spare the son a big inheritance tax bill, he becomes wholly financially responsible for his mother, if he can afford it. For the first time ever, he will be means-tested for his mother’s support; his mother will have no independent rights to social security benefits because she will be his dependant. If he can afford to pay for her, the state does not need to. She loses her independence of social security income because the son, by virtue of the civil partnership, has taken on that responsibility.
I could enlarge on that, but noble Lords can see the consequences. If a sister and a brother enter into a civil partnership, then they become mutually financially responsible for each other in social security terms, including children and the like. The problem is that one cannot separate out the upside, in terms of inheritance law, for carers, or for a mother and a daughter or for sisters, without taking on, in all fairness, the downside of responsibility for social security.
I suggest to your Lordships that for every couple who gain through inheritance, there will be three or five poorer people, with no wealth to enjoy at inheritance and who have fairly modest incomes now, who will be losers. I do not think your Lordships would want that to happen. All I suggest is that noble Lords review and press to review the situation of inheritance tax and the ability to roll it up. In that way I think that we address the problem.
Lord Cormack
Does the noble Baroness not accept that we are not suggesting that where these other relationships exist a civil partnership is compulsory? Her whole argument is based on the assumption that it is compulsory.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, if there is to be a relationship recognised as an extension of the concept of civil partnerships for inheritance tax, it also produces a responsibility for mutual financial support called social security. The one goes with the other. The way around it is something that I think my Government should have explored, and that I hope the current coalition Government will explore; the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, was absolutely right about this. We should see a way of avoiding a survivor, particularly in the case of the two elderly sisters who went to the courts, having the inheritance abated on the first person and being rolled over to the second death. That seems to me to protect the position of the two sisters, which I think we were all deeply moved by, but would avoid the long-term problem of social security which would otherwise follow.
Baroness Deech
I think that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, have misunderstood my point. Of course there would be no question of making anybody enter any sort of contract of union. I am sure they would sit down and work out whether it was worth doing because of inheritance tax, and then of course they would—and should—happily take on the duty of supporting each other. However, if they do not want to, and they want their benefits, then that is it; there is no question of dropping this on them without their consent. There would have to be some sort of formality.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
On that issue, the situation is surely this: there is no compulsion, and if any couple, be they carers or siblings, were minded to consider that new relationship, they would surely sit down and work out what could be a major downside. They would no doubt take professional advice to see what the advantages and the disadvantages were, and if the disadvantages of that relationship far outweighed the advantages, they would not proceed. It is as simple as that: there is no compulsion.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, around the Committee there is clear recognition of an injustice in inheritance tax terms to carers and siblings. However, while I do so with diffidence, I will to try to answer the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. He effectively asked what the difference was between siblings living together and couples presently in civil partnerships living together. The answer, I suggest, is that the noble Baroness’s amendment threatens to undermine the whole notion of civil partnerships, which are about loving relationships between people living together as couples—and yes, in a sexual relationship—rather than about carers or adult brothers and sisters.
The questions are not questions about inheritance tax. I suggest that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that people may wish to continue in civil partnerships even after this Bill goes through and even where they are same-sex couples is completely valid. To broaden the notion of civil partnerships, as this amendment suggests, undermines that possibility. Even in the words of the amendment which calls only for a review, as emolliently pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the suggestion has that tendency to undermine what civil partnerships are. It is for that reason that nine years ago noble Lords called the notion embodied in this amendment inappropriate and why, although it was passed here, it was rejected by the other place. I suggest that the amendment should be rejected today for the same reason and that Parliament needs to find a way, whether as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in her erudite explanation of the technical difficulties, or some other way, to solve the quite separate injustice to carers and siblings without interfering with or undermining the notion of civil partnerships.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I have always felt discomfort if not, indeed, some element of contempt for what is called the vehicular defence. Too often, it has been said in a case where there is every merit in a proposed amendment, “Ah, yes, but that is not the correct vehicle to use at this stage”. More often than not, in the years that I have spent in this House and in another place, I have felt that it was a path of craven retreat used by many Governments in many situations but in a wholly unworthy cause. Indeed, that is my reaction in the first instance when it is pleaded that this measure may not be the proper vehicle. However, I suggest that for once that argument may well be true—not only that it is not the appropriate vehicle but that it may not be the lawful vehicle.
I have total respect and regard for all the arguments that have been advanced in favour of changing the law in this area. The arguments advanced are noble, honourable and just and there is no way, it seems to me, that they can properly be countered. However, if one looks at the preamble to the Bill, it seems to me that there may be some dubiety. I put it no higher than that, certainly not in the presence of persons far better able than me to judge this matter. It could be argued that this issue does not fall within the Bill’s Long Title, which refers to,
“the review of civil partnership, and for connected purposes”.
It may well be argued that civil partnership deals with a sexual relationship. If that is so, the relationships that we have been talking about this afternoon go beyond that. They elongate civil partnership but are not of the essence of civil partnership.
Indeed, even if I am wrong, we should remember that what is asked for is inclusion in a review. There will be immense discretion as to what the conclusion should ultimately be. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this debate may be, and they are all one way, in my respectful submission one dilutes the possibilities by including the issue in a review where there may be dubiety as to whether that is the correct vehicle. Therefore, in the circumstances, I respectfully suggest that the amendment is aimed at the wrong Act. It is not the 2004 Act that causes injustice in this regard, but the 19th century Partnership Act, as amended. In other words, if the relationships that one speaks about could by statute be deemed to be a certain type of partnership with a certain type of fiscal consequence leading therefrom that would be just, equitable and proper, then the proposal would be aimed at a correct target. If that could be done quickly not by way of review but by direct legislation, I would, indeed, consider that we had done something very worth while in a very simple, understandable way without cluttering up the argument with all manner of other considerations that may be less than relevant in the two circumstances of the case.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I shall not detain the Committee by repeating what I said nine years ago when we debated this issue, and the controversy between those who focused on sexual relations and those who focused on tax and inheritance tax.
I have two points to make. Clause 14 seems to me not to require any amendment because it states:
“The Secretary of State must arrange … for the operation and future of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 in England and Wales to be reviewed, and … for a report on the outcome of the review to be produced and published”.
The clause goes on to say that that,
“does not prevent the review from also dealing with other matters relating to civil partnership”.
One of the other matters relating to civil partnership that has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Marks, in particular, was referred to by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in paragraph 95 of our report. We said:
“We are not convinced by the Government’s reasons not to extend civil partnerships to opposite sex couples, and we welcome the Government’s announcement that it will review this matter. In doing so, the Government should take into account the potential discrimination that may arise between cohabiting opposite sex couples and civil partners”.
I very much welcome the fact that the Government have made it clear that there will be a review of the operation of the Civil Partnership Act to look at that aspect of the existing discrimination. That point has already been made by several noble Lords and it is important to deal with it. I have always disagreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, as she knows, because I am strongly in favour of cohabitation rights for unmarried opposite-sex couples, and she is firmly opposed to that. That will clearly be a matter that the review will need to take into account to see whether the Government decide to give some protection to so-called common law marriages or not.
I continue to believe in that, as I did nine years ago. I am delighted by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, because she has taught me aspects of social security and welfare that I was not aware of. For all the reasons given, I do not think that one should now fetter Clause 14 by requiring that the review should deal with matters that are truly beyond the scope of the Bill and ought not to be part of the review.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I think that I should indicate that some aspects of this discussion will arise under my Amendment 55. It is important to remember that this Bill is not about gay marriage but same-sex marriage. As I pointed out, and I invited correction—so far I have not been corrected—it includes platonic relations between people of the same sex. Therefore, the idea that sexual relationships are fundamental to it is a mistake. That may or may not matter to this issue, but it matters considerably to the issue that I shall raise under Amendment 55.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I found the introduction given by the noble Baroness so powerful that I hope—depending on whether the Minister can answer three questions that I want to ask—that I will not have to move my Amendment 46D, which will save the Committee quite a lot of time. It has the same essential aim as the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.
I would have been handicapped in moving my amendment in any case, because I do not have Answers to three Written Questions, which I tabled on 5 June and which should have been answered by last Wednesday, 19 June, at the latest. I hope that the Minister can answer them now. Those Written Questions seek to update the information on the scale and cost of the injustice being done to blood-relative, sibling or family partnerships, sometimes known as “the sisters”. I think that, after this debate, we all know who we are talking about.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I had not intended to speak and I am still absorbing the last comment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Like all those who have spoken, I believe that, through the taxation system and regulations on caring, we discriminate against people who devote their lives to caring for others. Personally, I would not want to wait for a review of this nature, unrelated as I see it to be to the issue. We have much to do about reviewing the needs of people who are carers. Legislation is desperately needed; the Government assure us that they are looking at the issue, and to me that is the vehicle.
I cannot see how, in a same-sex marriage Bill or in a civil partnership as it stands now, something that the churches have opposed since time immemorial—incest—can be validated. As noble Lords have said, this issue concerns many relationships that would be ruled out of marriage by law, let alone by the churches, because they would be deemed too close and thus to be incestuous. In saying that, I do not in any way disparage the importance of the issue that needs to be raised. Like other people in this Chamber, I have relied in my lifetime on other siblings helping me to care for elderly parents, and I think that the time is right to deal with the issue.
Saving the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, we are talking about chalk and cheese in relation to the relationships that would have been supported in the case of the debate that I remember so well having been present for, and what we are doing in this Bill. I ask those who care so strongly about this issue to ensure that it is dealt with expeditiously as part of a review of the circumstances of carers. I hope that when it comes to Report, people will take that very seriously on board because I know carers who cannot wait any longer because their own future is uncertain. As has been said, some changes could be brought in without any loss of benefit to the Treasury; it is merely a question of delay.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, we have had a very interesting and passionate debate about extending civil partnerships to unpaid carers and family members who share a house. I, too, was present at the debate we had during the passage of the Civil Partnership Bill. I said then that I thought my noble friend Lord Alli was right; that was not the Bill. He is right now that this is not the Bill. That is not to say that this is not an important issue. Of course it is a most important issue.
I just wonder why—or maybe I have missed this and a noble Lord can tell me—this issue has not been raised in the passage of the many Bills that we have had before us in which it could have been raised in the intervening period. We have had Bills about carers. I put down an unsuccessful Bill about free support for people at home. There have been many times when this House could have taken on board these issues and made its views clear in appropriate Bills to do with income support and carers. Yet, again we find ourselves discussing this important issue during the passage of a Bill to do with, in this case, equal marriage. That does not do service to both the importance of the issue of carers and the fate of people who care for their relatives, or the issue before us, which is the same-sex marriage Bill. That is a shame.
On these Benches we do not think this is the right Bill. We think this a good issue and an important issue but we suggest that this is not an appropriate amendment. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s review of civil partnerships—which we understand because we helped the Government to put forward the amendment from these Benches in the other place? How far does he believe that review will go and where will it end up? Our understanding is that it is a review looking at whether one would have opposite-sex civil partnerships and, if so, how that would work.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, this has been a very good debate and the issues have been thoroughly explored. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on introducing it in the way that she did. I do not think any of your Lordships who have spoken in the debate in any way question the validity—or the value, rather—of the relationships that exist between siblings or other family members where they have mutual duties or care obligations. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, mentioned a particular case of a young man who helped someone who was injured in a riding accident. Certainly, our society, country and communities benefit enormously from the caring relationships that exist the length and breadth of the country. I imagine that many noble Lords can think within their own families of relationships of mutual support between a brother and sister, between sisters or brothers, or intergenerational support.
The amendment moved by the noble Baroness would amend the duty in Clause 14 requiring the Secretary of State to arrange for the review of the operation and future of the Civil Partnership Act so that the scope of the matters to be reviewed includes consideration of the possibility of extending civil partnerships to,
“carers and those they care for”,
and to,
“family members … who have cohabited for 5 years or more and are over the age of eighteen”.
The terms of reference for the review of civil partnerships required by Clause 14 were published on 13 June and a copy has been placed in the House Library. The review will look at the operation and future of civil partnerships in England and Wales. It may help your Lordships if I note what the scope is, according to the published terms of reference. They say that the review,
“will cover England and Wales and will … Examine evidence about how well the current arrangements for civil partnerships are working, drawing on views from the public and organisations with an interest and international comparisons … Assess the need and demand for civil partnerships when marriage is available to all, and whether any changes to civil partnership arrangements are necessary … Identify all the implications of and issues raised by the identified options (including risks and devolution issues) … Assess the costs and benefits of the options … Make recommendations for any changes to the operation and future of the CPA”.
In response to my noble friend Lord Lester, it is not the Government’s understanding that that would extend to issues of cohabitation. In a Written Ministerial Statement on 6 September 2011, the Government said:
“The findings of the research into the Scottish legislation do not provide us with a sufficient basis for a change in the law. Furthermore, the family justice system is in a transitional period, with major reforms already on the horizon. We do not therefore intend to take forward the Law Commission’s recommendations for reform of cohabitation law in this parliamentary term”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/11; col. 16WS.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I think that my noble and learned friend may have misunderstood me. I quite realise that the Government have set their face against doing for England and Wales what has happened in Scotland. However, I was asking whether the Government are rejecting the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which welcomed the idea of consultation to take account of the potential discrimination that may arise between cohabiting opposite-sex couples and civil partners. I thought that was the forceful point that really led to the public consultation.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I apologise if I misunderstood the point being made by my noble friend. As I indicated last week, clearly we are giving consideration to all the recommendations of that report. No one has told me anything to the contrary since then and I think it is still our ambition to have that report available for your Lordships before consideration of this Bill on Report. The matter will obviously be dealt with there.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am sorry but what I am really asking the Minister is whether the Government are saying that this review will—or will not—cover the point that I have just made. It is important to know.
The point that I was going on to make is that the amendment simply appears to extend the review. However, our concern is that the extension proposed would undermine a core principle of civil partnerships. As the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said, this is about civil partnerships as they are currently understood, have developed and have been used in the years since they were established. It is important that we are talking about the nature and relationship of civil partnerships as understood, because this is a very different type of relationship.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, were quite candid. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, quite properly said there would be no compulsion. Of course there would be no compulsion. She went on to say that couples would sit down and work it out. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said that they would take professional advice on whether the tax or social security arrangements were in their interests. We are talking about marriages which, in a religious context, would involve the engagement of a priest. I now hear that people wanting to take them on would probably have to engage the services of an accountant. These are very materially different kinds of arrangements. One is meant to be an expression of commitment and a desire to live together to the exclusion of others for life, and one is really tantamount to a tax arrangement. I do not think I am doing an injustice to the way it was actually phrased. That in no way diminishes the quality of care that exists. That was indeed the basis of the argument. My noble friend Lord Marks said that it could very well undermine the current civil partnerships as understood.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, that was not quite the question. The question was how much these family partnerships save the taxpayer in care costs and how much it would cost to give them the same advantages as civil partnerships, not necessarily using the same legal framework. I suggest that if the Government do not want to face this, it is purely because there are too many of these partnerships. There are very many more: a multiple of 53,000. That is why the Government will not face up to this duty, which has been owing to these people for a very long time.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I apologise if I misunderstood the question asked by the noble Lord. If information assessing the benefit to the state is available, that question may be capable of an answer. I will certainly ensure that that information is made available. I imagine there will be plenty of opportunities to discuss these kinds of issues when the Care Bill, which is already before your Lordships’ House, is debated at greater length. I will certainly ensure that the noble Lord gets the estimates that have been made, and I apologise if I misunderstood his question.
The review will look at whether civil partnerships are still needed, or whether there is a case for extending them to opposite-sex couples. Much of this debate proceeded on the basis that they would continue, whereas in fact that is only one of the options. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, about how he saw civil partnerships perhaps developing, and how there might be a liturgy associated with them in times to come. No doubt that is a point he and others will make to the body conducting the review. Questions do arise from the change to marriage law which we are making in this Bill. It will result in the apparent anomaly of same-sex couples having the choice between marriage and civil partnership, while opposite-sex couples will only be able to marry. It was for that reason that we sought this review.
Regarding parents, children and siblings, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, the positions of siblings are indistinguishable. However, it is the case that parents, children and siblings already have a legally recognised relationship, one to the other. These relationships already afford certain rights. For example, children and siblings are recognised in intestacy rules. The extent of those rights is clearly a separate issue from the question of future civil partnerships. That is why we believe that it would be inappropriate for them to be considered as part of this review. It could lead to legitimating relationships within the prohibited degrees of relationship.
We will come later to the amendment of my noble and learned friend, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. However, even if the reasons for the prohibited degrees of affinity perhaps stem back to what one might call a biological concern, there are still issues of power relationships within very close families. These may not necessarily be obvious, but there is also protection there against any undue pressure. As was also said in one of the contributions, what if life circumstances change? Suppose that two sisters enter into a civil partnership, and one later wants to marry someone else or to enter into a civil partnership with someone else.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, made the point that there is a legal entry but there is also a legal exit. In these circumstances, the idea of a judicially determined divorce—let us not beat about the bush, it would be a divorce—could very well be much more damaging to a previously existing relationship than would otherwise be the case. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who reminded us of Irving Berlin—yes, there was a reason why I hesitated over his name—and his theory of “Lord help the sister who comes between me and my man”. That is probably a very pertinent point. I know the point, but the reason I hesitated was because I was told that the late Isaiah Berlin once sat next to a very prominent politician who could not understand the question about “White Christmas”, so I wanted to make sure that I had actually got the name right.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has just amused your Lordships about Irving Berlin, but what he said shortly before that is not right either, is it? One cannot generalise too widely on these things, but surely the bitterness that comes with the breakdown of a sexual relationship is likely to be greater than a breakdown in a sibling or family relationship.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
Having sisters of my own, I intervene to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has not seen sisters at war with each other.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I should perhaps just leave this on the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. Turning to the rights and responsibilities of carers, of course they play an invaluable role in our society, caring for people. No one disputes that. The Government strongly value the role and commitment of carers. Indeed, we set out our priorities in November 2010 in a cross-government strategy: Recognised, valued and supported: next steps for the Carers Strategy. The mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board also contains a clear objective on enhancing the quality of life of people with long-term conditions and their carers. Achieving this objective will mean that by 2015, the 5 million carers looking after friends and family members will routinely have access to information and advice about the available support. When it comes to financial support for carers, the Government have announced that carer’s allowance will continue to exist as a separate benefit outside of universal credit, so that carers will continue to enjoy the support of a dedicated benefit.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I was very intrigued by what he said about the Care Bill, which is now before the House in Committee. I appreciate my noble friend Lady Knight’s comment about how we get really fed up when we are told that it is not the appropriate Bill to propose a certain amendment. My noble and learned friend the Minister has said that the Government really appreciate the work of carers and we are grateful for it. However, if the Government are so committed to the work of carers, would it not be possible for the Government to bring forward their own amendment to the Care Bill?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That is the responsibility of a different department. I would be very brave to make that kind of commitment here without consulting, but I am sure that my noble friend’s words will be noted. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made the point that he never liked the arguments about vehicles. I am not really trying to make that argument, because I have argued that there are in fact some very serious differences. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, also made the point that the issues being raised are really not appropriate for this Bill. They are relevant perhaps to a finance Bill rather than a partnership Bill, as they relate to the rules of inheritance tax or the terms of benefits.
As the noble Baroness knows, those arguments have been well rehearsed. I was not in your Lordships’ House nine years ago, but my noble friend Lady Northover has said in response to one or two of the comments that have been made, “Oh, I remember that point being made then”. The Government then sought to oppose proposals of this kind, and this Government share the view that civil partnership, as it then was and as it has evolved and developed over time, is not the appropriate place to open up these new, significant policy questions. The review is about civil partnerships. It would be inappropriate to open it up to look at unrelated issues of carers and family law, and particularly the question of tax and benefits. We have also indicated that we do not wish to delay or add to the cost and complexity of a review which the Government have committed to undertake as soon as possible in response to calls that were made in the other place. The other issues that are opened up are vast, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, made clear. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, before I forget, perhaps I may correct the Minister on the following point: it was Irving Berlin who was invited to the White House to discuss politics and the conduct of a war. It was only much later that it was discovered that the President had called for Isaiah Berlin.
I am grateful to all those who have spoken. Our discussion has caused me to focus on three themes. The first is obvious: there is no time to waste. There are lots of old folk who need help. Every time I have inquired at the Whips’ Office or the clerks’ office when Bills have come forward, I have been told, “Oh, it’s not relevant. This won’t do for siblings”. It is not that the issue has been forgotten, as some have said.
I am focusing also on freedom of choice. Once this Bill has passed, everybody in the country who is over 16 will be able to choose to enter a legal bond with somebody else, except those who are related. That is why I do not support the noble Lord, Lord Lester—as he knows—in relation to cohabitants. They can choose; they could get married. Maybe in future they could have a civil partnership and make a contract if they have not done so; I would not dump our very unsatisfactory matrimonial law on them without their choice. However, siblings have no choice at all. They are faintly recognised as relatives in some other laws, but there is really very little help for adult siblings.
There has been some talk of my amendment somehow devaluing equal marriage. I say to those who have made that point that this Bill is about equality. Those who are gaining equality should not rest on their laurels. On the contrary, having reached their target, they should hold out their hand to others to give them the same help, despite perhaps the same objections, as is being given in this Bill for same-sex marriages. It is not a religious question. I cannot imagine for a minute that any review would ever expect any religious authority to bless the union of related people. Religion has nothing to do with it—so I did not quite follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Alli. What I am thinking of is some union—it need not necessarily be a civil partnership—some formal contract or some recognition that could be extended to siblings, and, believe me, there has been no opportunity to do this in any of the Bills that I have followed during the past few years.
I support the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in saying that this need not cost anything in relation to inheritance tax. It could be rolled over; it could be deferred at nil cost to the Government.
I do not agree with those who say that civil partnerships are different. Sex has got nothing to do with it—some chaps here may not agree with that—now that we have changed the definition of marriage. Even at the moment, if two people get married, no one inquires as to whether it is a sexual relationship. As we all know, neither adultery nor consummation will play any part in remedies or definition of marriage in the future. This really has nothing to do with sex. We are not talking about sisters committing incest—that is a crime anyway. We all realise that that is beyond the bounds of possibility; it is nothing to do with that. It is to do with the fact that the whole definition of marriage has changed. My bet is that a new case before the European Court would probably succeed because the law of Europe prohibits discrimination on the grounds of birth, status and sex inter alia. I cannot see a ground for not extending some advantages, as appropriate, to those who are related and therefore unable to take advantage of all the variety of unions that are open to others.
Lord Alli
I have been reflecting on what the noble Baroness has said about not understanding the civil partnership aspect in terms of religious organisations. We passed a provision in this House allowing civil partnerships to happen in religious buildings. One reason for our doing so was the need for same-sex couples to be able to have their unions blessed with the congregations with whom they had prayed. We saw this as being progress towards marriage being celebrated in churches. It was recognised that there would be two speeds, where we would see religious organisations wanting to bless civil partnerships in their churches and some already doing so. Does the noble Baroness accept that if her plan went through as envisaged, it would drive a coach and horses through the church’s ability to bless civil partnerships, because the nature of those relationships will have been changed from the wish of two people to have a solemn union to a set of arrangements that fall outside that?
Baroness Deech
I am sorry, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, but I really do not get it, because what I envisage is that the review would come up with some sort of partnership, union or contract suitable for siblings. I cannot imagine for a moment that they would want to celebrate that in a church—although anyone, I suppose, can go and get a blessing. The proposal does not impinge in any way on the aims of the noble Lord, Lord Alli.
I am concerned that the terms of reference cited by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, are too narrow. I would like him to remember that everybody in the country will have a choice, except siblings. They will be the only people who will not have available to them a civil partnership or a marriage of some sort. They will be unable to take advantage of this legislation because there will be no vehicle for them. Men and women can get married; two people of the same sex can get married; there may still be civil partnerships; there may even be civil partnerships for heterosexual couples. The excluded category is those who are related. There is probably little point in keeping the prohibited degrees any longer, save for the point about abuse within the family—but, sadly, we know that abuse within the family goes on anyway, regardless of what the arrangements relating to bonding may be.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I regret intervening again, but I have seen cases in my life as a domestic abuse counsellor. The noble Baroness talks about two sisters. What about a father and daughter? That has not been raised. There can be abuse within family relationships involving coercion and violence. I am not arguing against what the noble Baroness wants to do in terms of the rights of people who have given up their lives to care, but bonding can bring a whole set of different problems. It could be a brother and sister or a father and daughter, and this worries me.
Baroness Deech
My suggestion was, of course, a free choice and under the definition I have given, they would have been living together for several years anyway. I should remind the noble Baroness and the Committee that our law already provides for contracts to be vitiated if there is duress. Our law already provides that if someone is dragged to the altar in some fashion, that marriage is not valid. It may be hard to enforce and I wish there was more of it, but we already have those provisions.
Because these people are getting old, I therefore ask the Government most urgently to please bring forward their own amendment, or somehow ensure that the terms of reference in reviewing civil partnership are wide enough to look at bonds—or whatever name you wish to give them—of other people who may wish to enter such a bond but are unable to do so at the moment. That way they may enjoy the fiscal and maybe emotional benefits that result from it. Otherwise I will bring forward this issue again on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Amendment of Education Act 1996
(1) Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1C) insert—
“(1CA) Guidance under subsection (1A) must provide for education about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children to be given to registered pupils at schools which have a religious character in accordance with the tenets of the relevant religion or religious denomination.”
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(3) For the purposes of subsection (1CA)—
(a) a school has a religious character if it is designated as a school having such a character by an order made by the Secretary of State under section 69(3) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (“the 1998 Act”); and(b) “the relevant religion or religious denomination” means the religion or denomination specified in relation to the school under section 69(4) of the 1998 Act.(4) Subsection (5) applies where—
(a) Academy arrangements have been entered into between the Secretary of State and another person;(b) the terms of the Academy arrangements have the effect of requiring that other person to have regard to guidance issued under subsection (1A) above; and (c) the Academy is designated as having a religious character by an order made by the Secretary of State under section 69, as applied by section 124B, of the 1998 Act or is treated as having been so designated by virtue of section 6(8) of the Academies Act 2010.(5) Where this subsection applies, subsection (1CA), and guidance issued under subsection (1A), are to be construed as if references to schools which have a religious character were references to the Academy.””
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, this amendment is about education in church schools, mostly owned by the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church, but also by some other denominations and in schools of faiths other than Christian. Before I describe what the amendment is intended to achieve, I need to explain why it is needed.
Clause 11(2) of this Bill makes wide-ranging changes to the law of England and Wales and its effect is explained in paragraph 55 of the Explanatory Notes. It states that Clause 11(2),
“ensures that the law of England and Wales, including all existing and new England and Wales legislation, is to be interpreted as applying, where marriage is concerned, equally to same sex and opposite sex couples”.
Together with Schedule 3, this sets out the equivalence of all marriages in law. That seems perfectly clear. For legal purposes, the meaning of marriage is changed, so that where an Act of Parliament refers to marriage, it will mean marriage of same-sex couples and of opposite-sex couples.
Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 places a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance designed to secure that when sex education is given, pupils,
“learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children”.
Governing bodies and head teachers of maintained schools, including all church schools and academies, are required to have regard to the guidance when formulating their policies for sex education. After the Bill passes, that reference to marriage in Section 403 will, rightly, be read as a reference to marriage as redefined by the Bill. In other words, the nature of marriage to which Section 403 refers will mean the union of any two persons regardless of gender.
This Bill also recognises—indeed declares—in Clause 1(3) that the doctrine of the Church of England remains that marriage is,
“the union of one man with one woman”.
That is also the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, most other churches and most other major religions in this country. The trusts of Church of England schools require education to be given in accordance with the tenets of the Church of England. Schools that belong to other denominations are in an equivalent position. As a result of this, church schools are recognised for their distinctive Christian ethos and the impact this has on standards and all-round education.
So far as teaching about the legal nature of marriage is concerned, there is no problem. Church schools, like any other schools, can and must teach their pupils that Parliament has legislated so that, as Clause 1(1) of the Bill states:
“Marriage of same sex couples is lawful”.
As at present, homophobic bullying must have no place in church or any other schools. Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is usually expressly forbidden within a school’s code of conduct and that must remain the case. The Church of England’s established policy is that pupils should have the opportunity to examine the full range of views on same-sex relationships—including different Christian views—and develop their own considered position. Within that atmosphere of open discussion, church schools must nevertheless be in a position to teach the nature of marriage in a way that is in accordance with the tenets of the Church of England.
The distinctive Christian ethos of church schools will be undermined unless that position is accommodated. Exactly the same goes for schools that belong to other religious traditions. The purpose of this amendment is simply to achieve that accommodation. It does not seek an exemption. No one is asking for a provision that would enable schools to operate outside the framework that the Secretary of State’s guidance provides. What I seek is a provision which ensures that the guidance itself expressly recognises the need for schools that have a religious character to teach the nature of marriage in a way that is in accordance with that character.
The meat of the amendment is the new subsection (1CA). The meaning of the provision is quite straightforward. It would require the guidance itself to address this particular issue. It would require it to do so by accommodating the need for schools that have a religious character to teach in a way that is consistent with their religious ethos, while continuing to operate within the statutory framework. Unfortunately the amendment needs to be quite a bit longer than that, to provide definitions that link it to other existing statutory provisions. It also needs to deal with the position of academies in a slightly different way, because of the legal basis on which they are established. In substance, it would put academies that have a religious character in the same position in this regard as other church schools.
When introducing the Bill, the Minister said that she wished to make clear from the outset that this Bill was,
“not just about allowing same-sex couples to marry; it is also about protecting and promoting religious freedom”.—[Official Report, 3/6/13; col. 938.]
The Government have very largely delivered on this commitment. Teaching about marriage in schools that have a religious character is one of the few issues of that nature that remain outstanding. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will respond positively to this amendment, which is concerned with the same principles of religious freedom that she outlined at Second Reading.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I have also put my name to this amendment. My interests are in the Lords’ register. I am also the chairman of trustees of Chailey Heritage Foundation and a governor of Lancing College, though both are non-maintained schools. I start by thanking the right reverend Prelate for his clear introduction. Noble Lords who are now well-versed in this Bill will know that the House has already debated concerns about its possible effects on teachers. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and my noble friends Lord Eden of Winton, Lord Elton and Lord Waddington, and others, for addressing those concerns, which are well argued and strongly felt.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Can I ask the noble Baroness why she is not sufficiently reassured by the fact that the Education Act, like all other past and future legislation, must be read and given effect in accordance with freedom of religion and freedom of speech, as guaranteed by Articles 9 and 10 of the human rights convention? Reading those, and the case law on them, it seems to me quite clear that the schools and their teachers will be completely protected.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, the reason is that without this amendment, the Bill changes those particular elements in those Acts. That is the advice that I have been given. I am very anxious that we ensure that these schools that have a religious designation are protected. I am not convinced that that is the case in the Bill as it stands, for the reasons that I have put before your Lordships.
I do not think that a Minister’s words in the House, however well meaning, stand the good test. They evaporate. We know that they are open to challenge, whereas amendments carried in the Bill, when it becomes an Act, are much less open to challenge. I urge my noble friend to have the welcomed assurances that she has given incorporated into the Bill.
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, I support this amendment, to which I have put my name.
It has already been said that the purpose of this clause is very simple and narrow: to amend Section 403 of the Education Act in order to provide statutory protection for schools of religious character by creating an obligation that any guidance issued under the Act must provide for such schools to deliver education about marriage, its importance for family life and the bringing up of children, in accordance with the tenets of the relevant religion or religious denomination. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked why we could not just read the legislation in the context of the existing jurisprudence of the European court and be satisfied that everything was protected. The reality is that the jurisprudence of the European court in this context is quite complicated and there are a number of senior QCs who have provided advice to various organisations in connection with this legislation who do not share in totality the noble Lord’s views.
The reason that this amendment is necessary is that Section 403 imposes on schools a twofold duty. Pupils must,
“learn the nature of marriage”
and they must learn,
“its importance for family life and the bringing up of children”.
That is the law as it stands at the present time. Teachers in all schools must do what the law says. They must ensure that the children for whom they are responsible learn about the nature of marriage. That includes both the legal and the relational definition of marriage; that it is the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others. In this situation, teachers will be teaching classes composed of children who, by virtue of circumstances, will sometimes have no experience of marriage or not of marriage in its traditional sense, but of other stable relationships or sometimes of relationships that are totally unstable. All those children must be sensitively provided for.
Baroness O'Loan
It provides an accommodation of competing rights, no more, no less. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, but I was two words from the end.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I was anxious that the noble Baroness should not get to the end before I could ask this question. I am sorry if it is a bit technical, but it seems to be relevant. The wording of the amendment, with which I have sympathy, is that the guidance must be,
“in accordance with the tenets of the relevant religion or religious denomination”.
It not abundantly clear to me how one would determine what the tenets of a religion are. If the relevant religion were Christianity, different denominations of Christianity take a different view on these matters. Does the amendment in fact cover all the circumstances that the noble Baroness and her co-movers are concerned about? To make it clear, one can imagine some debate over quite what the tenets of Christianity are as time progresses. An extreme Christian sect might take a very untypical view. A Quaker school, for example, might be well ahead of the Christian pack. Does the noble Baroness think that the amendment covers that potential tension?
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the question. Having read the previous guidance, most recently this morning, I would not anticipate that the guidance would actually specify the tenets of the individual religion. What I would anticipate is that it would have the provision that education must be provided in accordance with the tenets and that there would be, as the right reverend Prelate has provided, a structure of registration and designation of schools, so that there would be a quality assurance process underlying it. If the amendment is not sufficiently concise, I am sure that it will be possible—unless it is pressed to a Division at this stage—to encourage the Minister to respond with a government amendment, which would provide precisely for what is required.
Lord Elton
I am so sorry, but I want to ask the noble Baroness a question relevant to the one she had been asked, because it does not seem to me that there is a problem. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury asked what happens if different denominations have different views but the amendment requires it to be,
“in accordance with the tenets of the relevant religion or religious denomination”,
so it is merely relevant to the school in question.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
If I might just elucidate, I said that it was not always clear what the tenets of the religion are, quite apart from the denomination.
Baroness O'Loan
The current guidance provides that schools are entitled to take their religious beliefs into account in providing sex and religious education, so there is a tradition for this and it may be taken forward from that perspective.
Baroness Richardson of Calow
My Lords, this amendment sounds eminently reasonable until you try to imagine yourself a child within a classroom in a school of a religious foundation. If you are talking about marriage and you know that your parents, who are legally married to each other, are both of the same sex, how would it make you feel if you were told that their union is legal but not moral and not in accordance with Christian teaching? Perhaps I might ask the right reverend Prelate whether there is to be any guidance on the criteria issued for entrance into a school of religious foundation to alert parents of same-sex unions and their children that this may be the case. I am trying to see how it will work out and what it will mean to them if they are told that their parents are legally married but that this is not within the Christian religion, and whether the criteria for selection might need to be changed—or at least for parents to be alerted.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
My Lords, I think it is probably the noble Lord’s turn.
Lord Alli
I was just trying to be polite; I know that the noble Baroness likes that. If I recall correctly, it was the Conservative Government in 1996 who wrote the specific conditions into the Act. I suspect that the broader supporters of this amendment would have been the very people who wanted that provision written into the Act in the first place. If I recall the nature of the debate at the time, it was about family life and family values. The term was supposed to refer exclusively to heterosexuals, and the reason for it being in the Act was to allow those who did not approve of alternative family structures to be placated. We are now giving access to civil marriage to those who have been denied it. We therefore need to look at these provisions again in that light.
When I think about the majority of the contributions that we have listened to here in Committee and in the other place, there is general consensus that marriage has an important and very special place to play in family life, and in the bringing up of children. I think that we are all agreed on that. While I have heard no one in this place say that one-parent families or divorced, separated or same-sex parenting are somehow inadequate, we have all recognised that marriage can have a unique and special role to play in bringing up children.
The requirements of the guidance will be the same after this Bill is enacted as they were before. My problem with the amendment is not with what it seeks to do, because it is right and proper that faith schools should be allowed to teach the importance of marriage as they see it in relation to family life. That is the case now, as I am sure that the Minister will say. My opposition is to continually writing into the Bill something that is not necessary and should be a matter for the guidance, not the Bill. It would be equally unnecessary for me to amend the amendment, although the right reverend Prelate might allow me to do so, to add the words, “and in doing so, must pay due regard and respect to other forms of relationship, including but not limited to same-sex marriages”. We could keep adding language to the Bill until we are all happy with a whole range of words.
I plead with the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness not to reduce this clause to a series of well-meaning words that will not help teachers or children, but may make us all feel a little better that we managed to negotiate it into the Bill. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will reflect on adding any more to the Bill and will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
My Lords, I want to put another point to the Committee, particularly following what the noble Lord has just said. This Hansard of ours is a record for ever of what is said and considered during the course of Bills passed in both Houses. It is very important indeed to make sure that all the necessary points are brought up. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, mentioned teachers. I am quite sure that I am not alone in the volume of letters that I have received about this Bill. In fact, I can say that never before on any Bill while I have been in either House have Members ever received as many letters as we have. Quite a number have come from teachers who are very worried on this point. It ought to be brought out in the debate that teachers themselves, who know perfectly well what their duties are in accordance with the Bills passed in Parliament, have written to express their deep concern that they are going to be forced to teach something to which they have a basic and very important objection.
In an earlier debate on this Bill, I mentioned how concerned I am that the right of a person’s conscience is being eroded, day after day and Bill by Bill. We have now had some 50 years of promises, made by different Governments at different times, stating very clearly that we all have a right to a conscience and to live by that conscience. That is why so many letters have come to us all, I am sure, from teachers on this very point. It is not a question of adding a few words to make people happy. It is about giving people the right to continue to live by the conscience which is in their heart and soul.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, as I said before, the Human Rights Act 1998 expressly incorporates into our legal system freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and expression. It requires all legislation—old, new and future—to be read and given effect in accordance with those fundamental rights. When the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, was presented with an opinion by Mr Aidan O’Neill QC, one of the scenarios that he suggested might occur in legislation of this kind involved teachers. He speculated that a primary schoolteacher is told to teach using a book about a prince who marries a man, and is asked to help the children to perform the story as a play; she says that it goes against her religious beliefs and disciplinary proceedings are taken against her. He said that this is an example of a problem.
The department in charge of the Bill gave an extremely helpful answer to that kind of speculative scenario. As the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, rightly said, our proceedings may be read in future so I will briefly explain what the department said, which in my view completely complies with the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. This is what the department told the committee:
“Teachers will continue to have the clear right to express their own beliefs, or that of their faith—such as that marriage should be between a man and a woman—as long as it is done in an appropriate way and a suitable context. No teacher will be required to promote or endorse views which go against their beliefs. Teachers will of course be expected to explain the world as it is, in a way which is appropriate to the age, stage and level of understanding of their pupils and within the context of the school’s curriculum, policies and ethos. This may include the factual position that under the law marriage can be between opposite sex couples and same sex couples. There are many areas within teaching, particularly within faith schools, where teachers and schools already deal with areas relating to religious conscience, such as homosexuality and divorce, with professionalism and sensitivity. The guidance governing these issues is the same guidance that will govern how same sex marriage in the classroom will be approached. No teacher can be compelled to promote or endorse views which go against their conscience. We expect heads, governors and teachers will come to sensible arrangements about any teaching that includes discussion of same sex marriage as they currently do in all other areas of the curriculum”.
To this I say, “Amen”.
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, I wish to address a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. In the debate in the House of Commons on 20 May, the Government committed to consider this issue further in the Lords. As a consequence of that, and of all the evidence that was received, the Joint Committee stated:
“In particular, we encourage the Government to consider whether specific protections are required for faith schools and for individual teachers who hold a religious belief about same sex marriage”.
I do not think the situation is quite as clear as might have been suggested.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I, too, think that this amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate. The amendment is concerned with the guidance under Section 403 of the Education Act. That guidance is concerned solely with sex education. There are three consequences of this.
First, the reference to marriage and family life in Section 403, which has excited the concern in this amendment, is designed simply to ensure that when pupils learn about sexual relationships, they should learn about sex in the context of marriage, families and commitment; in other words, they should not learn about sex as a mere physical act. In my view, it would be most unfortunate that if and when pupils learn in sex education classes—as they do—about gay sex, such discussion is not also in the context of relationships, commitment and the developments that this Bill will introduce. That is the first point.
The second point is that Section 403, which deals with guidance, already states that when sex education is provided, children must be,
“protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate having regard to the age and the religious and cultural background of the pupils concerned”—
and rightly so. So there is already considerable protection.
The third point is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, with which I entirely agree. It is a point that we have returned to over and again in the debates in Committee, but it is nevertheless true: there is nothing in this Bill that allows—far less requires—a teacher to promote same-sex marriage, and even less so in the context that we are now discussing, Section 403 of the Education Act, which is concerned only with sex education.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, I want to follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just said and to add just one point, using the amendment so very ably moved and promoted by those who have their names to it as an opportunity to do so. I will be very brief.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is obviously correct in what he says about the context in which the guidance would be given to the class; that is, health education in one form or another. Great emphasis has been given throughout our debates to the need to protect teachers. I accept that. That is correct and right for those teachers who feel strongly on these issues or have particular points of view which they find make it difficult for them to participate in a wider discussion or wider introduction of this subject.
My concern is not so much with teachers as with parents. So many parents—I am sure that the noble Baroness and others will have experienced this—are offended that sex education is taught to their children. I recognise that this has to happen, unfortunately. There was a time when this was left entirely to the parents, but that is no longer the case because so many parents do not in fact teach these matters to their children and do not bring up their children to understand the rights and wrongs on issues of this kind. So it has gone into the classroom and teachers are now required to teach this subject as part of the curriculum.
As I understand it, the position of parents is defended in this legislation in that if a parent is likely to be offended by anything of this kind being taught in a classroom, the parent can exercise the right to withdraw a child. I find that very difficult to accept. I acknowledge that it is done with the best of intentions, but I do not think it is very helpful to the child. Very often a child who is singled out from the rest of her peers in the classroom is made to feel different in some way or another. This is not very helpful to that child in the relationship with the rest of the children in the class. I hope, therefore, that when my noble friend comes to reply to this debate she will be able to take into account not just the position of teachers and those whose views will have been protected as a result of the amendments that are being proposed but the position of parents who might equally be offended by these matters.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, covered the fact that no one in your Lordships’ Chamber would want sex education to be taught other than in the context of relationships, responsibility, caring and consideration for others. That alone makes this particular group of amendments collectively flawed.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Eden, may have grown up in a different background to mine. On the sex education that parents rely on schools to provide, on occasion it was ever thus, particularly in a girls’ school. We got a picture of two rabbits upside-down with no explanation as to what it meant. That was sex education in a girls’ grammar school, together with, “You may, in writing, put in questions and the doctor will answer those that she has time for”. We were told that we might wash our hair while menstruating but nothing about sex and childbirth. This is not new.
Of course, the guidance—I see the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in his place—already refers to responsiveness to religious, cultural and age backgrounds. We have to remember that the Bill deals with nursery, infant, primary and secondary pupils up to the age when those pupils can be married. It would be foolish for us to try to draft, in what would be deemed a large Committee, wording suitable for all those pupils. I hope we will not do that because the law of unintended consequences works very well when committees draft things.
On the previous day of Committee on this Bill I referred to the fact that my experience comes from being a parent and grandmother, and from chairing the education committees of county councils in England and Wales, and, more importantly, in the county of Lancashire for 10 years. In a county such as Lancashire, with a large number of church schools, not all children who go to church schools do so by choice but because of location. Not all parents who want church schools get them in the particular denomination that they want—again, not through choice but because of location. I am not in any way critical of the education given to children in church schools. I remind noble Lords that we are talking about church and religious schools in this amendment. We should not try to draft how those teachers respond in terms of both sex education and the importance of family life. I plead that people allow teachers to respond to the pupils in their classes and to their circumstances.
Same-sex marriage is not the only issue where religious beliefs affect the views and attitudes of parents of children in the class. Think about the schools in Lancashire, some of them church schools, where the majority of children are Muslim. Think about the fact that many churches—not all of them—have a view that divorce is wrong. You cannot avoid the fact that there will be children in the class who live with divorced parents. Think about the issues there are with abortion. Teachers have had to learn to live with their consciences and the guidance from the Department for Education.
I worry when the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, refers to the fact that future Secretaries of State might do this or that. It is no good framing legislation on the basis of who might do something in future. We have seen lots of Secretaries of State. Some have done some things, some have done others. To start trying to draft legislation against a particular view that might come up from a future, as yet unknown Secretary of State is foolish.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
I am sorry but I have no recollection of mentioning any Secretary of State whatever. All I am anxious about is that people who have a conscience—I might not agree with their opinions at all—have a right to believe what they believe and to live by it. That is all I said. I have also said that history shows us, time and again, that promises made have to be underlined very carefully and carried out faithfully. So far, they have not been. I cited a number of examples of that but I did not mention any future Secretary of State at all.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
I apologise if I gave that impression. I cannot think of any specific, written, recorded examples of the kind that the noble Baroness referred to but I do not doubt that she has them. There is a danger that some teachers in some schools are being frightened by talk of coercion, compulsion and the Government making people do things—I see no evidence of that in this legislation. If one creates fear by things one says, there is always a danger that the people most likely to be frightened will write to the person who expressed that fear.
Lord Cormack
Would the noble Baroness agree that those who moved this amendment are seeking not to instil fear but to provide clarity?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
I accept that, but it is on the back of a general reference to teachers being afraid of coercion. The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, referred to teachers writing to her because they are afraid. I do not accuse the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, but I think I can rest my case on that.
Looking round, I see a whole lot of people who have gone through education systems of different sorts. I have no evidence and I cannot recall any evidence of anyone seeking to subvert the views of teachers. In my experience, the teaching profession will be professional in its interpretation of this. There may be the odd rumpus somewhere but, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, knows, you occasionally get an odd situation, whether it is in the police service or whatever service. I believe the legislation is sound and will protect teachers. We should allow teachers to be professional.
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, to take the point that the noble Baroness just raised, I do not know whether she suggested that Members of this House are causing fear and consternation but I very much hope not. The reality is that the correspondence that came into the House did so long before there was any debate on this, and certainly long before I made any comment in public about it. It is profoundly important that we understand that there is a body of people out there, spread right across the country, who write to Members of the House of Lords in letters that are not template letters. These people have sat down and thought this through. They are teachers, chaplains and all sorts of people, and they are afraid. They have had previous experience of how life has changed for them, and possibly they have had to come to terms with teaching abortion—which they may believe to be truly wrong—but they must do these things. I do not think that is a reason to suggest that Members of the House are causing fear and consternation.
Lord Elton
Can I raise a point which I think is relevant to my noble friend’s reply and also to what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in particular, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have said? They find themselves—too often, perhaps, in their view—called upon to remind your Lordships that some ill from which we are trying to protect people is already covered by European law. Too often in our experience, that protection is available only when a case has gone before the European Court. In the mean time there have been many, many people who have not been able to go to the European Court, and they have not been protected.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords it is not a question of European law but of UK law. The Human Rights Act requires our judges to read and give effect to all legislation, old and new, so that it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights that it embodies. So although one can ultimately go to the European Court, the prime responsibility is on Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and English courts.
Lord Elton
My Lords, in that case they still have to go to the Supreme Court. They have to go to the top of the Matterhorn instead of the top of Everest. In the mean time, while they are on the way up there, others suffer. I hope my noble friend will realise that what the right reverend Prelate and allies are seeking here is to introduce a security of protection at a lower level. If it is in the guidance that the Secretary of State under statute has to give, then it is available at county council level and not up at the top.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, the purpose of the Committee stage, as I understand it, is to scrutinise draft Bills, to propose amendments and to seek, where possible, the concurrence of the Government with those amendments. It is sad that throughout this Bill the Government have taken the view that they were right from the start and that any amendments which have been proposed are either otiose, excessive or outwith the purpose of the Bill. Here is an occasion where the Government can perhaps show a little magnanimity and say that there is serious concern, as a number of noble colleagues have said. Although one might have some confidence in the guidance issued by the department, it is only guidance. It does not need wild speculation about what future Secretaries of State may or may not do. The wording in the Bill gives some assurance which I believe is proper.
Some of us in this House still consider ourselves to be politicians, even if lapsed ones. Surely one factor we should recognise from the start is that there is a clamour in this country to send children to religious and church schools. It is certainly my experience. Why is this so? The view of the great populace is to favour the discipline and ethos of those church schools for their children. I was interested a few years ago to have a friend who was a headmistress of a Church of England school in the East End and almost 100% of her pupils were Bangladeshi. Why did they choose the church school? Because that community recognised the value of church schools.
I am not a Roman Catholic—in fact I am a nonconformist—but I know from my experience as a constituency Member the quality of the Roman Catholic tradition. Perhaps I might say in passing to the right reverend Prelate, I endorsed all that he said. He spoke well, not only on behalf of the Church of England, but also on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church. I was musing to myself as he spoke; would it not be good, from the point of view of the quality of legislation in this House, if we had some senior members of the Roman Catholic faith who could put their own views forward directly and not rely on the good will of someone who is part of a separated brethren?
Be that as it may, we are where we are and have to accept that a vast number of people want to send their children to those schools. They approve of the ethos of those schools. The Government purport throughout that they have provided adequate protections—the quadruple lock in relation to the Church of England and the protections in respect of teachers and parents. If they are so keen to provide those protections, let it be absolutely clear that here on the face of the Bill is the opportunity to do just that. In my judgment it is not otiose. It will have widespread acceptance from those who really value the ethos and values of our church schools. It is a test of how serious the Government are when they talk so much not only about the core principles of this Bill but the counterpart—a readiness to provide adequate protection for those who wish to continue in their own ethos, who accept the new legal basis but wish to continue to put forward the traditional views of marriage.
Lord Baker of Dorking
My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this debate but I have been referred to a few times, due only to the fact that I think I am the only living person in the Chamber who has been Secretary of State for Education.
I feel that this amendment is unnecessary for a variety of reasons. I speak as an Anglican and was rather surprised that my church had taken the view that it has on same-sex marriage. The law of the land will be changed on same-sex marriage, and for the established church to say in effect that it is contracting out of it and not to allow its churches to be used for it is not, I would have thought, in the tradition of Anglicanism—not the Anglicanism that I favour. The history of the Church of England from 1533 onwards shows that it is not so much a question of the tenets or the 39 articles but of what happened with individual vicars in their parish churches. If you look at how English vicars interpreted Anglicanism in the 17th and 18th centuries, there is an infinite variety of activity. I should have thought the Anglican church would have done much better to have followed that practice than the one that it has followed.
That aside, on this particular matter, the position is in fact exceedingly clear. Where the state has provided birth control and various government agencies promote it, teachers in the Catholic Church will make it very clear that this is something which they object to and they think is fundamentally wrong. It is not a tenet of their faith but a practice, and the same is true of divorce. A great deal of discretion is already happening every day in our schools. I think it would happen in this case with the Anglican Church regarding sex education. I went to a primary church school in Lancashire and we did not have any sex education at all. I suppose that sex had not been discovered so much in those days. I even went to a secondary grammar school in Lancashire for two years and we did not have any sex education there either. I know we were very repressed sort of people—limited and all that—but it was alien to us.
Today it is clear that when sex education is taught in schools—I promoted it when I was Secretary of State—it is very much in the context of a loving relationship. It was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made. It was not just the act of physical gratification—immediate and then finished with. It was to establish a loving relationship and that was a very essential part of all sex education. So when the matter of marriage comes up, it would be quite possible for any teacher, even a clergyman teacher at a Church of England school, to say they believed very strongly that marriage should be between a man and a wife and the purpose is to create a family. Even when he is talking to 12 and 13 year-olds, they will know a lot about other people who do not live like that. It has all changed today. It will not be a matter of teaching but of discussion—that is what it will be more like in actual practice. The teacher will be able to say, without fear of persecution and quite clearly, “This is the view that we believe in the Anglican Church at the moment, and we think that is the position”. So I believe that this amendment is not necessary.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, a number of noble Lords have said that this amendment is not necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, very helpfully mentioned Section 403 of the Education Act 1996, which refers to sex education, and laid out for us subsection (1A)(a) and (b). He did not go on to subsection (1B), which says:
“In discharging their functions under subsection (1) governing bodies and head teachers must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance”.
Therefore we already have Secretary of State’s guidance in that Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said that she did not want us to go into great detail in this. However, if she refers again to proposed new subsection (2) in my Amendment 46B, she will see that it sets out very clearly what that guidance will be. That is very necessary. Of course, sex education has very much changed a lot of teaching in schools. However, we are talking about something that is now so fundamental: the nature of marriage and how it is such a foundation for society. If it is important to have the Secretary of State’s guidance for sex education, it is much more important to have it for marriage.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am here as somebody who celebrates marriage and values the ethos of church schools, but I am also a very strong supporter of same-sex marriage. I have listened carefully to noble Lords’ concerns but I am not persuaded of the need for this amendment. Like the Secretary of State, I would not support a Bill that encroached on religious freedom or on freedom of speech, but this Bill does not do that.
I apologise for not having been here last Wednesday evening. However, of course I read Hansard, and many points similar to those made in the debate last week were made today about teachers. As was said on Wednesday it is clear that teachers will be under a legal duty to teach the fact of the law of the land—that yes, gay couples will be able to get married. However, those selfsame teachers in faith schools will also be able to express their personal views or those of their faith about marriage. Noble Lords have cited the present guidance, which is extremely well balanced.
I was very struck by a speech given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich in the Public Bill Committee on 12 February. I will quote a section of what he said:
“Our own view is that the promotion of marriage is part of sex and relationship education. What Church of England schools are good at doing, because the vast majority of them are community schools, is integrating the convictions of the Church of England with a recognition that the Christian opinions held in that school are not totally recognised within the whole of wider society … There is a balance to be struck, and I think that the Secretary of State for Education was right to say that in teaching there will need to be a recognition that we have a society in which same-sex marriages—assuming the Bill goes through—are possible, and of course the teacher would also indicate why it is that within the majority of Christian traditions such marriages are not celebrated”.—[Official Report, Commons, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill Committee, 12/2/13; col. 26.]
That right reverend Prelate had it about right.
I noted, as did the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, that in the other place the Minister, Mr Hugh Robertson, undertook to take this issue away and discuss it further with religious groups. I very much look forward to hearing what he will have to say.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate. I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, for his introduction of his amendment and for quoting what I said on Second Reading about this Bill being as much about promoting religious freedom as it is about allowing same-sex couples to marry. He was absolutely right about that. I am pleased that he was clear that his amendment is about religious freedom of faith schools. He sought to explain that this particular issue is quite different from the earlier education matters we discussed last week, which focused on the general freedom of any teacher to express a personal view rather than on the teaching of sex and relationship education in religious schools specifically. In responding to this debate, I will repeat several points that I made last week, not least because as the debate has unfolded it has become clear that the way in which the House considers this issue is very much to do with education in a wider context than just about the very narrow issue of religious freedom.
Noble Lords and others have expressed a concern that schools’ freedom to teach their beliefs about marriage according to their religious tenets will be threatened by the effect that Clause 11 will have on the meaning of “marriage” in Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 and guidance made under it by the Secretary of State, to which schools must have regard. As has already been noted, the Government have received representations from religious groups, in particular the Church of England and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, expressing concern that Clause 11 might affect the ability of faith schools to continue to teach about the importance of marriage for family life and the bringing up of children in line with their religious tenets. This concern was echoed by Muslim leaders in their public letter of 18 May.
The noble Lord, Lord Alli, was the first to raise a point about the origination of Section 403. It is worth saying that it was not in a piece of legislation originally in the 1996 Act. Section 403(1A) was inserted by the Learning and Skills Act 2000. I will begin by explaining that schools with a religious character provide an excellent education for their pupils while reflecting their beliefs across the curriculum, including in sex and relationship education. There is absolutely nothing in this legislation that affects schools’ ability to continue to do this in future.
In schools of a religious character, teachers already deal admirably with teaching about marriages which may not be recognised as such according to the tenets of the relevant faith—for example, marriages of divorcees, or mixed-faith marriages. Last week the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, gave us a great example of how teachers deal with sensitive matters. The noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow, reminded us that it is important that teachers must be conscious of pupils whose parents are of the same sex and married when teaching about marriage in the context of sex and relationship education. My noble friend Lord Baker also made a similar point. However, my noble friend Lord Eden reminded us of the rights of parents who are concerned about sex education and its content. I responded to his concern last week in the debate about the policies that are in place to ensure that schools properly consult parents on the content of sex and relationship education.
Last week I forgot to make a point, which is worth making in the context of this debate, that sex and relationship education is compulsory in maintained secondary schools. Primary schools are not required to teach sex and relationship education, further than anything specific in the curriculum for science. It is important that I make that point, because it is sometimes forgotten.
In order for teachers to handle the very sensitive situations in which they often find themselves, they already interpret the Secretary of State’s guidance according to their religious tenets. This will be no different when marriage is extended to same-sex couples by this Bill. If the tenets of a particular religion do not recognise same-sex marriage, they will be able to approach teaching about marriage in exactly the same professional way that they do now. Although teaching will of course need to cover the factual position that marriage under the law of England and Wales can be between both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, faith schools will also be able to explain the relevant tenets of their religion on this matter.
I think it was the exchange between the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friends Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Elton, about the Secretary of State ensuring that teaching about marriage is given in accordance with religious tenets. It is important for me to make the point that I fully understand the intentions of the right reverend Prelate in the amendment that he has put forward, but I am sure that he and other noble Lords will agree that it is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to secure adherence to religious doctrine in teaching. This would amount to inappropriate interference by the state in matters properly for the relevant religious denomination. How faith schools approach such teaching is quite rightly a matter for the schools and faiths themselves.
While I think it is broadly acknowledged that the Secretary of State’s current guidance does not impinge on faith schools’ ability to teach in line with their doctrines, concern has also been expressed that the duty on the Secretary of State might allow future versions of the guidance to preclude religious schools from teaching in accordance with their beliefs. This was a point that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege raised—when the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, referred to my noble friend Lady Knight, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege expressed this point. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, made my response for me by saying that it is clearly not the intention behind this legislation to envisage circumstances in which any Secretary of State might seek to interfere with matters of religious doctrine in the future. We are framing this legislation as things stand at the moment, and there is no way in which we are suggesting that a future Secretary of State might do anything different, but nor can I say from this Dispatch Box that things may not change in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, noted that the second part of the duty in question, which is Section 403 (1A)(b), specifies that the Secretary of State’s guidance must ensure that pupils are,
“protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate having regard to the age and the religious and cultural background of the pupils concerned”.
Therefore, the existing legislation already makes clear that it is absolutely inappropriate for material to be used that would not have regard for religious faiths. For the Secretary of State to issue guidance specifying that a particular version of marriage be endorsed counter to a school’s ethos, and by extension the religious background of many of its pupils, would not meet this criterion that already exists in legislation. I emphasise that point in response to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, who expressed concern that the new legislation would somehow remove some protection from schools that are against promoting same-sex couples being able to marry. I want to emphasise that that is absolutely not the case.
This country has a strong tradition of schools with a religious character; they are a valued part of our education system. It would be pointless to maintain a system of designation if such schools were unable to teach in accordance with the tenets of their religion. For this designation to have significance, the school has to deliver what it was set up for. The inherent right of schools to deliver their curriculum and to interpret guidance according to their ethos is evident in their existence as such schools. As I have described previously, such schools do already teach about topics that may be considered sensitive, such as divorce, and they do so without issue.
While the Government are clear that this Bill will not impinge on faith schools’ ability to continue to teach about marriage in line with their religious tenets, I do of course understand that the effect of Clause 11 on Section 403 of the Education Act has led to some concern about this. While we are not convinced that there is a need to change the legislation to clarify the position, we are continuing to discuss this with the churches. As the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Royall, said, the Government undertook to consider this issue in another place. I can assure noble Lords that I and my colleagues are continuing to examine it in detail.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Will the Minister confirm whether the Government agree with my view about the Human Rights Act and the convention giving absolutely clear legal protection?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I think that I have been clear in my response. I have just said that we are not convinced of a need to change the legislation to clarify the position because we believe that the protections exist. However, as I have just said, we committed to consider this further. We are discussing it with the churches, and we will honour that commitment to continue to consider it and to discuss it further. However, I was about to say that clearly, in the course of doing that, one of the things that we will want to do is to take account of all the contributions that have been made to today’s debate. The process of scrutiny of legislation suggests that it is proper for us to make sure that we take account of debates in this House, and indeed in the other place, in framing legislation.
That leads me on nicely to conclude by addressing the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, as he suggested that the Government have not been minded to listen to debate through the passage of this Bill and make amendments. To give him some comfort and to remind the House that that is not the case, I will point out that in the Bill so far the Government have agreed to an amendment which includes a review of civil partnership. We have included an amendment to the Public Order Act and we have some amendments which clarify things around ecclesiastical law which has been requested by the churches. We have made an amendment to protect the spouses of transpeople so that if they continue in those marriages they retain the pension rights from the terms when they were originally married. We have further protected employed chaplains, we have made some changes for the Church in Wales, and we have dealt with void marriages. We are listening to the debates that are taking place in your Lordships’ House, as we did in the other House through the passage of this Bill. If we think that it is necessary to clarify the legislation in order to ensure the proper outcomes that we are seeking, which is to allow same-sex couples to marry and for religious freedoms to be protected, that is what we will do.
That is the commitment that the Secretary of State has made and I am happy to repeat it from the Dispatch Box. However, it is important that we do so only where it is necessary and only where it clarifies and helps us in the passage of the Bill, and provides the outcomes that we are all seeking to achieve. I hope that the right reverend Prelate is able to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, which was much wider ranging than I expected it to be, and particularly to the Minister for her careful response to the issues that were being raised. I am also fascinated to see how many of us were brought up in Lancashire and received our sex education, or lack of it, there. I suppose my school was technically in the county borough of Bolton, but it was more or less Lancashire.
This amendment is about the institutional religious character of schools. It is about ensuring that the statutory framework addresses and accommodates the school’s need to provide teaching that is in accordance with its religious tenets when it formulates its policy on teaching about sex and relationships. There is, rightly, guidance from the Secretary of State about that policy, and the school needs to take account of it. It should not have to rely on the Human Rights Act, but should actually have it built into the guidance. Since we have guidance, it ought to address this particular issue, rather than the church schools being left in a position of having to act in a way that is not clear within the guidance. I would hope that that does something to respond to the direct question which I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson. I believe that there needs to be guidance to avoid criticism of the family relationships to which she referred. As the Minister said, the current requirement for guidance was inserted in the 1996 Act in 2000. My belief remains that there needs to be guidance on this matter to take note of the changes brought about by the Bill. We need to acknowledge that those are real changes; otherwise, there would be no point having the Bill. We need to respond to the particular needs of schools of a religious character, not least in terms of the tenets of their trust deeds. It is not for the Secretary of State to say what those tenets are; they are declared by the relevant church and school in the trust deeds.
We may need to come back to this matter at a later stage. I still need to be convinced that there is no incompatibility between the Bill and the requirements of the 1996 Act. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Undercover Policing
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend Mrs Theresa May in the House of Commons earlier today. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the latest allegations concerning the use of undercover officers to smear the reputations of Doreen and Neville Lawrence and Duwayne Brooks. These allegations follow several serious claims about the activities of police officers engaged in undercover operations, and I would like to update the House on the several investigations and inquiries into the conduct of these officers. But before I do so, I know the whole House will want to convey their support for the Lawrence family. They experienced an unspeakable tragedy; their pain was compounded by the many years in which justice was not done; and these latest allegations, still coming 20 years after Stephen’s murder, only add to their suffering. I know, too, that the House will agree with me about the seriousness of allegations concerning police corruption and wrongdoing. We must be ruthless in purging such behaviour from their ranks.
As Members of this House will remember, in February I announced that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police had agreed that Mick Creedon, the Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary, would investigate allegations of improper practice and misconduct by the Metropolitan Police’s special demonstration squad, which for around 40 years specialised in undercover operations.
Mick Creedon took over a Metropolitan Police investigation called Operation Herne, and in addition to these latest allegations about the Lawrence family, Operation Herne is also looking into claims about the use by police officers of dead children’s identities, the conduct of officers who had infiltrated environmentalist groups and other serious matters. Given the nature of those allegations and the many years the special demonstration squad was in existence, we should not be surprised if further allegations are made, and I want to be clear that all such allegations will be investigated.
Operation Herne is led by Chief Constable Creedon and elements are supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I can tell the House today that the Metropolitan Police are also referring details of the new set of allegations to the IPCC, meaning that this aspect of the investigation will also be supervised. I know that some Members have suggested that the IPCC should take over Operation Herne completely, and that is an understandable reaction. I spoke to Dame Anne Owers, the chairman of the IPCC, earlier today, and I can tell the House that she does not believe a greater degree of IPCC control would enhance the investigation, but I can confirm that where the Creedon investigation finds evidence of criminal behaviour or misconduct by police officers, the IPCC will investigate and the officers will be brought to justice.
I have also spoken to Mick Creedon today. He told me that the first strand of his work regarding the allegations about the identities of dead children will report before the House rises for Summer Recess. At present, there are 23 police officers working on the case, with a further 10 police staff working in support. In the course of their investigation they have already examined in the region of 55,000 documents and have started to interview witnesses, including police officers who worked in the special demonstration squad.
I want to emphasise that undercover operations are a vital part of protecting the public, but it needs very detailed supervision, and undercover operations need constant reassessment to ensure that what is being done is justified. For obvious reasons, members of the public cannot know the details of the police’s undercover operations, but we need to have the assurance that this work is conducted properly, in accordance with a procedure that ensures that ethical lines are respected.
In February last year, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary reported on how forces go about undercover policing. This work was undertaken partly in response to allegations about the conduct of a police officer named Mark Kennedy, who had been tasked to infiltrate an environmental protest group. HMIC’s report made a series of recommendations designed to improve the procedures that police forces have in place for managing and scrutinising the deployment of undercover officers. Among other recommendations, HMIC said that the authorisation arrangements for high-risk undercover deployments should be improved and that additional controls should be put in place where a deployment is intended to gather intelligence rather than evidence.
Since March this year, HMIC has been working on a further report that will check on how the police have implemented its recommendations, and I can tell the House that this report is due to be published on Thursday. I can also tell the House that Tom Winsor, the new chief inspector, plans to undertake a further review of undercover police work later this year.
Last week, my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice told the Home Affairs Select Committee that the Government intend to bring forward legislation to require law enforcement authorities to obtain the prior approval of the Office of Surveillance Commissioners before renewing the deployment of an undercover officer for a period exceeding 12 months. In future, authorisation should also be sought under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act for any activity to develop a cover persona.
I want to turn now to the allegations regarding the Lawrence family. The investigation into Stephen’s murder has cast a long shadow over policing, especially in London. That is why, in July last year, I asked Mark Ellison QC to investigate allegations of deliberate incompetence and corruption on the part of officers involved in the original investigation into the murder. Mr Ellison was the lead barrister in the successful prosecutions of Gary Dobson and David Norris, and he was supported by Alison Morgan, junior counsel from the prosecution.
I have spoken to Mr Ellison today, and I encouraged him to go as far and wide as he would like in his investigation. I have also spoken to Mick Creedon to make sure that Mr Ellison will have access to any relevant material uncovered in the course of Operation Herne. We must await the findings of the Ellison review, which, given the latest allegations, will be published later than originally intended. When the review concludes, a decision will have to be made on whether its findings should lead to any formal police investigations.
I am determined that we should have zero tolerance of police corruption and wrongdoing. That is why the Government are beefing up the IPCC, making the inspectorate more independent, and why we asked the College of Policing to establish a code of ethics for police officers.
As the House knows, I have also launched a panel inquiry into the murder of Daniel Morgan, and I am determined that we get to the bottom of these latest allegations. We must do so to ensure public confidence in the police and the criminal justice system, not least for the sake of Doreen and Neville Lawrence, and for the memory of their son Stephen. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I join in his comments of support for Doreen and Neville Lawrence and their family. I suspect that no words can give comfort in a situation such as this. Having had to cope with the horror and the tragedy of the murder of their son Stephen, they had almost 20 years of campaigning for justice before anyone was brought to book for his murder. They then had to wait for a public inquiry into the Metropolitan Police’s handling of the investigation and the institutionalised racism at that time. We are still awaiting action to address the devastating failures and shocking decisions made by the Metropolitan Police at the time of Stephen’s murder.
Today, we have these disgusting allegations. Officers were tasked to spy on the Lawrence family to find “dirt” on them and their supporters. It is alleged that police officers logged who went in and out of the Lawrence family home, yet at the same time they were failing to gather sufficient evidence to prosecute Gary Dobson and David Norris, and any other suspects at the time. We can only imagine the hurt, distress and anger—and also the deep sadness and sense of betrayal that the Lawrence family and their supporters must continue to feel. With allegations made last year that corruption within the Metropolitan Police contributed to the failure to get justice for the Lawrence family, we called for a wider public inquiry into those allegations of corruption and we also considered it an opportunity to address more widely the progress within the police in addressing racism. Instead, the Home Secretary allowed the Metropolitan Police to review itself and, as the noble Lord has indicated today, asked Mark Ellison QC to review the paperwork on this specific issue.
It would be helpful today for the Minister to update your Lordships’ House on the progress in that case. He said something about it but it would help to have a little bit more information. Does he consider whether there is any overlap in these new allegations? A specific concern is whether police officers providing information to Mr Ellison have withheld relevant information from him. Will the noble Lord comment on that specific point? We have previously endorsed the call of Doreen Lawrence, Stephen’s mother, for the reinstitution of a public inquiry to examine any dereliction of duty by the Metropolitan Police at the time of Stephen’s murder and, more widely, the progress made in implementing the Macpherson report’s 70 recommendations. We continue to support that call.
On the substance of today’s allegations, clearly this links in with wider concerns, as the Minister has addressed, about the use of undercover and covert operations by the police. Noble Lords will be aware that I have previously raised in your Lordships’ House concerns over the identities of dead children being used by officers, without the consent or the knowledge of their families. We have had evidence of shocking allegations and instances of inappropriate relationships. I do know whether the Minister had the opportunity to read the Guardian magazine this weekend, but I would recommend the article by Rob Evans and Paul Lewis on the activities of SDS police officers. The impact of their activities on individuals shows how serious and devastating such behaviour can be.
I know that the noble Lord shares our concern about transparency in any investigation on inquiries into these issues. I spoke to him earlier about this and, as he said, the only way to restore public and professional confidence is to have openness in the investigation and openness in the actions taken to address any problems. We have some concerns about the Home Secretary’s approach in wrapping these allegations together with the pre-existing investigation being undertaken by Derbyshire’s Chief Constable Creedon and supervised by the IPPC. That investigation is looking at complex and covert investigations into environmental and animal rights groups that go back many years. In the past month, new allegations have been made about corporate protests and potential undercover police involvement. This is another monster of an inquiry being undertaken by the IPCC. It is already taken 20 months and cost £1.2 million, although no arrests have yet been made. This will take some years. Alongside Hillsborough, the scoping of Orgreave, and many other investigations, it is unclear whether the IPCC will be able to prioritise and deal with all those issues in an appropriate timescale. Rightly, these are all huge issues of concern.
In addition to the undercover element, there is a common theme. It was so powerfully evidenced in relation to Hillsborough, as the noble Lord and I discussed at the time, and is now reinforced in the case of the Lawrence family—namely, that police institutions seek to undermine victims. Police institutions try to smear those seeking justice as being agitators or they even try to find some evidence of their being criminals—trying to smear them in the process. The agony that the Lawrence family has endured since the day Stephen was murdered has also made this case uniquely damaging to British policing and public confidence. Unless that is effectively and properly dealt with, not only will that lack of confidence endure, it will undermine the confidence of the majority of police officers who seek to serve the public honestly and decently.
We now have two different inquiries: the investigation, Operation Herne, and the new Ellison review dealing with very similar things. I have a few questions for the noble Lord. I want to get to the bottom of whether the Government are absolutely confident that these inquiries will, first, be sufficiently focused; and, secondly, have complete co-operation from police officers. They also have to ensure that whistleblowers will be sufficiently empowered and protected to come forward. A number of recent cases show that the actions of whistleblowers have been vital in exposing the allegations of serious corruption within public institutions. Crucially, we seek an assurance that there is no information or evidence that could be lost in a black hole between the different inquiries.
The Home Secretary has chosen not to institute, as we requested, a swifter IPPC-led investigation that is independently resourced. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that Chief Constable Creedon reports on the specific allegations before the House of Commons Summer Recess? I think that the Home Secretary indicated this afternoon that that was the case in the comments that she made. It would be helpful if he would confirm that for us.
The Lawrence family and the public need the truth and they need it quickly. They deserve the truth. I shall summarise the points that we wish to raise with the Minister and the Government. First, we need a swift investigation by the IPPC into any allegations of misconduct in relation to spying on the Lawrence family; secondly, an update on the corruption allegations; and a clear need for a wider inquiry as Doreen Lawrence, Stephen’s mother, has called for. We need urgent progress and all those three areas and I hope that the noble Lord can give serious consideration and respond positively to all these issues.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, there is no doubting the seriousness of these allegations, nor indeed the determination of the Home Office, and the Home Secretary in particular, to expedite investigations and report the conclusions of those investigations to Parliament. I emphasise that elements of the inquiries in Operation Herne, the Creedon investigation, will be reported to the Home Secretary and in turn to Parliament as the sections of those investigations are concluded. A Statement will be made to the House before it rises in the summer on the particular aspects that were mentioned by the noble Baroness.
I think it is true to say that police officers are just as appalled as Members of this House at these latest allegations which, if they are true, suggest a mindset that existed in those days, quite some time ago now, which sought to discredit victims. That is an intolerable thing for policing to accept. The Home Office is determined to pursue these matters.
There has been some criticism. I was in the other place earlier and heard the Opposition there suggest that perhaps what we need is one big investigation. I think that the current investigations are actually making considerable progress. The burden of the new allegations will, of course, add to the work that needs to be done. We will make sure that the work is properly resourced and that Parliament hears about the progress of the reports.
Mark Ellison QC has indicated to the Home Secretary that the inquiry of his team is going much wider than just using Metropolitan Police Service files. Because of that, and because of the allegations that are involved, the inquiry is going to take longer to come to its conclusions, but it hopes to report in the late autumn. The Ellison review is working with other investigations. The allegations made in the media today will form part of Ellison’s task, as well as forming part of Mick Creedon’s own investigations through Operation Herne.
I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that we understand her determination to get to the bottom of this, but I think that the police as a profession want to do so as well, to make sure that we know how these things happened in the past and that there is no risk of them happening in this day and age.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, for the benefit of the House, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that short questions should be put to the Minister in order that my noble friend can answer as many as possible.
Lord Fowler
My Lords, I was the shadow Home Secretary at the time of the Macpherson report, and like the then Home Secretary, Mr Straw, I did not hear a whisper of this. This is a vastly serious charge to make against the police. Perhaps the assumption is that nothing of this kind would happen today, but I think the Andrew Mitchell case shows that that is not necessarily true. I wonder if the time has come when, in addition to the criminal inquiries that have been set up, there should be one public inquiry to look at the whole question of police ethics. Would not that be to the benefit of the police and the public?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I can understand the concern of my noble friend, who speaks from considerable experience of these matters. As he will know, the Home Secretary has set up the College of Policing, one of the principal tasks of which is to review police ethics and to establish within the policing profession a code of ethics that will guarantee that within the police force itself there is an acknowledgement of what is proper and what is acceptable in policing terms. I share my noble friend’s concern; it is the reason why we are taking things which happened in the past so seriously. We recognise that if we do not eliminate these issues from policing practice, there is a risk that we could see events similar to the ones that we have to talk about today.
Baroness Howells of St Davids
My Lords, I can tell the House that on the night that Stephen was murdered, I was the community relations officer detailed to keep an eye on what was happening. A week after the murder, I was invited to meet the Minister for race relations in the Home Office, the then Mr Peter Lloyd. I was asked if I could say something about what was happening in Greenwich. I explained to him that the Lawrence family were the epitome of any British family. They were married, they had three children who went to school regularly, and they played tennis. Five Englishmen set upon their eldest son and murdered him in the street. At the time the community, in its grief, was concerned about how the police were reacting to the death of an 18 year-old. On the night of the murder, I went to the hospital and had to drive along the road, but the police had not cordoned off the area where Stephen had been murdered. I have said this many times, but today I can say it publicly: we were all very concerned.
After I had explained in detail what was happening, we were told that Peter Lloyd was so moved that he appointed a Member of this House to visit Greenwich. The Member called into the police station and spent a day with the police, and he said in his report that the police were doing everything they could. He did not contact the local council, he did not contact the community relations council and he did not contact the community. He did none of those things. We were outraged because we knew that something was wrong.
I stayed by the Lawrences in their struggle for 10 years, at which point I felt that they were strong enough. I would like to ask whether the Member of this House who spent a day with the police will be questioned during this inquiry. He gave the police confidence that they were doing a good job. The community knew that they were not, the race relations people knew that they were not, and the council knew that they were not.
For the black community, the police perjuring themselves in the way they have done is well known. A lot of young people were disenfranchised because of how the police treated them. They would arrest them, but when they asked, “What have I done?”, they would be charged with obstructing the course of justice. There was a time when the Metropolitan Police made it impossible for a young black person to walk the streets of London. If the Government are taking this seriously, and I am sure that they are, this cannot be a “surface” inquiry. I feel that the House deserves to know how a Member of this place could give the police such a good report while the families were suffering. I thank all noble Lords for listening.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, it has been a privilege to listen to the noble Baroness, who has recreated some of the fears and anxieties which the Macpherson report sought to address. There have been few more damning indictments of an institution than that report. What is currently being alleged is that there may have been some aspects of policing at the time which were not reported to Macpherson, including this particular unit and its activities. These are matters of great concern. I have to be brief because other noble Lords want to come in, but I am pleased to have listened to the noble Baroness.
Lord Dear
My Lords, first, I declare my interest as a senior officer in the police service, and also that in the past 18 months I have given professional advice as part of a small group advising HMIC on the Kennedy case. That should go on the record.
I associate myself absolutely with the comments in the Statement that the noble Lord has read out to us. I share entirely the concern, and the tone of that Statement chimes exactly with my own feelings. I would also like to associate myself with the comments that have been made about the Lawrence family, and I will not go over that again. The whole issue is deeply worrying. I have only one small query in my own mind: why has it taken so long for that undercover officer to come forward? No doubt that will be a matter of record later on.
I will make one point and pose one question. The point I would like to make is that my knowledge of undercover operations at the extreme end is that it is a critical and highly dangerous part of policing. Penetrating officers into organised crime groups is difficult. It is critical—as the Front Bench has already acknowledged—and a very dangerous involvement indeed, which was not the case with Lawrence and is not the case with Kennedy either. I hope that the ongoing investigations will bear in mind the important end—the dangerous end—of undercover operations.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has already mentioned the need for ethics and I subscribe to that. He is quite right, but I would take it a stage further. My question to the Minister concerns leadership. Ethics are no good unless the values of the service and the moral and professional compass of the service are there first. It needs leadership to hold it together and move it forward. This is a drum I have beaten here before, as the Minister knows. I would like reassurance from him that the whole question of leadership—not the College of Policing but leadership—is being addressed as a matter of urgency within the Home Office. It is to do with recruiting and training the right people, giving them the space to operate and encouraging leadership rather than management. With good leadership, this sort of thing should not and would not happen. That is the essence of the whole problem that we are looking at.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Many senior police officers are aware that there is far too much focus on management and not enough on leadership. It is, after all, the police force that we are talking about. Police forces need leadership and command and a sense of direction and focus. All that the noble Lord has said, from his vast experience, points to the disappearance of some of that focus in modern policing. The Home Office is determined to get it back. I hope that addresses the issues that concern him.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, this is one of the most positive Statements to have emerged from the Home Office on this episode. Obviously, differences of opinion remain about the nature of the inquiry. I will make three points.
First, we endorse the sentiment expressed with regard to the tragedy and the further agony that the Lawrence family will experience on realising that the undercover operation was actually trying to implicate them—the nasty part of British policing. Two questions arise. The Macpherson inquiry talked about institutional racism. Would that inquiry have stopped talking about institutional racism if it had known that the police were involved in such an undercover operation? Would it not have recommended at that stage the need to criminally investigate police who were involved in this undercover operation? I raise this because there has been botched operation after botched operation in the investigation of this case.
My second point concerns the nature of the investigation, which the noble Baroness from the Opposition spoke about. I have full confidence in the IPCC and how it is supervised. However, public perception is still that the police and others tend to investigate themselves no matter how one supervises them. I do not believe in that. In this case, it is matter of innocent people against whom the police acted wrongfully. We need clear answers and that can come about only through an independent investigation.
The third point, if the Minister could reply, is that whereas one endorses what he says about covert operations where matters of national security are involved, this is an ordinary family who had lost a family member. What is the matter of national security in relation to this case? The sooner we get to the root of this problem with an independent inquiry, the better for British policing.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My noble friend is absolutely right. The Macpherson inquiry was only as good as the information that was made available to it. I said in my earlier response that if the Macpherson inquiry had had knowledge of the allegations that we are now aware of, there would have been a fuller investigation of this particular aspect, which may have changed the tone of that report even further.
I emphasise that the Ellison inquiry is an independent report. It stands outside the police force. However, we know that we need the police to investigate these sorts of matters. They are the vehicle in this country—they have the powers of arrest. They have the power and we need that power if we are going to pursue these allegations fully. Having Mark Ellison working alongside them, investigating the scope of these investigations at the same time, we have that degree of independence, which justifies the parallel passage of these inquiries and investigations.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I express from these Benches the way in which our hearts go out to Doreen and Neville Lawrence at this fresh pressure upon them at this time. In that context, accepting the point made by the Minister that undercover operations are necessary to protect the public, I emphasise that the distinction between undercover operations and dishonest deception is a fine one. Therefore, can he tell us more about the possibility and timescale for a clearer code of conduct for undercover operations? How much—if any—of that could be published?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
In order to set up proper supervision of undercover operations, primary legislation will probably be required; certainly legislation of some sort will be required, as was indicated by my right honourable friend Damian Green last week. He talked about secondary legislation to raise the level of authorisation for long-term undercover deployments to that of chief constable and to introduce a system of independent approval by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners for all renewals of long-term undercover deployment at 12-month intervals, so that there will be supervision by an independent body, set up by Parliament, to ensure that these operations are properly supervised.
Of course, the right reverend Prelate is absolutely right that we cannot reveal details without blowing the operation. However, the principles under which these operations are conducted will be established by using the Office of Surveillance Commissioners to supervise them.
Baroness Uddin
My Lords, I echo the sentiment of the House and pledge our support to Doreen Lawrence, whom I have the privilege of knowing personally. It must be devastating to learn, just as she begins to build a relationship with the police, hoping that there will be proper and full justice for her son, that she faces yet another blow. If these despicable allegations are true, were the Home Secretary or the Metropolitan Police Commissioner at the time aware of them? If so, what assurance will the Minister give to the House that there will be zero tolerance for institutional racism, not only within the Metropolitan Police but all across our institutions in this country?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
There is no tolerance of racial discrimination in this country. It is one of the features that have changed since those times. The Home Secretary became aware of these allegations only on Thursday last week. No Home Secretary that I know of has been aware of these allegations. We know that the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who is not in his place today but who was commissioner at the time, has widely condemned these allegations and had no knowledge of them, as he says in a statement which he issued earlier today.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I most warmly congratulate the Minister on the sincerity and sensitivity with which he has approached these grave allegations. The question has been raised as to exactly how boundaries should be drawn. I respectfully suggest that this House, sitting in its appellate capacity in the Loosely case 13 years ago, laid down very specific and intricate rules. If those can be made a living law—exactly how that is to be done I am not sure—the problem, to a large extent, would be answered.
On the Lawrence question, it is perfectly clear to the House that a small, select, covert and confidential cell was set up to do a very specific job—to besmirch the Lawrence case. That decision could not have been a haphazard one. It must have been arrived at at a fairly senior level of management. The British public will want to know who that person was. Anything short of that would leave a huge gap in credibility.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
Saying that gives me no pleasure, as someone who was Police Minister in the other place 45 years ago and thinks that we still have a most splendid police force, with few exceptions.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
What the noble Lord says is quite clearly the nub of the issue. That is what the investigation of these allegations is designed to discover. It is not going to be easy. This was quite some time ago and many of those involved have passed on. It will not be easy to get to the truth. The paper trail and the documents may not exist—we do not know. However, I believe that the public demand this sort of scrutiny and transparency and it is right that they do so. We need to pursue the allegations with vigour because we need to show that this cannot be tolerated in retrospect and it certainly cannot be tolerated today.
Social Security (Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and Carer’s Allowance) (Amendment) Regulations 2013
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
That this House regrets that the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and Carer’s Allowance) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, laid before the House on 4 March, will result in the loss of Motability provision for many disabled people; and that this House considers that transitional arrangements should be put in place urgently. (SI 2013/389)
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, the House will be aware that this Motion of Regret refers to the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and Carer’s Allowance) (Amendment) Regulations 2013. My three particular concerns, referred to in earlier debates, relate to: first, the way in which the changes in regulations will impact on the support which disabled people need to ensure mobility; secondly, the role of Atos Healthcare in assessing those who will be reassessed for PIP as a consequence of the changes; and, thirdly, the 20/50 metre criteria used for enhanced personal independence payment.
On the latter question, I begin at least with a welcome for the Government’s decision to consult, over the summer, on the 20/50 metre criteria for enhanced PIP. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that this will be a genuine consultation and not simply a paper exercise, going through the motions, to avoid judicial review. In a Written Answer on 13 February, the Minister said:
“Once PIP legislation is in place, any consequence of a failure to meet the entitlement conditions for the enhanced mobility component would not result in a judicial review as long as the legislation was applied fairly to the claimant. We have robust dispute resolution procedures in place to ensure that this is the case”.—[Official Report, 13/2/13; col. WA 157.]
Presumably, the new consultation is a recognition that the earlier announcement was not based on fairness. If this really is to be a genuine consultation this time, and the new regulations applied fairly to each claimant, the Government will need to assure us that they will publish the responses to their consultation and explain the reason for their eventual decision. Will the Minister outline the procedure that will be followed? Until the consultation has been undertaken, how will current claims be assessed? Which rules will apply? What will happen to those claimants if the consultation determines that the rules have to be changed?
There are two other two issues which I want to explore: the impact on disabled people’s mobility and the role of Atos Healthcare. On February 25 last, with the support of my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson, who has been unable to join us this evening because of pressing family commitments but who wishes to be associated with these remarks, I moved an amendment in Committee to the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. My amendment was a plea to the Government to think about providing a transitional arrangement—perhaps at least a two or three-year period of grace—for those who already have vehicles and who risk losing them. Prior to that amendment, on 17 January, 24 January and 13 February, and in a series of Written Questions, I pressed the Government about the impact of their proposals on disabled people.
Subsequently, on 30 April, the Minister for Disabled People and Member of Parliament for Wirral West, Esther McVey, met my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson and me, along with Jane Young, who has done a great deal of work in ensuring that this issue does not slip from sight. The Minister told us that the DWP would be announcing its own transitional arrangements this month. Can the Minister tell us what has happened to them? Since our meeting, Ms Young has been told that the department’s transitional arrangements would be reworked into joint transitional arrangements with Motability. Can the Minister can tell us whether that is so? How will that assist those who use their higher-rate mobility component on an alternative means of independent mobility other than the Motability scheme? I hope the Minister will be able to tell us.
During those discussions we made the point, which I reiterate tonight, that this is not a trivial issue. According to the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, who does such admirable work chairing Motability, there are 620,000 Motability vehicles on the road, which he says is probably the largest fleet of such vehicles in the world. That figure simply refers to Motability vehicles, not to the significantly larger number of people who rely on other forms of transport to ensure a degree of independent living. The Government have been unable to tell us, throughout these debates, how many people will have their vehicles sequestrated or repatriated and how many people who currently receive help with transport will lose access to that help. My noble and learned friend Lord Hardie has also been attempting to extract information about the numbers of people. Members of your Lordships’ House will have seen his recent Written Questions about this. I suspect that obtaining that information has been rather like drawing teeth.
I for one do not believe that Parliament has any business enacting government policies without knowing what the full effect will be of their proposals. For Parliament to be asked to walk blindfolded into decisions will undoubtedly result in some Motability users having their specially adapted vehicles repossessed. That is simply unconscionable and deeply irresponsible.
Although I am appreciative of the time that Esther McVey spent with my noble friend and me, I freely admit that I am still no wiser about the number of people who will lose their vehicles or be affected by these changes. The detail of the Government’s proposals is still inadequate; we simply do not know. The inadequate consultations match that. The transitional arrangements which are to be put in place by both Government and Motability are simply in the ether. We do not know what they are. It is for that reason that I tabled this Motion of Regret this evening and to ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, who has spent a lot time on these questions, has the opportunity to come to your Lordships’ House to explain in more detail and answer some of these questions.
On 17 January I asked:
“Can the Minister confirm the Government's own prediction, made earlier this month, that 27% fewer working-age people will be eligible for the Motability scheme once PIP is fully rolled out? Disability organisations say that the new proposal means that 42% fewer disabled people of working age will be eligible—an average of 200 people in every constituency”.—[Official Report, 17/1/13; col. 818.]
I received no reply on that day but on 13 February the Minister told us:
“Yes, my Lords, there is some churn”.— [Official Report, 13/2/13; col. 742.]
He also said:
“My Lords, we know how many people will get the higher mobility component, a figure that will clearly be fewer under PIP than under DLA. I have provided those figures but, just for the record, the figure of roughly 1 million people on the DLA component in a steady state will reduce to roughly 600,000”.—[Official Report, 13/2/13; col. 741.]
How does that translate into repossessed vehicles and into the loss of Motability support?
Let us be clear. One third of disabled people live in poverty. Some claimants will lose as much as £150 per month if they fail to meet the newly tightened criteria, an annual loss of around £1,800. Their situation will be unbelievably bleak. On the other side of the coin, Oxford Economics estimates that the mobility provided for disabled people contributes to our nation’s economy by the equivalent of £1.3 billion every year, as I pointed out in an earlier debate after being referred to the document by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
The Disability Benefits Consortium, which represents more than 50 disability rights groups, reminds us that it is not just about the positive contribution made by disabled people. Motability vehicles are,
“their means of independence and participation, the lifeline that enables them to get to work, to GP appointments, to the shops or to take their kids to school”.
We simply do not know what is going to happen to people, some of whom have had very expensive adaptations to their vehicles, and who will be left without an adequate method of getting around. We especially do not know what the effect will be on people living in places where public transport is not easily available or accessible. As my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson told the House in February:
“The short timescale between notifying someone of their car being removed and it being taken away could make life extremely difficult. Without some further protection, it could lead to chaos for many disabled people”.
She continued:
“At the briefing that was held on the PIP regulations on 22 January 2013 with the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and the Minister in another place, Esther McVey, it was my understanding that the timescale for someone having to return their car if they were no longer eligible for PIP could be relatively short, perhaps just a matter of a few weeks”.—[Official Report, 25/2/13; col. 937.]
Can we now have further clarity on the timescale? I should be grateful if the Minister would remind the House how much public money is provided to Motability each year and tell us what discussions the Government have had with Motability about transitional arrangements and a package of support.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for giving us this opportunity to raise again the issue of PIP and the higher rate mobility component. This, of course, is the gateway to the Motability scheme which enables so many disabled people—including myself—to get about. I declare that interest.
I shall say a word about PIP in general, but turning to these regulations, I am pleased that Motability has stated that it aims to avoid recovering vehicles from hospital in-patients affected by this change. If the car has been adapted to suit the claimant’s condition, then it could be very expensive for a Motability car to be recovered and for the claimant to apply again when he or she comes out of hospital, and another Motability car has to be adapted in due course. Presumably the payment of the higher rate mobility component of DLA will continue to be paid if a person is in hospital for more than four weeks. Perhaps the Minister could tell me if that is the case.
Turning to other matters, I am very glad that the DWP is reopening the consultation which it failed to do on the final version of the PIP criteria. Even though the amending regulations should make the position clear, none of us who has taken part in these discussions has any confidence that the assessors will properly take the criteria in the amending regulations into account—even though they are mandatory. I hope that the new consultation will not be an empty exercise and that the DWP will take on board what disabled people say and change the original criteria if the consultation makes it clear that this should happen.
One matter which I am very disturbed about is the figure of 600,000 claimants that the Government say will disappear from their books once PIP is introduced. Where did the DWP get this figure from? Is it saying that these people are not disabled enough, or that they are now receiving DLA fraudulently? How closely is it in touch with the Department of Health, which might be able to enlighten it about improvements in treatments for many disabled people, meaning that they are likely to live longer with their disabilities?
The mantra we hear constantly is that PIP is to be targeted at those who need it most. However, although that sounds good and right, it is actually pretty meaningless because DLA and PIP are not to be means-tested. So one is left with a subjective judgment by a DWP decision-maker—heavily influenced by the assessor. Without targets, how will the decision-maker judge one person against another? Outside the Chamber, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said they would need the judgment of Solomon. Instead, they have the judgment of Atos. I know which I prefer.
Tonight we heard more from the noble Lord about the Atos contracts, so I shall not repeat those facts, which are very disturbing. In general, I supported the move to PIP, because of the inadequacy of the DLA form, but there are too many question marks over the whole process for me to have any confidence in it any more.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I want to make three brief points, but first declare an interest. Two members of my extended family have Motability cars and they are their lifeline. I shall make a point about statistics, one about appeals and finally a point about isolation. I shall try to be quick because we are pressed for time.
On statistics, as I recall when we were doing the Welfare Reform Bill, we were told that something like 600,000 of those getting the higher rate DLA mobility component would drop and about 200,000 of those on a lower rate would go up, leaving a net loss of 400,000 people on DLA mob. As understand it from our debates at the time, something like 27% of those people converted their DLA higher rate mob into a car. Therefore it means we are talking about the loss of potentially 180,000 Motability cars from disabled people who are dependent upon them. These are cars which in many cases have been extremely expensively adapted to them and therefore are of relatively little use for people following after, because they have been customised. This leaves the disabled person without any ability to afford alternative transport, because they too cannot afford those adaptations done by Motability. So on my first point about statistics, I think we are dealing with about 180,000 cars. If the Minister can correct me on this, I should be pleased to know, but it is a huge number.
Secondly, there are appeals. At the moment, between 40% and 50% of all appeals on DLA are successful. One reason is that there is often a considerable time between the DLA assessment and the appeal, by which point someone may have got worse or, possibly, better and, as a result, the evidence is contested. The problem is the length of time taken to hear the appeal. If it takes six months to hear an appeal against Atos, you lose your car after one month, you win your appeal, but then you have to wait for a new car with all the expensive adaptations while 180,000 cars are effectively on the scrapheap, that seems a foolish and unwise use of money.
Lord Hardie
My Lords, I declare an interest as honorary president of Capability Scotland and share noble Lords’ concern about the changes to the regulatory regime. In that regard, I refer noble Lords to my observations of 13 February at cols. 737-78, which I shall not repeat. The present regulations, among other things, affect claimants who have entered into a Motability agreement and are thereafter hospitalised. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, derived some comfort from the assurance that Motability will not recover those vehicles if a patient is hospitalised, but if one reads paragraph 7.10 of the Explanatory Notes, one sees that that is not what the Government have said. They say that the Motability scheme has stated that it would aim to avoid recovering vehicles from hospital in-patients affected by that change.
That is not the absolute assurance that hospital patients will not lose their vehicles. Without such an assurance, the reality is that if a person is in hospital for a particularly long period, the payments made by the department to Motability on behalf of the patients will not be made and the vehicle—the car, motorised scooter or motorised wheelchair—may well be recovered. Indeed, the Explanatory Notes recognise that if it has to be recovered, Motability will give some allowance, depending on the condition of the vehicle when it is recovered.
These are concerns, because the present system means that payments direct to Motability continue to be made after the hospitalisation of a claimant. That is recognised as an exception to the rule that social security benefits are affected after hospitalisation. In my view there is a good reason for that, because these payments are payments of a capital nature to enable people to have the necessary facilities to give them the independence that they need. They are different from revenue paid direct to the person for their maintenance.
Regulations 10 and 11 remove this exemption for no good reason. It is no answer to say that it is intended to bring Motability users into line with other recipients of DLA or PIP. As I have sought to explain, they are in a different position to the other claimants. Moreover, the consequences of this change are draconian. There is a real risk of the repossession of necessary equipment, resulting in the inability of such claimants to lead independent lives after they leave hospital until they are able to renegotiate other Motability contracts. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, explained the complexities of that. There will be a delay in obtaining necessary equipment, during which period these people will not be able to live the independent lives that they have enjoyed previously. Can the Minister advise the House what timescale is involved between the order and delivery of a purpose-built powered wheelchair, scooter or modified vehicle?
I also ask the Minister what is the urgency in promoting this change, particularly in view of the announcement by the DWP on 17 June, already mentioned, of a further consultation on the mobility component of PIP? Would it not make sense to have an integrated approach and to leave these changes to form part of the consultation process? Has there been any consultation with interested parties or the public at large about this significant change? If the Government are not willing to await the outcome of the consultation, can the Minister tell the House how many people will be affected by this proposed change?
The loss of a wheelchair or car may have greater implications in different parts of the country. I have been anxious to assess the whole issue of Motability payments and their geographical distribution because I suspect that the impact of the loss of a vehicle might have greater impact in rural areas than in cities where there are probably better—although not ideal—transport facilities for wheelchair users. On 4 June, I tabled four Questions for Written Answer about the Motability scheme and received a reply dated 13 June. I refer noble Lords to Hansard cols. WA 255-56. I commend the Minister and his officials for the speed of the reply but it did not answer all my questions. My Questions HL594 and HL595 sought data for three years—2010, 2011 and 2012—but the answer provided data only for the last year, preventing me from undertaking any effective analysis.
Moreover, in relation to Questions HL596 and HL597 seeking information about participants in the Motability scheme, the Minister replied:
“The Department does not hold information on the numbers of Motability customers in each local authority district or area of Great Britain”. [Official Report, 13/6/13; col. WA 256.]
That reply echoes his statement on 13 February at cols. 741-42.
I have some difficulty with these statements. As I understand the system, if a claimant elects to use the Motability scheme, payments on his or her behalf are made by the department directly to Motability. If my understanding is correct, the department must know how much it is paying to Motability and on whose behalf payments are being made. This information will identify the local authority, district or area of each claimant on whose behalf payments are made. I have written to the Minister seeking a full answer to my Questions and I look forward to receiving that in due course.
If it is truly the case that payments are made by the department to Motability without it knowing the identity of the beneficiaries, it is a matter of concern that the department cannot account for these payments. Such a failure may be of interest to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, the Public Accounts Commission and perhaps even the Treasury. Until the department provides the House with the information about such payments, I invite the Minister to amend these regulations by deleting this particular change.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on bringing it forward. I should declare an interest as president of Mencap in Wales and a number of other disability organisations. The matter that we are discussing is of immense concern to countless thousands of disabled people who are dependent on the vehicles they get for their mobility. This is true generally; it is a particular problem in rural areas, to which I will come in a moment. Perhaps I might pick up the points as they have been made in turn.
First, on consultation, may we please have an assurance from the Minister that all relevant disability organisations will have a full opportunity not just to submit evidence but to engage in meaningful two-way discussion on this matter, and that the process will not be truncated and time-limited?
Secondly, on the more than 600,000 Motability vehicles, the Government must know how many people stand to lose their adapted vehicles, so why will they not come clean with the statistics? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, mentioned a moment ago, they must know those statistics. I congratulate him on the Questions that he has tabled and the statistics that he has obtained, which bring this matter into sharp focus.
Thirdly, I draw the attention of this House to the disproportionate geographical impact. I obviously have concern with Wales. With 5% of the population, it has 7.4% of the total casework and 8.4% of the higher rate caseload. This is for an amalgam of historic industrial reasons, which we will not go into now. Those people stand to lose, and many are in areas with the lowest incomes per head in these islands—places such as Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil, where I used to live, and where almost 13% of the population have a dependency on the mobility component. In my next-door area of Anglesey, which has one of the lowest GVAs per head of anywhere in the United Kingdom, at just 55% of the UK average, there is a caseload of 7.2%. That is in a rural area where they do not have alternative means of transport and taking away vehicles will deprive disabled people of the ability to get around.
The changes we are talking about will compound the disability and poverty suffered by these people. It will be made infinitely worse if they cannot have their mobility. They will be very badly impacted by these changes.
Baroness Wilkins
My Lords, I declare a tangential interest as a recipient of DLA since its inception, although being no longer of working age I am unaffected by the introduction of PIP. I will not repeat many of the excellent points that other noble Lords have made.
In a recent document, Motability set out the ways in which it is trying to ameliorate the changes and lessen the punitive impact of reclaiming customers’ vehicles. It states that the price to individual customers wishing to buy their current car will be in the order of £8,000 to £12,000. In the current climate, when disabled people have been repeatedly hit by cuts, how will many be able to afford that kind of outlay? Will the loan sharks be out in force to make yet another killing from people desperate not to lose their employment?
The Minister for Disabled People’s answer to those people facing the loss of their employment because of the introduction of PIP has been the Access to Work scheme. What work has been done to see if this could in fact be a more expensive alternative? For example, the chief executive of my local disability organisation needed to use Access to Work while he could not drive a car. The daily cost of the journey both ways was £80—£400 per week. On top of that, he has the cost of taxis for shopping, getting to the doctor, et cetera. Compare that to £55.25 high-rate mobility element of DLA, which provides him with a transport for all these activities.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool for tabling this regret Motion. He has spoken so clearly and fully on the worrying situation that the Regulations 2013 may result in the loss of mobility for many disabled people.
The mobility scheme has been a great assistance to many disabled people who would not have otherwise been able to afford a car or an electric wheelchair. This scheme is headed by Her Majesty the Queen. It has given mobility and independence to many people. Can the Minister tell me whether it is really a possibility that many people will lose their cars and the ability to run them?
I would add a few words about the vital need for a car if one lives in a rural area, as I do—even more so if one is disabled. A car enables a disabled person independence to take part in everyday life, getting to a job if they can work, taking children to school, shopping, going to the doctor, and just getting around. Making people mobile is so important. There is very limited public transport, if any, in some rural areas. I cannot understand that the Government are going backwards in penalising disabled people.
Before the mobility scheme existed there were small three-wheeler cars which were maintained by the Government. They were not ideal as a disabled person could not take a passenger, but they were better than nothing. I cannot think the Government could be so cruel to take mobility away from people whose lives are changed when they have it and are isolated if they do not.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I should begin by acknowledging all the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in bringing to the attention of the House, not just today but repeatedly, the concerns of people who are in receipt of mobility payments and who are worried about the effect of these changes and the way they are being implemented.
This debate this evening has made very clear just how important Motability cars and other mobility schemes are to so many disabled people. I was very moved by the account just given by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who explained so well the consequences for so many people; of how important it has been to have access to these cars and the fears that would accompany their departure.
The scheme, as Motability itself puts it, gives disabled people,
“the freedom to get to work or college, meet up with friends, enjoy a day trip out with their families, attend a medical appointment, or go shopping; to enjoy the independence that so many of us take for granted.”.
Yes, quite so. One of the things that we have struggled to get to tonight is the game of numbers—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, my noble friend Lady Hollis and others. It has proved very difficult to get a clear picture of just how many people will be affected by these changes since the Government have so far been unable to give us precise figures for those who might lose their cars or adapted vehicles. My noble friend Lady Hollis offered up 180,000. In the absence of anything from the Government, I suggest we all adopt that figure tonight. If the Minister will not accept that, please could he give us his own figure?
In past debates, the Minister has contended that because the decision to lease a vehicle is an individual one and the contract between the individual and Motability is a private one, it is not a matter for the Government. In response to that, first, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, made the very interesting point that if direct payments are made, the Government must know that information. Even if they do not, irrespective of the fact that a number of people will choose no longer to lease a vehicle, a number will automatically lose theirs simply by virtue of the fact that they will no longer be entitled to the enhanced rate when they transfer to PIP. The Government surely must have at least an estimate of what those numbers will be. Could they please share those numbers with us? Could the Minister tell us his best estimate tonight?
Secondly, if the Government intend to press ahead in the way they have announced, those affected will clearly need to make plans about how to manage the effects of the changes. What are the Government doing to publicise the changes and inform people who will be affected? The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lady Hollis asked what transitional arrangements would be put in place for people losing their cars. The Government have told the House previously that they were in discussions with Motability but could not then give further detail. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, has said previously that he had sympathy with the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and he was keen to find a way of supporting people during the transitional period. In the debate on 13 February, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, said in response to my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton:
“We are actively exploring what extra support we can give to disabled people to ensure that they can still get to work. We are looking at whether we can use access to work as that particular vehicle. We want to ensure that mobility support remains in place during any transition between the Motability scheme and access to work”.—[Official Report, 13/2/13; col. 740.]
What is the position on Access to Work, an issue also raised by my noble friend Lady Wilkins? Will it be possible to use Access to Work for this? What will happen with transitions? Will the sums of money available be enough to deal with the kinds of things described by my noble friend? Where have the Minister’s conversations got to? Also, where have his discussions with Motability reached? Will he provide more information as to what transitional measures might be put in place? In particular, what opportunities will be given to claimants to either buy or continue to lease adapted vehicles, and at what price? Will he clarify the position of in-patients in hospitals? That point was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and others.
This would also be a good time for the Minister to give the House some more information about the new consultation on PIP criteria and how that will link in with the inception of this new scheme—a point made by many noble Lords, understandably. It might help if the House understood more of the Government’s thinking on questions such as the 20/50 rule and the issues on which other campaigners have been pushing the Government to consult. How will this affect people in receipt of the higher rate of DLA who use Motability cars? What advice would he give them at this stage, looking ahead and trying to plan?
There is then the question of geography, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and that of people in rural areas, raised by my noble friend Lady Hollis and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. Have the Government done any assessment of the variable impact around the country? Can we even have a sense of impact by region, or the difference between urban and rural impact? I am sure that the Government would not have made a change on this scale without having considered that. Will the Minister share that with us?
Finally, at the risk of running slightly wide of the Motion, has the Minister given any thought to the context in which these changes are taking place? We know that support for disabled people wanting to move into work has been in trouble. The Work Programme is struggling generally and is clearly failing to help disabled people into work. The latest report from the Employment Related Services Association suggests that the numbers of people on ESA getting a job start as a result of referral to the Work Programme are terribly low: just 6% of referrals in the ESA flow payment group had a job start, 5% of those in the ESA volunteers group, and just 2% of referrals in the ESA ex-IB group. Given that, will the Minister take this opportunity to give the House some reassurance that the Government are concentrating in a cohesive and integrated way on the kind of support needed to help disabled people into work and to support them when they are there?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, I have some difficulty in framing this answer because the debate was very wide but the regulations we are discussing are actually extremely narrow. What we are actually discussing is bringing the treatment of patients in hospital into line between those who receive Motability and those who stop receiving it after a certain period. There was an exemption for the Motability element and we are just bringing the two into line. I acknowledge that there has been a very wide debate on the whole area but we are talking about something that is actually much narrower. I hope noble Lords will understand as I try to juggle the two. I will try to deal with some of the wider issues but I will deal with the actual issue first.
I will set a little bit of context by saying that even in these hard economic times this Government continue to spend around £50 billion a year on disabled people and services to enable those who face the greatest barriers to participate fully in society. That figure compares well internationally. We spend almost double the OECD average as a percentage of GDP—2.4% against the OECD average of 1.3%. Only two out of the 34 OECD countries spend more. Through the reforms of DLA and the introduction of PIP, we will make sure that the billions we spend provide more targeted support to those who need it most. Three million people will continue to get DLA or PIP and half a million will actually get more under the new system.
While I am on figures, to answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the money flow to Motability, £1.6 billion went through to it in terms of transfer of benefit. My noble friend Lady Thomas asked what happens to the transfer. Clearly we recognise that some people will lose out but we have sought to ensure that those who lose out are those whose disabilities have the least impact on their participation in society. On our sampling of this, many people—more than half a million—will be winners under PIP.
The UK has a proud history in furthering the rights of disabled people and we want to ensure that all people are treated fairly. The provisions under debate, which also apply to claimants of PIP, are a case in hand. They ensure that everyone receiving the mobility component of DLA or PIP in the future will be subject to the same payment rules, whether or not they have a Motability vehicle. The history of this was that when the mobility component of DLA stopped being paid to hospital in-patients in 1996, transitional provisions were built in, including a measure which allowed for payments to continue in order to cover the costs of the lease on a Motability vehicle. These arrangements represented a reasonable adjustment at the time for those in-patients who were committed to a mobility contract when the rules changed. However, noble Lords must understand that any lease held by someone in 1996 will have now long expired and these arrangements are past their sell-by date for the users affected at the time.
In response to the question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, about consultation, we clearly signalled our intention to implement this change in our consultation on the detailed design of our reforms to DLA. In that consultation we made clear that this change was not intended to penalise Motability users but to introduce fairness between how we treat those who chose to take out a lease with Motability—some 600,000 people—and the vast, or substantial, majority who do not, which is 1.1 million people.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
The Minister knows what the figures were in the past; why can he not project them forward? I am relying on memory now, of debates we had 18 months ago, but am I not right in thinking that he told us at the time that something like 29% of those in receipt of higher rate mobility turned it into a Motability vehicle. If that figure is correct, which I believe it to be, then he can surely extrapolate that to the numbers of gross losers coming down from high rate DLA mobility, which I understand, again relying on memory, was 600,000. Therefore, 29% of 600,000 brings me to my 180,000 figure. What is wrong with that figure?
Lord Freud
The reason that it is wrong is that we do not know that the Motability figure lines up at that same percentage into the mobility. That is the reason. As a rule of thumb, it is one way of going, but we actually do not know whether or not the kind of people who will maintain their higher rate mobility will be the ones with Motability. That is the issue.
One of the questions that the noble Baroness was particularly concerned about in this area was the heavily adapted cars, and I think she described it as the foolishness of moving a heavily adapted car back. I emphasise that only 2% of Motability cars are heavily adapted, so this is a much smaller problem; most are just standard cars.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I was a patron—or something or other—of Motability, and that is certainly not my experience. They may be standard cars but they have been adapted to make them comfortable. Even people who drove ordinary cars beforehand transferred to a Motability car in order to get the adaptations and so on which made it comfortable as well as possible for them to drive. Obviously I am in no position to argue with his 2% figure, but I suspect from my own experience that another 20%, 30% or 40% will be using a Motability car which, to some extent or other, has been personalised or tailored for their use.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I do not think we have time to debate what heavily adapted comprises. However, the figure for cars heavily adapted for a disabled person is 2%. Clearly, we all personalise cars to some extent. I can let the noble Baroness have some more information on that to the extent that I have it, but that is the figure that I have. I confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, is looking carefully at how Motability can help to mitigate the impact for those who may be affected by the move to PIP.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Before the Minister leaves that point, will he tell us a little bit more about what he is doing to create joint transitional arrangements, if that is what they are to be, with Motability, and when they will published? When will opportunities occur for people to be consulted and to respond to the consultation?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we are working with Motability currently on what the arrangements might be. I have no information at this stage on where we are with those discussions between the department and Motability, but clearly we are in discussions. I am not informed as to when I can update the House on that matter.
On the judicial review, as noble Lords have seen, there is a consultation on the 20 metre/50 metre issue. I can assure my noble friend Lady Thomas that this is a genuine consultation which we are entering with an open mind and we will be looking to hear the views of individuals and organisations. Once that consultation is closed, we will publish our response, including how we intend to act.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to changes to Atos’s supply chain since the tendering stage of the PIP. I assure noble Lords that the department’s decision to award the contract was not based on the mention of any particular organisation in the bids to deliver the PIP. It is usual for there to be changes between contract award and delivery. Indeed, we expect Atos’s use of supply chain sites to rise and fall in line with referral numbers. The department made a change to the reassessment timetable after Atos submitted its tender, which means that there will be significantly fewer assessments in 2013-14 than it had originally planned. However, it is important to note that Atos has kept the department informed about changes and we are confident that Atos and its partners are able to deliver successfully.
The noble Lord asked about the £391 million that the Government are said to have given Atos over three years. I do not have that information to hand but I will write to him on that matter.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He will recall that I also asked him specifically whether the 60 minutes’ travelling distance which Atos had said would be the maximum that people would have to travel to an assessment centre will be maintained or whether it will now be extended to 90 minutes, as has been alleged. Will the total number of assessment centres be reduced from the number I cited earlier to just a handful?
Lord Freud
I remind noble Lords that Atos tendered for four of the contract areas and received two, so it is not surprising that the 22 sites it was looking at have been reduced, given that it has a smaller number of contract areas. My information is that the 22 figure has gone down to 14. I will add to my letter any information I have on travel times estimates.
In summary, this issue is about balance and fairness—fairness to those who have a Motability vehicle and to the substantial majority of mobility component recipients who do not. However, this is fairness tempered with appropriate mechanisms to ensure that the impact on existing and future users of the scheme is minimised. Specific transitional arrangements are in place for those directly impacted when the measure was introduced and there will remain appropriate and generous provisions in the future. I commend the hospital in-patient arrangements to the House and trust that they have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and that as a consequence he will not press the Motion.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, as always, I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he answered the questions that were put to him, although I think he would be the first to agree that a number of questions raised during the debate remain unanswered. However, he will also understand that, although the measures may be narrow, parliamentarians have to take their chances. If they can find a hook on which to hang their coat, they are obliged to do so. That is surely part of our role as scrutineers. Your Lordships will be glad to know that I do not intend to drag this out although there is no time limit. Even though this is a dinner hour debate, we could have gone on for much longer. I think those taking part in the following debate will recognise that we have been pretty disciplined in the way that we have gone about this.
The issues that we have covered range from the disproportionalilty in the way that these changes will affect rural areas and poorer areas and concerns about the statistics that have still not been shared with us. We do not know the number of people who will be impacted by these changes and the cost of the vehicles, which was a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. Will it cost between £8,000 and £12,000 for someone to purchase one of these vehicles—a vehicle that had been made available to them previously by an Act of Parliament? It was an Act of Parliament that laid down the criteria under which people qualified. Surely we are guilty of behaving without due concern for the effect of the changes that we have put in place.
I repeat what I said in our deliberations earlier this year. It is our duty to understand the impact of the decisions we make. The Minister has just said that we cannot reliably estimate the impact; we do not know. That is not a good position for us to be in. Decisions will affect the mobility and independence of people with disabilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, put it very well when she said that you turn a person from being independent to being dependent when you take such decisions.
Just as we found a way of encouraging the Minister to come to the House this evening, I know that I and other Members of your Lordships’ House will look for other ways of holding the Government to account to ensure that we mitigate the worst effects of these changes. On the basis of the reply that has now been given, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Equality Act 2010
In the Equality Act 2010, after section 212, insert—“212A Expression of opinion or belief as to marriage
For the purposes of this Act, the expression by a person of the opinion or belief that marriage is the union of one man with one woman does not of itself amount to discrimination against or harassment of another.””
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I am aware that the hour is getting late and I hope not to detain the Committee for too long. The amendment would insert a new section into the Equality Act 2010 to make it clear that expressing a traditional view about marriage,
“does not of itself amount to discrimination or harassment”,
under the Act.
In our briefing to Peers at Second Reading, the Lords spiritual said that the reasonable expression of opinions or beliefs on the nature of marriage ought not, in our view, to be the subject of claims against individuals under existing discrimination or harassment provisions in the Equality Act 2010. Some recent high profile cases, which I shall not quote as they have been widely circulated, have highlighted where there is potential for risk in a workplace context. If an amendment to the Equality Act were introduced to put beyond doubt that the expression by a person of an opinion or belief about traditional marriage did not of itself amount to discriminating or harassing another, that would provide reassurance and a degree of legal protection for employers and employees and others who express their views in a reasonable way. “Reasonable” is a crucial point to stress; this is not and should not be a charter vocally to agitate in the workplace.
We very much welcome the Government bringing forward earlier in Committee their own amendment to the Public Order Act to put beyond doubt that “discussion or criticism” of same-sex or opposite-sex marriage shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred. I recognise once again the readiness of the Secretary of State and her colleagues to respond positively to the Church of England’s concerns in this area. But this on its own, while welcome as a clarification of the criminal law, is not quite enough. This amendment is the natural and logical counterpart to it in relation to civil equality law. It also follows the precedent set out by the Government that it is acceptable to write such provisions into legislation, as they put it, for the avoidance of doubt.
Some may have concerns that this amendment would give permission, as it were, to those who wish to use language or justify practices that are anti-gay or homophobic. On these Benches we are clear that we have absolutely no truck with that. As the most reverend Primate said in the Second Reading debate, such behaviour is utterly unacceptable. Indeed, I think he used the word “sickening”. This amendment is deliberately drafted in a positive way to give reassurance and legal protection for the avoidance of doubt to many who share an understanding of the churches and other faiths, and those of no faith, about what they believe marriage to be. Ministers have said on frequent occasions that this Bill is as much about freedom of religion as it is about equality and marriage. Accepting this amendment to give recognition and legal certainty to those of many of the world faiths and none who continue to hold a belief about marriage in its traditional form would be well within the grain of that understanding of the Bill.
At root, this amendment is largely about establishing cultural norms and expectations about what will continue to be acceptable in terms of public discourse about marriage. Its insertion into the Equality Act 2010 would signal that Parliament, as Ministers have often sought to reassure us, considered it to be acceptable to maintain and express the traditional understanding of marriage. As I go about the market towns and villages of the heart of England in Leicestershire, that is the view of marriage that people have grown up with and are used to understanding. We cannot expect those cultural assumptions and norms to change overnight or at the speed at which legislation may emerge.
I had an exchange with the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, in this House on 11 December last year in response to the announcement of the consultation results. During that exchange the noble Baroness said to me:
“We are not changing society. We are bringing forward changes to reflect society as it is. We are seeking to do so in a way that is respectful and understanding of different views”.—[Official Report, 11/12/12; col. 992.]
I acknowledge that, but I would beg to differ on the point about this Bill not changing society. It establishes through law new and different cultural norms and expectations, introduced at some speed. If we are to do this in a way that the noble Baroness rightly identified as being,
“respectful and understanding of different views”,
the law needs to give expression to that principle. This amendment achieves that and helps insulate against what I might call an isolating or even chilling effect for some of those who are already finding themselves somewhat left out in the cold. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I am puzzled by this amendment because I cannot see any realistic circumstances whatever in which the expression by a person of the opinion or belief that marriage is the union of one man with one woman does of itself amount to discrimination or harassment. It is simply inconceivable that any court could so find. This amendment would have a real disadvantage because it would wrongly imply that the mere expression of other views might amount to discrimination or harassment, contrary to all the principles of the equality legislation.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his measured and thoughtful introduction of the amendment. We discussed much of this last week and the views of these Benches have not changed since then. We think that the equality legislation covers this point. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is right in what he said. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Royall confirmed the view of these Benches that we think that the safeguards are in place, that they are respectful and that they do the trick. I look forward to listening to what the Minister has to say, but we have not changed our view that things are already safe.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, it seems to me that adding the amendment to the Bill can do no harm to anyone and give reassurance to many. In that context, I hope my noble friend Lady Stowell will be able to give a reply that shows she understands why the right reverend Prelate introduced the amendment and why a number of us feel that he was entirely justified in so doing.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for introducing his amendment and also for quoting me from December of last year when I repeated the statement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State when the Government published their response to the consultation. I actually remember what I said to him that day about the Bill, as we intended at that time, not being designed to change society but to reflect society as it is changing. I stand by that statement in response to his question that day. I hope that I can reassure him and other noble Lords that the protections already exist to allow people to express a perfectly legitimate belief that marriage should be only between a man and a woman.
I know what my noble friend Lord Cormack has just said but I think it is important for me to stress again that that is an absolutely legitimate belief. People have the absolute right to express that belief and such a religious or philosophical belief is a protected belief under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and under the Equality Act 2010 itself. I am sure from the contribution he made in earlier debates that if the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was here he would also refer to the Human Rights Act and quote,
“so far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights”.
Perhaps more significantly in this context, Section 13 provides:
“If a court’s determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right”.
There is therefore no doubt at all that belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman is both legitimate, as I have said, and mainstream. I hope that from the debates we have had already on this topic during Committee, and my responses to them, I am able to reassure noble Lords. However, I will go over some of the key points again in response to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester.
Our commitment to protecting the right of people to believe that marriage should be of one man with one woman was demonstrated in particular, as he has acknowledged, by the Government’s amendment to the Public Order Act 1986, which the House agreed last week. This puts beyond doubt that offences regarding stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation do not outlaw the reasonable expression of the view that marriage should be between a man and a woman. We were able to insert this clarificatory wording in that case because it amends an existing avoidance of doubt provision. There was therefore no risk that it might cast doubt on whether the reasonable expression of other views might amount to hate crime.
However, that is not the case with this amendment. This amendment would open up uncertainty as to whether discussion or criticism of other matters, such as civil partnerships or homosexuality in general, might of themselves constitute unlawful discrimination or harassment under the Equality Act 2010. However, as I have said, we recognise and agree that there is a need to ensure that employers and public authorities do not misinterpret or misapply their responsibilities in this regard. That is why we have committed to working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to ensure that its statutory codes of practice and guidance in this area are as clear as possible. During the debate on Amendment 13 on the public sector equality duty, I undertook to write to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, to set out how the provisions contained in the Equality Act 2010 will provide adequate protections for religious organisations and individuals, and why the equality duty cannot be used to penalise those who do not agree with same-sex marriage.
I understand the concern that has been expressed by the right reverend Prelate and understand the points that have been made by my noble friend Lord Cormack. However, I do not think that I can be any clearer than I have been today, and in response to previous debates, in making the point that it remains absolutely legitimate for people to have that belief and it remains absolutely legitimate for them to be able to express that belief. The Bill as we have drafted it protects the religious freedoms of faiths that want to maintain their existing belief in marriage being between a man and a woman. I hope that, with my restating all these points, the right reverend Prelate will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her clear and thorough response. I defer of course to the legal argument of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, although I would remind him that an employee who was demoted by his housing association employer for expressing the view on his personal Facebook page that same-sex marriage in church was, as he put it, “an equality too far”, successfully brought a breach of contract claim against the employer. My contention is that he should not have been put in the position of having to do that. That is the kind of reassurance I am looking for today.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
We debated this at great length last week when the same example was used on several occasions to make a similar point. As it has been raised again, I think it is worth repeating that the right reverend Prelate is quite right that it is so frustrating that somebody had to go through that process of establishing their freedom in order for it to be made clear. I regret that it was necessary for him to do that. However, the law, as it stands, did protect the man in question. I hope that the efforts that we are making with the Equality and Human Rights Commission properly to inform public authorities of the absolute rights and freedoms of people to express their religious beliefs will reduce the number of cases of the kind to which the right reverend Prelate refers.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I understand it and I hope that she will understand the sprit in which I raised this question.
Lord Alli
I understand what the right reverend Prelate is trying to do and completely agree with it. However, I wonder whether he might also take away with him the issue of employees of the Church of England. The church is the only organisation exempt from the employment regulation that would otherwise prevent the church from dismissing somebody for simply being gay. It was an exemption that it argued for and received. When the right reverend Prelate talks about other employers, I say with absolute humility that it would be lovely if the Church of England could revisit that decision about being able to sack gay priests who are not active homosexuals and are not having sex but who simply identify themselves as being gay. I will listen much more sympathetically to the arguments that the right reverend Prelate puts forward when that anomaly is corrected.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, who asks, through me, whether the Church of England would revisit a number of issues and a number of stands that it has taken. I wish that the church would do that and would certainly want to play my part in ensuring that it does. I have taken careful note of speeches made around this House during the passage of this Bill and of what the most reverend Primates the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York have said on this. I take his point and think it is well made.
Tomorrow evening, I will be acting as host to 50 or 60 of the world faith leaders in my garden in Leicester. We work closely together and I know how deeply concerned they are about their freedoms to follow and proclaim the traditional teachings of their faith and how much they look to their bishop, who has the privilege of a seat in this House, to do everything possible to ensure that those freedoms are underwritten by the Bill. It is in that spirit that I brought forward this amendment today. I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Review of impact of same sex marriage
The Secretary of State must arrange—(a) for the operation and effects of this Act to be reviewed two years and five years after this Act is passed;(b) for the report on the outcome of the first review to be produced and published within thirty months of this Act being passed;(c) for the report on the outcome of the second review to be produced and published within five years and six months of this Act being passed; and(d) for both reviews to be conducted by a Lord Justice of Appeal taking appropriate evidence with particular regard to the impact of this Act on civil liberties and the rates of—(i) opposite sex marriage, and(ii) same sex marriage.”
Lord Dear
My Lords, by any stretch of the imagination same-sex marriage is something of a social experiment. Its consequences cannot accurately be foretold, certainly not in this country. Amendment 47 requires a review of the legislation to be conducted by a Lord Justice of Appeal, two years and again five years after the Act is passed, with reports published within six months of each of those two reviews. If the amendment is carried, the reviews are to focus particularly on the impact of the legislation, first on civil liberty and secondly on the rates of opposite and same-sex marriage.
The reasoning behind the amendment is that the impact of same-sex marriage on marriage rates should be reviewed, because evidence shows that redefining marriage undermines support for marriage in the wider society. I draw two examples. After same-sex marriage was introduced in Spain, marriages across the whole population plummeted by more than 20% in the following six years. It has been said that the relaxation of divorce laws that occurred at about the same time as the introduction of same-sex marriage had something to do with this fall. No doubt it did, but it could not account for the full extent of that 20% fall. Without going into the detail, the Netherlands also saw a significant fall in marriage rates after marriage was redefined there.
The focus of the reviews on the consequences of same-sex marriage for civil liberty will enable evaluation of the effectiveness of the Government’s quadruple lock. More broadly, many civil liberty concerns, some of which we have just heard again in the preceding amendment, have been raised with respect to the Bill, only to be largely dismissed by the Government and other supporters of the legislation. With the greatest respect for the Minister, I must say that we have now seen more than 50 amendments in Committee. On several occasions I would have expected words from the Front Bench along the lines of, “We will take away what has been said and consider it”, or, “We intend to review what has been said in the Chamber”, or, “I will take this away and discuss what he has said with the noble Lord”. I can think of only two examples of this taking place. If the Minister can disabuse me of the idea that only two or three amendments have received that sort of response, I will be delighted to know how many more there are.
It seems to me that the noble Baroness’s instructions are heavily annotated with, “Do not concede”. From my standpoint, and that of others who have spoken to me in the margins of Committee before this third day, it seems that the Government are putting some sort of stone wall around the Bill, and refusing to concede anything at all of any substance. Whether that is right or not—and I look forward to being disabused of that idea—I would be delighted to know that the Government are going to take away substantial parts of this discussion to review before we come to Report.
Putting that to one side, the reviews set out in the amendment will be able to consider the extent to which the Government’s assurances have been vindicated or contradicted by events. Concerns about the impact of same-sex marriage on civil liberty arise partly because of what has already happened. Again, we have just had a comment on that in the preceding amendment. Believers in traditional marriage have been punished, both in the UK under the current definition of marriage, and also internationally in those countries which have redefined marriage. We have heard the case of Aidan Smith, which has been much quoted in the last three days of Committee, and was referred to again by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester.
There were three more examples in very quick time. The former leader of the SNP, Gordon Wilson, was voted off the board of Dundee Citizens Advice Bureau for supporting traditional marriage. Arthur McGeorge, a bus driver, faced disciplinary action by his bosses simply because he had shared during his break time at work a petition backing traditional marriage. The World Congress of Families wanted to hold a conference on redefining marriage at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, but it was banned by the Law Society and the conference centre, because, as they said, discussing the subject of redefining marriage would be a breach of diversity policies.
Elsewhere in the world—to get the drift of where all this is going—a Christian florist in Washington state who said that she could not provide flowers for a gay couple’s wedding because it was against her beliefs is being sued by the couple concerned. In Canada, a sports journalist, Mr Damian Goddard, was fired for tweeting that he supported traditional man-woman marriage. In April this year, New Zealand voted to redefine marriage, with the law taking effect from August this year. Within weeks of the vote, the charity, Family First New Zealand, a leading opponent of same-sex marriage, was told by the New Zealand Charities Registration Board that it would lose its charitable status because its activities did not provide public benefit.
This is the climate that we are in. My proposed new clause seeks to have the Bill reviewed at two stages when it becomes law—assuming that it does, and I am sure that it will. I say to the Front Bench that if the Government are so very confident that there is nothing to fear and that the Bill is watertight—and I would be delighted to find that that were the case—it follows that they should have no fear of demonstrating its success by those reviews. I am not so sure necessarily that that will follow. To go out to public consultation, to go out to opinion polls as to where this goes—we have heard this debated in your Lordships’ House in the past. On the one hand, 83% of people taking part in the consultation on the Bill were apparently against it. The ComRes poll and the bulging postbags that we have heard about all seem to show that the Bill is not a very good idea. On the other hand, the polls that have been put forward by Stonewall and others suggest that the Bill is probably a very good idea. Going out to the public in those sorts of ways is not going to produce much of a result. To measure the result of the Bill at the two-year point and the five-year point, and having it done independently and with judicial scrutiny, seems to me to be the way to resolve whether it is going to work and will allay a great deal of public concern which exists at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord Fowler
My Lords, I have not spoken previously in this Committee, but I am anxious to make amends to the noble Lord. When he spoke at Second Reading, someone in the public was watching the television and wrote to me complaining that my facial expressions seemed to indicate some disagreement with him. I very much apologise for that and, even better than that, I am glad to say that I have some sympathy with the principle of what his proposed new clause sets out—although I am bound to say that his remarks did their best to alienate me as I went along.
My view has always been that all Acts—or certainly all major Acts—should be subject to post-legislative scrutiny. It is one of the curiosities of this place that we sometimes, although not always, have pre-legislative scrutiny, which is doubtless of some value, but not the more important post-legislative scrutiny, seeing whether it has all worked out properly or at least as Parliament has intended. From that point of view, therefore, I have sympathy with what the noble Lord is proposing, although he did not much dwell on that aspect of it. Sadly, however, I cannot agree with the detail of the noble Lord’s amendment. A review after two years, for example, is frankly far too early for any sensible conclusion.
What is basically wrong is the process by which this post-legislative scrutiny will take place. Why do we need a Lord Justice of Appeal to carry it out? I have never heard of post-legislative scrutiny being carried out by a Lord Justice of Appeal. I would have thought that it was essentially a job for Parliament and, above all, for this House. This is what we do rather well. I find it extremely difficult to go along with the noble Lord. I cannot support him, but if he would join me in a general proposal—not just on this Bill, which would be foolish—to try to introduce post-legislative scrutiny to Acts generally then we would very much be on the same side.
Both on the detail and above all on the specifics of the way the noble Lord has set it out in this Bill, I cannot support the proposed new clause. I do not think that it adds up to what even the noble Lord really wants.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
There may be differences on the detail in relation to the nature of the review and its timing—as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has said—but I hope that my facial expression as conveyed by television will indicate that I am in broad agreement with the principle of the noble Lord, Lord Dear.
I pose a simple question to the Minister in this respect. What do the Government lose by acceding to the request for a review after a reasonable interval? They have given assurances that there will be no adverse consequences to any individual and that all the litany of adverse consequences on people in this country and abroad will not come to pass because they have a watertight Bill. If they are so confident of those assurances that there is no possible harm to those who wish to express their deeply held views, why are they likely to contest this in principle?
In the past, when we have cited problems which have arisen—perhaps in Washington state, the Netherlands or in Sweden—it has been easy for the Government’s spokesman to argue: “Our position is different. We are not Sweden and we are not the Netherlands”. Let us concede that this is a laboratory experiment. We do not in fact know how watertight the reassurances that the Government have given will be. We do not as yet know what will actually happen in practice. After a reasonable interval, we can review and find out whether the assurances are indeed as watertight as the Government claim. Therefore I support the principle that there should be some form of review and I hope that the Government will accede to it.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, on these issues I do not often find myself more in sympathy with my noble friend Lord Fowler than with the noble Lord, Lord Dear—a man I admire very much. However, I am bound to say that I strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Fowler that all major legislation should be subject to proper post-legislative scrutiny. That is the job of Parliament, and as he said, this House is particularly well suited to carrying out that task.
I could not support this amendment because the noble Lord, Lord Dear, puts before us a wholly unrealistic proposition. We should not appoint a Lord of Appeal to do this. The timescale is wrong and, frankly, although I share the noble Lord’s real concerns about this Bill, which I have made plain in various interventions on Second Reading and in Committee, if this change comes about—and like the noble Lord, Lord Dear, I think that it will—it is an irrevocable change to our society. I agree with what the right reverend Prelate, who has temporarily left the Chamber, said in his speech a few moments ago. This is a real change to our society
Whatever a Lord of Appeal might say, he or she will not put the clock back. What those of us who believe firmly, strongly and deeply in traditional marriage must do is to use every opportunity that we have, as we have repeatedly been assured that the Bill will allow, to state our beliefs calmly, clearly and unequivocally, while in no sense attacking those who will avail themselves of the opportunities that the Bill will give them. That is what we must do: be positive in our defence of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Nothing that any Lord of Appeal can say or do will begin to rival that as a way to champion traditional values.
Although I join my noble friend Lord Fowler in saying to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, that an amendment that wrote into the Bill the need for post-legislative scrutiny would certainly have my support, it probably does not need to be written in. An assurance from my noble friend would go some way to meeting my concerns in that regard. I do not believe that the amendment offers any realistic way forward.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I agree with the amendment in principle, and any defects can be rectified at a later stage. One reason why there should be a post-legislative review is that we did not have any pre-legislation. That is the great defect. In a Bill of this sort with such far-reaching consequences, there should have been pre-legislation so that all the possibilities could have been ironed out over quite a long period and then a Bill which had considered all the consequences could have been brought before Parliament. Indeed, perhaps there would have been time to put it to the people in the manifestos—or perhaps, this will be discussed later—by way of a referendum. That is one very good reason why we should have post-Bill scrutiny.
The other reason is that the Bill, although it is short, is so complicated and has such far-reaching consequences—unintended consequences—that we ought to be able to have a post-legislative review of it to see whether it is working well and, indeed, whether it should be improved. For that reason, as I said at the beginning, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dear.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Dear, on the principle of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is absolutely right that in this amendment we can make up for past omissions—things that should have happened but have not. I am conscious that, at this moment, the Mental Capacity Act is subject to post-legislative scrutiny, which has been very successful. We have the principle already and I am sure that we have done it with other Acts in the past. The National Health Service, about which I know a bit, is simply an organ of the state, of Parliament, and it is endlessly under scrutiny. At the moment, the Care Quality Commission is going through the wringer, as we know, because people are so concerned that the regulator is not doing the job that people hoped it would.
Having listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Dear, had to say about the different cases, I find it interesting that throughout this Committee stage noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in particular—have assured us that there is no problem with this Bill because we have safeguards in both European and national legislation. Yet we hear of these cases all the time and this is before the Bill has been enacted. At least one of the safeguards that we could have is the principle laid down by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, that we should have some post-legislative scrutiny.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, in my view this amendment is absolutely unnecessary in the terms put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Dear. I think that the process that the noble Lord suggests is flawed and unnecessary. However, I am a great fan of post-legislative scrutiny and I know that the committee looking into the Mental Capacity Act is doing a splendid job. I think that every Act should be subject to pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny as a matter of course, so I would not be against post-legislative scrutiny, but I am utterly against the sort of judicial process that the noble Lord speaks of.
I say to my noble friend Lord Anderson that I find it slightly offensive that he talks of this Bill as a sort of laboratory experiment. I recognise that it brings about a profound change in our society—from my perspective, a very welcome change—but it is certainly not a laboratory experiment. I wish to put that on record.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, that his suggestion would be completely impractical. The first same-sex marriages will not take place until about a year after the Act has passed. A review in two years’ time would be completely mad. I have discussed this with the Minister and I think that there will be some standard post-implementation evaluation of the Bill, which will be very welcome, but that will rightly not take place for some time. I ask the noble Lord whether he looked at his own marriage one or two years after he entered wedded bliss. I suspect not. In same-sex marriages we tend to think about the seven-year itch, which is a long time after the two years that the noble Lord is talking about.
The thing that would interest me in 10 years’ time would be to go back to noble Lords who are currently against or have deep concerns about the Bill to see whether their views of same-sex marriage have changed. I would wager that the same acceptance that we now have on all Benches for civil partnerships—
Lord Anderson of Swansea
The difference is that, whatever reasonable time one chooses, this is not about looking at the nature of marriage or the changes brought about; it is about looking at the protections that have been promised and whether or not they are effective. That is the real purpose of a review, whether it be a post-legislative review or something else, at the appropriate time.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
I understand what my noble friend is saying and, as I say, in terms of post-legislative scrutiny I think that that is not a bad thing to look at. However, I point out that views of civil partnerships over the past nine years have changed profoundly and I think that we will find that views of same-sex marriage will change also. Many of the fears that people expressed at the time of the Civil Partnership Bill were very much the same as the concerns being expressed about the same-sex marriage Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Dear, cited statistics about Spain and the Netherlands. He has his set of statistics and we have ours. I do not have my own statistics to hand. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could, in due course, write with our interpretation of those statistics so that they, too, are on record.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
Does the noble Baroness think that the use of words such as “mad” or personalising issues by saying “look at your own marriage” really help this debate?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I was being slightly flippant when I asked the noble Lord to look at his own marriage. I should perhaps have talked of my marriage. If I had looked at my own marriage after one year, it would have been far too soon. In saying “mad”, I was not referring to people or meaning to personalise. I was not accusing the noble Lord of being mad but expressing a view about his suggestion that there should be a judicial process to look at the Bill in two years’ time, which is not sensible. Perhaps I should be more measured in my language. I apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I support the principle of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, in rather the same way as my noble friend Lord Fowler does. It would not be particularly suitable to ask a Lord Justice to do this sort of work. The sort of inquiries that Lord Justices and other judges are asked to do are usually into some specific matter in which their talent and fact-finding is thought to be of particular importance. It has been said that the results of their recommendations are often not quite as influential as the findings that they make on facts. Anyhow, post-legislative scrutiny of this Bill, as with other Bills, would be extremely valuable. It has been said more than once that marriage is the building block of our society. If you change the building blocks, that is quite likely to produce some change in the building, whether for good or bad. It would be right to have this as a subject of post-legislative scrutiny. So far as my marriage is concerned, a very significant change occurred within the first year.
Baroness Northover
I think that I recognise the sort of change that happens in the first year and from the other little ones who come along after that.
I begin by agreeing with noble Lords that the Bill, if enacted, should be reviewed, as is standard practice for any significant legislation. Whether they are for or against the Bill, noble Lords are pushing at an open door. Let me address quickly the slightly different point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dear—the argument that there have been few changes to the Bill during its passage. I point him to the comprehensive answer that my noble friend Lady Stowell gave to counter that point when the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, made it earlier.
In terms of a review of how this legislation works, we agree with the principle. I welcome the support that has come from my noble friends Lord Fowler, Lord Cormack and Lady Cumberlege, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. We would envisage post-legislative scrutiny covering issues such as an assessment of how the Act has worked in practice, which would no doubt address the kind of concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Dear, has mentioned, should they arise. We also envisage it covering: when and how different provisions have been brought into operation; any provisions that have not been brought into force, or enabling powers not used; details of the associated delegated legislation, guidance documents or other relevant material prepared or issued in connection with the Act; and any specific legal or drafting difficulties that had been matters of public concern. That was perhaps the kind of issue that the noble Lord, Lord Dear, was talking about—for example, where litigation has resulted, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned on the last grouping.
However, the timing of such a review needs to be carefully considered, with some flexibility built into the process, which is why arrangements for review are typically not set out within a Bill. In line with established Cabinet Office procedures, a memorandum will be produced containing a preliminary assessment of how the Act has turned out in reality, measured by the objectives set out during the passage of the Bill—including, for example, the protections mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. That would be part of the way in which the Act would be reviewed. It will then be a matter for a Select Committee to determine whether it wants to go on to hold a wider post-legislative inquiry into the Act. I thank my noble friends for the support they have given on the process. The convention is that a review is undertaken three to five years after Royal Assent—perhaps earlier than the noble Baroness indicated—in order to provide sufficient time for the new law to bed in and operate as intended. The scrutiny would be done at an appropriate time.
While I appreciate the intention behind this amendment, what is proposed instead by the amendment is something more complicated, as noble Lords have indicated, and not proportionate to what needs to be done, involving as it does two separate reviews and a potentially lengthy process, which would delay the answers that I am sure we would all be keen to hear. So, in essence, we are in agreement on the need for a review but not on the mechanics. That is why I ask the noble Lord to accept my reassurances and to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dear
I have to say that I remain a little confused about this, but at a much higher level. Everyone on all sides of the House seems to say that the principle is very good. That started with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and shortly after that by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. If the principle is right, perhaps we need not worry too much about the detail. I for one would not push the detail at all—whether it is one year or five years, or indeed whether it is a Lord Justice of Appeal or not.
I thought that those who spoke in support of the amendment in specific terms—the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege—in effect all said the same thing, which is that there has been no real pre-legislative scrutiny at all. We know that the Bill came into the House of Commons at a rate of knots. For that reason alone, it is well worth while looking at the workings of the Bill once it becomes an Act of Parliament and goes through into society.
The point has been made several times on both side of the House. The Bill is so complicated and so fundamental to society—“building block” was mentioned—and there is so much concern about it outside that the argument can be carried quite easily that we need to look at its workings at some stage in the future. I do not want to get into the detail; this is something of a probing amendment in any case and I am more than happy to withdraw it at this stage.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
“Referendum provisions
(1) A referendum is to be held in England and Wales on the issue of same sex marriage.
(2) The referendum is to be held on 7 May 2015.
(3) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is impossible or impracticable for the referendum to be held on 7 May 2015, or that it cannot be conducted properly if held on that day, the Secretary of State may by order appoint a later day as the day on which the referendum is to be held.
(4) Any day appointed by order under subsection (3) must be before 1 June 2016.
(5) Where a day is appointed under subsection (4), the Secretary of State may by order make supplemental or consequential provision.
(6) The Secretary of State must by order make provisions for the conduct of the referendum.
(7) An order under this section may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(8) The question that is to appear on the ballot papers is—
“At present, the law in England and Wales defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Should the law be changed to define marriage as the union of two people—whether a man and a woman, or woman and a woman, or a man and a man?”.
(9) Those entitled to vote in the referendum are the persons who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency.”
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, Amendment 48 stands in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Singh, both of whom are present this evening.
If Amendment 48 were adopted, after this Bill reached the statute books there would need to be a referendum of the people of England and Wales in which a simple majority supported the redefinition of marriage proposed by this Bill before the new legislation could take effect. The proposed new clause sets out the date—of course, that of the general election, to ensure a good turnout in the referendum. In my judgment, the question is a fair and simple yes or no to the proposed change.
I readily admit that there was a time when referendums were alien to our British tradition. Those of my grandparents’ generation never got to vote in any referendums. Of course, things have changed in recent years. Leaving aside the vote on Sunday opening of public houses in Wales, there was in 1975 the Common Market referendum; in 1979 the first devolution referendums; in 1997 the second devolution referendums; in 2011 the Welsh Assembly referendum; and of course there was the referendum on PR for Westminster elections in May 2011. If the Prime Minister has his way, in 2017 there will be a further referendum on our future membership of the European Union. That proposed referendum is on a relatively complex matter. By contrast, the referendum on this Bill would be a simple choice. In my view, there is a far greater public interest on this issue than in several of the other referendums. There is a clear constitutional precedent for the use of referendums now in decision-making and clearly the Government have no objection in principle to the use of referendums.
What is it about this particular issue that merits the provision of a referendum? I give three main reasons. First, there is the magnitude of the change. In the first instance, we need to recognise the very radical nature of the change proposed by the Bill. While there is no denying that aspects of marriage have changed over the years, the basic definition that it is a lifelong commitment of a man and a woman in a potentially procreative context has not changed for millennia. Indeed, there is a very real sense in which marriage predates the state and in which our marriage laws do not so much define marriage as reflect a pre-existing definition. In that context, seeking to redefine marriage is revolutionary: first, because marriage has been defined in one way for so long; and secondly, because we are seeking to use a political means to redefine something that was not defined politically in the first place. Many champions of the limited state would suggest that we should respect the boundary between civil society and the state and not engage in such projects. However, if one is to do so, the need for a very clear mandate becomes particularly developed.
Secondly, there is the magnitude of the change in the absence of that electoral mandate. Surely no person speaking on behalf of the Government can plausibly claim that there is an electoral mandate for this change. We need to understand that there has been no mandate. It is one thing to seek to introduce a more modest change without an electoral mandate but to engage in this kind of fundamental change without such a mandate is frankly shocking. There was no manifesto commitment from any party within the coalition or from my own party without. Some have sought to point to the Conservative Party’s A Contract for Equalities as justification but that will not do. It was an entirely separate document from the 2010 manifesto, published just three days before the election and long after postal voting had begun. Moreover, that contract did not commit to redefine marriage, only to consider reclassifying civil partnerships as marriage—something that would have involved only amending the Civil Partnership Act, not rewriting the Marriage Act. Equally, during that election campaign the then leader of the Opposition told Sky News that he had no plans to redefine marriage. Of course, during the passage of the Civil Partnership Act it was made clear from the then Government’s Front Bench that that did not constitute a step towards equal marriage. Thus, the strength of particular pressure groups appears to be quite formidable.
Thirdly, there is the violation of constitutional due process. In this mandate-less context for a very far-reaching change, one would have expected the Government to tread with some deliberate care and to strive to make up for the lack of an electoral mandate by being careful to do everything very properly: conducting a number of high-quality consultations, perhaps publishing a Green Paper and then a White Paper, or perhaps establishing a royal commission. One would certainly have expected a draft Bill and some form of pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses. The only thing we got was a single and very flawed consultation process. In the first instance of that process, all submissions were anonymous so there was nothing to stop people with strong views making multiple submissions. Moreover, the anonymity also means that we have no way of knowing what proportion of submissions came from abroad, perhaps in response to a particular foreign pressure group. That should certainly be considered in light of the fact that those submissions were not made by British citizens who stand to be affected by any change in our domestic law.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment. I referred to the desirability of testing public opinion at Second Reading, but I will not detain the House for more than a few moments; the hour is late and we have had a very long exposition of the need for a referendum, and of the deficiencies of the Government in the way that this Bill has been handled so far. I endorse all that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said in that regard; the consultation process was deeply flawed and there has been an element of haste that was, frankly, not necessary.
My main reason for supporting the idea of a referendum is this: we do not know what the majority feeling is in our country on this very important social issue. All sorts of figures have been bandied around on both sides. I know no more than the noble Lord, Lord Dear, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, or any other noble Lord in this place about what the majority view of the public is in England and Wales. There is only one way to find out and that is to give them the chance to vote.
When I first came into politics in 1970 in the other place, I was strongly opposed to the whole concept of the referendum. I wish that we had never gone down that route, but we have and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has indicated that. We have had referenda on a whole range of issues and he has listed them. If it is justified—and I am not suggesting it is not—to have a vote on the opening hours of public houses in Wales, it is surely appropriate to give the people of England and Wales an opportunity of saying whether or not they really wish for the state of marriage to be changed irrevocably in our country. This is something that should commend itself to all true democrats. I very much hope that when we come to Report, the House will have the opportunity to vote on this. We will be able to test the opinion of colleagues when we are perhaps a little fresher, and, one would hope, a little earlier in the day.
It is important that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, introduced this amendment. I warmly commend it to your Lordships, not in any spirit of criticism or opposition to those who wish to be able to avail themselves of the married state. They know that I have reservations about that word, but it is going to be that word or nothing. All of us should allow the public out there to say whether or not they really want this change. A simple majority will suffice, but let them have the opportunity to pass their judgment on our deliberations.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
My Lords, this amendment is also in my name. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I echo his views and those of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson.
Before I go to the substance of what I want to say, I want to make a quick comment on three days of debate in Committee in which amendment after amendment has been put forward expressing concerns relayed from the general public about freedom of expression and freedom of belief, particularly in the workplace. I agree that if all those on the receiving end of harassment in the past, of which we have had examples, and potentially in the future were lawyers with deep-lined pockets, they could address the issues much more easily. Unfortunately, most people are not lawyers and do not have deep-lined pockets and can easily be subjected to harassment. Amendments were brought to try to bring clarity and reassurance to such people but they have been brushed aside.
It is revealing to note that those supporting this legislation have focused their comments on the benefits that might accrue to the gay community, with little or no consideration as to the effects on wider society. In this House, we have a responsibility to the country to take a wider view. As regards the building blocks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, in the 1960s and 1970s it became common to take out a wall between two adjoining rooms to give more space, generally without conducting any sort of structural survey. The result was often structural damage costing thousands of pounds. The Bill seeks to change the definition of marriage, and with it the structure, meaning and purpose of the family unit, without any consideration of the consequences for the structure and stability of society and, importantly, for the well-being of children.
It is important to look at this from the perspective of both types of relationship. Let us start with commitment to care and fidelity. In both formalised heterosexual relationships and same-sex relationships there is due emphasis on commitment. Heterosexual marriage, however, also requires an unequivocal pledge of fidelity to stay together to the exclusion of others to provide a stability that is critical for children. In same-sex marriage there is no parallel requirement of fidelity. There is no religious, social or legal sanction to prevent a party to the relationship having other liaisons with others of the same sex. This devalues the importance of commitment and fidelity in the eyes of children and can only add to the “me and my” culture and the ever increasing number of children taken into what we euphemistically call care.
The bonding between parents and children of natural birth parents starts from the very moment of birth. I am not saying for a moment that same-sex couples cannot be excellent parents, but heterosexual parents have an important and early advantage in giving a desired level of stability and support to children and in helping them to adjust to, and appreciate, those of an opposite sex to their own. What I am saying is that these two distinct forms of relationships, equally respected by law and society, are inherently different, and a different form of words to describe them simply makes for clarity. To my mind, gay people demean themselves when they seek to hide their separate identity under the guise of the heterosexual term “marriage”. Gay people have an absolute right to respect for their way of life, but they and their supporters should extend the same consideration to others and their institutions.
Legislation on important social change must take into account the implications of such change. The legislation before us was not put in any party manifesto; there was no consultation on its merits. The Prime Minister David Cameron explicitly ruled out shortly before the election that he would introduce the legislation. It was effectively introduced through the back door. The electorate as a whole has been treated with contempt. Those with religious beliefs have been treated with contempt. It is true that near absolute protection has been given to the Anglican Church—not out of respect but because of the complexities of the link between church and state, making it difficult to do anything different. Other religions, including my own, have been neither considered nor consulted. We were told on Wednesday that no offence was intended in dealing with other religions; it was simply too difficult. Is complexity a valid reason for not looking at the impact of legislation on other faiths?
It is beyond doubt that the implications of this major social change have not been properly considered and the Government should withdraw the Bill for proper consultation with the electorate and affected bodies. If not, they should have the courage to allow the electorate to have a say on the merits of this legislation—through a referendum on the lines suggested in the amendment. The Bill has caused an unprecedented fracturing of society; a commitment for all parties to accept the results of a referendum and the beginning of a healing process. If, however, the Government choose to ride roughshod over the concerns of millions and ignore public opinion, they and their supporters will pay a heavy price in the coming election.
Lord Fowler
My Lords, as with post-legislative scrutiny, I have some sympathy with the principle of referendums. I am totally unlike my noble friend Lord Cormack. We came into the House of Commons at the same time, in 1970. I am slightly unusual in being a pro-European who is in favour of referendums. In my 1970 election address, I said that before Parliament decided on entry into the Common Market there should be a referendum. Conservative central office was not very happy with that but there we are; it is one of those things.
The referendum took place before Parliament had taken a decision, so that Parliament could be guided. Here we are being asked to support a referendum in two years’ time—not even tomorrow, but in two years.
Lord Fowler
Hang on! The noble Lord spoke for 20 minutes. I have spoken for one, so he might retain a little patience.
We are being asked to support a referendum in two years’ time—two years after both Houses on a free vote have overwhelmingly voted in favour of the legislation. That is the fact of the matter. All the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—
Lord Fowler
I shall give way in a moment. All the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, were made on Second Reading. He may not like it but they were rejected massively and overwhelmingly in both Houses of Parliament. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness O’Loan
That is most gracious of the noble Lord. I would like to suggest that perhaps the vote on Second Reading in this House was not an overwhelming endorsement. There was rather a feeling in this House that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, the other place having voted so overwhelmingly in favour of it. It was a vote in favour of Second Reading rather than anything else, and I do not think that it is quite accurate to portray it as anything else.
Lord Fowler
My Lords, I do not think that the noble Baroness or anyone else has the right to keep on going back to the votes and saying, “Although we lost by two to one, actually it really was not right. They should have taken this into account and that into account”. The fact is that those results were massive and, in my opinion, almost unprecedented for a free vote.
The only point I want to make in what is intended to be a short speech is that all the arguments we have heard so far have been put before and have been rejected. I am sorry to put it in that way—
Lord Fowler
If the noble Baroness does not mind, I am not going to give way again.
I do not think that we can or should try to double-guess what is taking place in the other place, or the process that it goes by, or the way it comes to a vote. We will get into a terrible mess if we do that. Not surprisingly, this proposal is going to be seen as a wrecking amendment in the hope, I presume, that it can be defeated when it comes to a referendum. I leave aside the dispute about opinion polls, although every poll I have seen actually appears to suggest that there is a healthy majority in favour of this proposition and not the other way around.
My major reservation is this—it is a point that was touched on by the noble Baroness—concerns the role of this House. We do valuable work checking and improving legislation. What we do not do is stand in the way of legislation so clearly passed by the other place and, incidentally, endorsed in this House. That is what the debate about the future of the House of Lords was all about: what our place was. It was not a sort of double-guessing on major things that come from the House of Commons. I do not think we can possibly defer for two years a piece of legislation that has been—I say it again—overwhelmingly passed by both Houses. We would not dream of doing that for any other legislation I can think of, saying that we would have a referendum in two years’ time, although it has been passed in this way. I do not think that we should do it now. In this case, the proposition of a referendum is misapplied and wrong.
Lord Browne of Belmont
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 48. As has been made plain throughout the debates on the Bill, marriage is a vital institution and, as such, the subject of redefining marriage touches people’s deepest feelings and beliefs. It is not a change that should ever be countenanced without a clear manifesto mandate. I know that some noble Lords have tried to suggest that it is not always necessary to have a manifesto mandate. In response to that, however, I agree strongly with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, has said.
There are some changes that perhaps it is possible to introduce without a mandate, although I have to say that it does not seem particularly like best practice unless one is responding to an urgent national security imperative. When it comes to changing the definition of something that has been defined one way for millennia and in relation to which there is a real sense that Parliament has not so much defined marriage, but rather reflected a pre-existing definition, it is absolutely imperative to have a manifesto mandate. I find it shocking that such an innovation should have been produced without one.
I know that there is a notion that the Conservative Party’s A Contract for Equalities is somehow a manifesto mandate, but I believe that that does not stand up to scrutiny. In the first instance, that document was not the manifesto. In the second instance, it talked in terms only of considering same-sex marriage, but did not make a pledge to redefine it. The change it said the party would “consider”, on page 14 of the document, was to reclassify civil partnership as marriage. That is a considerably more moderate proposal than what has been presented in this Bill. In the third instance, it was not published until three days before the election, long after postal voting had begun.
The problems associated with the failure to approach the very far reaching changes proposed by the Bill without respect for the basic rules of democracy have been greatly compounded by the subsequent disregard for constitutional due process: the lack of a Green Paper, a White Paper, a draft Bill and pre-legislative scrutiny. Of particular concern, however, has been the way in which the one consultation on the Bill was conducted. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, has already commented on that.
Lord Dobbs
My Lords, I will attempt to be very brief, I promise that. We have a flexible and unwritten constitution, which means that proposing a referendum in these circumstances is unusual, irregular but not improper. However, in my view, it is wholly wrong. I endorse almost every word that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said in his objections to the amendment. I add that there is something strange. I do not understand why the amendment insists that Peers would be denied a vote in this referendum. It is restricted to those entitled to vote at parliamentary elections. However, that is not my fundamental objection to the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is as outraged as I am about it.
At the heart of the Bill is that we will no longer discriminate against individuals because of what they were born. If the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, believes that that is revolutionary then so be it. I would not resile from that description. We would not be considering the amendment if we were changing the law to give women equal rights with men or black people equal rights with whites. Would we throw the entire principle of equal rights into doubt in those cases by insisting on a referendum? I think not. I suspect we would find such a suggestion appalling.
I asked myself a very simple question about the amendment, as with so many amendments that we have discussed. If we were to strip the word gay or same-sex from it and replace it with black, women or, indeed, Welsh, what would happen? There would be rivers of outrage flooding throughout the country. That is why I believe the amendment to be entirely misconstrued. To discriminate against people for the way that they were born is wrong. In my view, it is indefensible. No amount of referendering could ever make that right.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. Together with him, I suggested this solution at Second Reading. The fact is that this bit of legislation has undoubtedly split the country. All of us have had very abnormal postbags and e-mails in this context. Indeed, I have had the biggest postbag since I proposed, promoted and got through this House a Bill to ban same-sex wards. It is quite obviously something that the public think very strongly about. It can only really be tested through a referendum because it not only makes such a difference to an institution that has been around for some thousands of years but has constitutional implications. Those are some of the reasons why there should be a referendum.
The political parties have had their say and are virtually unanimous. The Cabinet has had its say; whether that was unanimous I do not know. The wider Government have had their say. The House of Commons, albeit with a so-called free vote, has had its say, and has made a decision. The House of Lords is having its say. The only people who are not having a say—because they have never been given the opportunity—are the wider public and the people who are going to be affected by the Bill. That is why I believe that there should be a referendum.
There is another reason: I am not satisfied by the way that the Bill has been gestated. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked, “Why the speed? What do the Government want to go so fast for?”. As it so happens, I have a newspaper cutting here, from the Sunday Telegraph, of a very interesting article by Mr Christopher Booker. I am not going to read the whole article out, as it is a bit late for that, but I will read a part of it. He writes:
“As I recounted here on February 9, the drive to get same-sex marriage into law was masterminded from 2010 onwards by an alliance between Theresa May, the Conservative Home Secretary, Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dem equalities minister, and gay pressure groups, led by one called Equal Love. They pushed the issue forward, not in Westminster, but through the Council of Europe, culminating in March last year with a day-long ‘secret conference’ chaired by Miss Featherstone in Strasbourg. With the public excluded for the first time in the Council’s history, it was here that—with the active support of Sir Nicolas Bratza, the British president of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)—a deadline was set for their planned coup of June 2013. If, by this date, ‘several countries’ had managed to put gay marriage into law, Sir Nicolas pledged that his court would then declare same-sex marriage to be a Europe-wide human right”.
It seems to me that that was the gestation, or part of it, of this particular Bill. It almost sounds like a conspiracy, but I do not like using that word. Nevertheless, that is the article by Mr Christopher Booker, or part of it. I think it is good for this House to have heard it, because it gives the Government the opportunity to say whether Mr Booker’s article and his findings are correct. I therefore hope that that will help the noble Lord, Lord Anderson and of course, as I have already said, I will be delighted to support his amendment.
Lord Aberdare
My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for making a brief intervention at this stage. I am not convinced that this Bill is significantly more revolutionary than, for example, the introduction of civil partnerships. I believe it is a logical next step to take. Indeed, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that in 10 years’ time it may well be widely, if not universally, accepted as such. I also believe that it will ultimately have a positive impact on society and social cohesion. It will make the status of marriage, which I see as a vital building block of society, available to same-sex couples and parents, and remove any possibility of their being treated in a discriminatory way by comparison with opposite-sex married couples.
A number of noble Lords have spoken of the lack of an electoral mandate, but the Bill enjoys support across all parties. As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, reminded us, it received a substantial majority in a free vote in the other place, and another large majority at Second Reading in this House. Whatever the process hitherto, the Bill is now receiving detailed scrutiny in your Lordships’ House, as indeed it should. I do not believe a referendum would be appropriate, or indeed that its cost would be justifiable. I welcome the Government’s initiative in introducing and pressing forward with this Bill, and I believe that the time is right.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I shall be very brief, and say two things. One is that when you are losing the political argument, it seems to me that you always go for the methodology or, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for Europe. The second thing is that I agree with everything said about this by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. The majority supported it in the free votes. I really think that there is nothing else to add, and the referendum the amendment proposes is a very bad idea indeed.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I wish I could be so brief, because the noble Baroness has just summed up the position very well indeed. As has been made very clear, the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, would prevent the Bill being enacted before the next general election by adding a new provision calling for a referendum in England and Wales on proposals to make the marriage of same-sex couples lawful. Indeed, the next general election would be the earliest date which is provided for by the amendment, which also provides reasons to extend it until 2016.
The Government do not believe that this is a sensible course of action, and nor is it required. The Government’s position is that referendums should be used only in issues of substantial constitutional significance. Noble Lords may recall that the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House published a report in 2010 on referendums in the United Kingdom. I was a member of the Constitution Committee at that time. The report was clear that matters of substantial constitutional significance would fall within the following proposals:
“To abolish the Monarchy … To leave the European Union … For any of the nations of the UK to secede from the Union … To abolish either House of Parliament … To change the electoral system for the House of Commons … To adopt a written constitution … To change the UK’s system of currency”.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, listed the kind of referendums that we have had, and I think they all fall within these definitions, these issues of constitutional significance. We do not believe that the amendments are appropriate or necessary. This is because while I acknowledge that extending the existing institution of marriage to same-sex couples is of huge significance and importance to those couples who are currently being prevented from marrying, and quite clearly from our debates this evening is the subject of strong feelings among those who oppose it, we do not believe that these are matters of substantial constitutional significance along the lines of those which the Constitution Committee identified.
Turning to technical matters, my noble friend Lord Dobbs pointed out that Members of your Lordships’ House would be denied a vote in any such referendum. I also note that there was an interesting point about the question, because the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 makes provision for how a question should be dealt with if it is present on the introduction of the Bill, or indeed if the wording is to be done subsequently by way of order. It does not make any provision for what would happen if a question was introduced at a later stage. Quite clearly, my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, see no role for the Electoral Commission in judging the merits of the question and reporting to Parliament, as now seems to be an accepted part in other circumstances of our arrangements on referendums.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
I referred specifically to the intricacies and differences within faiths. Just to say that all faiths are protected is not really sufficient. We are different in our different religions. There are different concerns. They have been ignored.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I of course recognise that there are differences. The Government fully recognise that that there are different concerns within different religions, but I do not believe for one moment that they have been ignored. No religion will be obliged to conduct a same-sex marriage against the views and wishes of that religion. We have tried to build in as many safeguards as possible to do that. It is something to which we are acutely sensitive and we wish to ensure that adequate protection is given.
It is important to remember that civil partnerships were introduced to give same- sex couples equivalent rights and responsibilities at a time when marriage was not available to them. Despite the opposition at the time, their introduction led to greater acceptance and inclusiveness for same-sex couples in wider society.
History shows that undertaking important social change to extend fundamental rights to minority groups who experience inequality and social injustice is not always easy. Not all is necessarily favoured by the majority, but certainly the opinion polls that I have seen from more recent times show that there probably is a majority. I believe that providing for a referendum on same-sex marriage in this Bill would delay progress in removing a current and manifest unfairness. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
If there is a majority, as the noble and learned Lord suggests, what fear does he have about testing the real opinion of the people of this country? If he is concerned about delay, why not bring it forward, even before the date of the election? The election date was mentioned only because it would ensure a good turnout, which perhaps an earlier referendum would not. The noble and learned Lord suggested, for example, that in the past we have had referendums only on constitutional issues. Yet he supported a proposal that ensures that even trivial transfers of powers to Brussels will trigger a referendum. That is hardly consistent with what he suggests.
I know that we could go on debating this, but I will end by first thanking all those who contributed to this short debate, particularly my co-sponsors, the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Singh. To the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, I say that even if noble Lords do not have a vote on this, they do not have a vote in general elections at the moment. It is hardly illogical that noble Lords do not have a vote in a referendum on this matter. It is consistent, but if the noble Lord wishes to move an amendment and it is accepted, so be it.
It was highly simplistic of the noble Lord to suggest that gay equality is the same as black and white equality. I was a leader of the anti-apartheid movement in Europe over a number of years, because I could see no difference at all between blacks and whites, as there was in the Group Areas Act in South Africa and so on. However, in my judgment, there are serious differences between a traditional marriage and a gay marriage and it is wrong to equate them. It is naive and simplistic to suggest otherwise.
To the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, I say this: if he thinks that there will be delay, again he might suggest that the date of the referendum be brought forward. Even he cannot suggest that the Government now have a mandate for this change. No one has answered what is perhaps a key question: why the hurry? Why, after all these years when there has been no change, are the Government in such a rush? There must be some plausible reason. I cannot see any serious reason for it, but equally why are the Government so afraid of giving people a voice?
Finally, I remind the Minister that many noble Lords chose not to vote against the Bill at Second Reading—I can attest this from my own knowledge—either because of their view that the House should show restraint when there has been a majority in the other place, or because of the view that we are principally a revising Chamber. It would have been inconsistent to prevent scrutiny, but they would look again at the matter when it came to the vote on Third Reading. I am not convinced that the Government have made any serious concessions—certainly in respect of the conscience matters, although I am ready to look again at the list that the Minister gave me during an earlier debate.
If the Government have failed to make other serious concessions relating to existing and future registrars, teachers, the public sector duty and so on, then Amendment 48 will inevitably become more attractive. In the mean time I shall not press it at this stage. I shall again ask the Government to give a simple answer to the question: why the hurry? I shall reflect further on the position, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
“The European Convention on Human Rights
In the event that the provisions of this Act are found by the European Court of Human Rights to be incompatible with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Secretary of State shall act to withdraw the United Kingdom’s signature to the Convention.”
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, back to Europe, I am afraid, and the European Convention on Human Rights. In speaking to this amendment, I am grateful to the Public Bill Office for its assistance with the wording, in order to discuss this matter. It is, of course, a probing amendment and I shall not put it to a vote.
The amendment envisages the possibility of a future ruling from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg that some part of the Bill is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I want to focus in particular on the possibility that it may rule that the opt-out provisions that protect religious groups from being forced to take part in same-sex weddings are a breach of the human rights of same-sex couples who want to get married.
Much has been said about the robustness of the Government’s legal mechanisms to protect places of worship that do not want to register same-sex weddings. Ministers, no doubt in good faith, have promised that their quad locks will prove watertight. Under their proposals, they say that no religious organisation or individual minister can be compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit that to happen on their premises if they do not opt in.
The Government must recognise that there is an appetite to see churches compelled to opt in. When an Ipsos MORI survey asked whether religious organisations should be required to conduct same-sex weddings, 44% of 18 to 24 year-olds said yes, they should. Of course, that is not the view of the Government or the majority in this House, but we keep being told how important it is that we take into account the views of young people. That survey suggests that there would be a significant demand to test the limits of the quad locks, so any concern that those quad locks might have weaknesses must be properly addressed, in particular those relating to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Strasbourg has been consistent in saying that gay marriage is not a right found within the convention, a view upheld as recently as 2012, but there are features of the convention that, in relation to the Bill, cause great unease about the future. If Strasbourg were ever to find that there is a right to same-sex marriage, the protections provided by the Government’s quad locks would be completely undermined—or I believe they would. Article 12 of the convention holds that men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family. That is the only article that explicitly refers to gender, showing that marriage is understood to be between a man and a woman. However, one of the convention’s most notable features, frequently reiterated in judgments, is that it can be interpreted according to what the court calls emerging consensus and common values in international law. It is said to be a living instrument governed not just by the wording of the convention agreed decades ago but by present-day standards. In other words, it changes its mind about what the words mean.
Three years ago, in the case of Schalk and Kopf v Austria, Strasbourg ruled against an Austrian same-sex couple who were arguing that the convention must be adapted to fit in line with apparently changing social views on same-sex marriage. At the time, the court was not persuaded that social attitudes had changed enough for same-sex marriage to be regarded as mandatory. It interpreted the right to marry in Article 12 as being limited to unions of persons of the opposite sex. It justified its ruling by reference to the fact that there is no European consensus in support of gay marriage.
However, the court left open the potential for future claims on the basis of Article 12. I quote from the ruling:
“Regard being had to Article 9 of the charter, therefore, the court would no longer consider that the right to marry enshrined in Article 12 must in all circumstances be limited to marriage between two persons of the opposite sex. Consequently, it cannot be said that Article 12 is inapplicable to the applicants’ complaint. However, as matters stand, the question whether or not to allow same-sex marriage is left to regulation by the national law of the contracting state”.
So the current position of Strasbourg, and the current European climate, is that Article 12 does not impose an obligation to grant same-sex couples the right to marry. However, clearly that could change and, if it did, the whole legal landscape would change with it. In that new legal landscape, the so-called quad locks could look pretty obsolete, especially for the Church of England, which, as an emanation of the state, has a duty to marry anyone in the parish.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
Briefly, my Lords, the noble Lord speaks of the need to protect religious freedom. I am sure that everybody in this Chamber absolutely agrees with and espouses that. However, knowing the noble Lord’s view of the European Convention on Human Rights and his view of the Bill, it seems that he may be a little torn, if I may put it like that. In a way, he is using the Bill as a vehicle to withdraw the UK’s signature to the convention. He does not like the Bill, as has become apparent—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
As a matter of fact, I am not opposed to the European Convention and the European Court of Human Rights. After all, I am old enough to have been around when the convention was drafted and signed by this country. I supported it then and, indeed, as long as the court does its job and does not try to increase its influence and powers, I remain in favour of it.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
I beg the noble Lord’s pardon. My entire hypothesis seems to be wrong, so I will merely say that I do not believe that this amendment should be accepted because, in any event, we should not withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. However, it is an entirely unlikely happening because the Bill as it stands does not offend against any element of human rights, freedom of speech or freedom of religion.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his amendment, which gives us a further opportunity to set out yet again how we believe that the European Convention on Human Rights supports rather than threatens the religious protections in the Bill. The noble Lord indicated in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that he is not opposed in principle to the European Convention on Human Rights, but I know that he has expressed some concerns about the development of the jurisprudence of the court. I am not sure whether he took part in the debate last Thursday when the House had an opportunity, during a debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Lester, to consider these human rights issues.
The Government have made it clear why we do not believe that there would be a reduction in the protection available to religious organisations and individuals as a result of the Bill. I am happy to repeat those assurances. Indeed, I have sought to do so in the previous debate in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, has said it again. There is unanimity in this House on the wish to secure the protection of religious organisations and individuals.
Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to freedom of religion. Any attempt to compel religious organisations to solemnise marriages that they consider to be doctrinally impermissible would quite clearly be an interference with their right—and indeed the right of their members to religious freedom. I believe that the religious freedoms contained in this Bill reinforce that protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggests that if Strasbourg finds that there is a right to same-sex marriage, religious organisations would be forced to conduct such ceremonies. We do not believe that to be the case. Under this Bill, we will be providing same-sex civil marriage ceremonies, but the protection of Article 9 would mean that a couple could not force a religious organisation to marry them according to its right purely because they want a religious ceremony.
It is also worth noting that after many years since the introduction of civil unions for same-sex couples in a number of countries that are members of the Council of Europe, including the United Kingdom, there has been no decision of the Strasbourg court holding that there is right to a civil union, in other words to any legal relationship at all for same-sex couples.
Clause 2 of this Bill provides clear protection for individuals and religious organisations who do not wish to conduct or participate in a religious marriage ceremony on the grounds that it is the marriage of a same-sex couple. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights is equally clear that the question of whether, and if so how, to allow same-sex marriage must be left to individual states to decide for themselves. I simply believe that it is inconceivable that the court would require a religious organisation to conduct same-sex marriages in breach of its own doctrines. We believe the position is clear—and indeed has been strongly supported by a number of our most respected legal minds. In his written submission to the Public Bill Committee in the other place, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said:
“For the European Court of Human Rights to compel a religious body or its adherents to conduct a religious marriage of a same sex couple would require a legal miracle much greater than the parting of the Red Sea for the Children of Israel to cross from Egypt. The Court unanimously decided in Schalk and Kopf v Austriain 2010”—
the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also referred to this case—
“that there is no right to same sex marriage under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is in the realms of legal fantasy to suggest that the Court would impose an obligation on a religious body to conduct such a ceremony, especially when civil marriage will be available in this country for a same sex couple and when Article 9 of the Convention protects religious beliefs and practices”.
Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, followed that up and confirmed his position in the oral evidence which he gave to that committee.
I briefly note the practical effects of the amendment. It would be extraordinary for a Secretary of State to be required, as this amendment would envisage, to act unilaterally to withdraw the United Kingdom from the convention without further reference to Parliament—although I accept that the noble Lord said it was a probing amendment. Furthermore, to make such a decision contingent upon the outcome of a court case dealing with unknown and unspecified issues would be equally extraordinary, particularly if the successful challenge related to a technical matter which could be readily remedied by legislation passed in Parliament.
Before I conclude, I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in a previous amendment, when he read a newspaper article which suggested that there had been some secret conference involving my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Theresa May, my honourable friend Lynne Featherstone and the Council of Europe. I understand that this secret conference was an event attended by 300 people, invited by the Government of the United Kingdom, when the United Kingdom held the presidency of the Council of Ministers. Nicolas Bratza, who was then president of the European Court of Human Rights, spoke for five minutes. I am informed that the text of his speech is on the court’s website. He made it clear that the court’s case law had left the issue of gay marriage to be decided by national authorities.
Not just in this debate but in a number of debates during Committee we have sought to give reassurances that the protections for individuals and religious organisations are very real. I would hope that having had the opportunity to have this debate, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I am most obliged to the Minister for his reply—both to the assertions of Mr Booker and to my own amendment. In relation to his reply, of course I accept his assurances. The problem is that throughout my life—it has been quite a long one—I have seen government assurances come and government assurances go. The European Court of Human Rights now has powers, translated into British law, which are very wide indeed. Some of its decisions in private and other cases have not been very friendly towards the Government and this country, if I might say that. We really do not know what will happen once the Bill is passed.
“(1) Section 25 (void marriages) is amended as follows.
(2) At the beginning insert—
“(1) A marriage shall be void in any of the following cases.”.
(3) The existing wording of section 25 becomes subsection (2) of that section; and, at the beginning of that subsection, for “If any persons” substitute—
“(2) Case A is where any persons”.
(4) For the words after paragraph (d) substitute—
“(3) Case B is where any persons knowingly and wilfully consent to or acquiesce in the solemnization of a Church of England marriage between them by a person who is not in Holy Orders.
(4) Case C is where any persons of the same sex consent to or acquiesce in the solemnization of a Church of England marriage between them.
(5) In subsections (3) and (4) “Church of England marriage” means a marriage according to the rites of the Church of England.”.”
“After section 49 insert—
“49A Void marriages: additional provision about same sex couples
(1) If a same sex couple knowingly and wilfully intermarries under the provisions of this Part of this Act in the absence of the required consent, the marriage shall be void.
(2) In this section, in relation to a marriage of a same sex couple, “required consent” means consent under—
(a) section 26A(3), in a case where section 26A applies to the marriage (but section 44A does not apply to it);(b) section 26A(3) and section 44A(6), in a case where section 26A and section 44A apply to the marriage;(c) section 26B(2)(b), in a case where section 26B(1), (2) and (3) apply to the marriage;(d) section 26B(4)(b), in a case where section 26B(1), (4) and (5) apply to the marriage;(e) section 26B(6)(d), in a case where section 26B(1), (6) and (7) apply to the marriage.”.”
“( ) After subsection (5) insert—
“(6) If, for the purpose of any provision of this Act, a relevant governing authority has given written consent to marriages of same sex couples, the validity of that consent is not affected only because there is a change in the person or persons constituting that relevant governing authority.”.”
“After section 13 insert—
“13A Void marriages: additional provision about same sex couples
(1) If a same sex couple knowingly and wilfully intermarries under the provisions of this Act in the absence of the required consent, the marriage shall be void.
(2) In this section “required consent” means consent under section 1(3).”.”
“Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64)(1) Section 29JA of the Public Order Act 1986 (protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation)) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) The existing provision of section 29JA becomes subsection (1) of that section.
(3) After that provision insert—
“(2) In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, any discussion or criticism of marriage which concerns the sex of the parties to marriage shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”.”
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
“32A For paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 27 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 substitute—
“( ) In subsection (1), for the words from “solemnized” to “shall”, substitute “a man and any other of the persons mentioned in the first column of Part I of the First Schedule to this Act, or between a woman and any other of the persons mentioned in the second column of the said Part II,”.””
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, this is the last amendment that we shall consider at any length in this Committee. However, it is rather an important amendment and it is in the nature of a probing amendment, as I will make clear as I proceed.
When the Marriage Act 1949 was passed, Section 1 set out the prohibited degrees in a way that said, “A man shall not marry,” and then a column of positions of a woman whom he could not marry, and “A woman shall not marry,” and another column of men of different positions that she could not marry. If Section 1 had stayed as it was then it would not apply to same-sex couples.
In the Civil Partnership Act 2004, as I said in my speech at Second Reading, the intention was to produce for people who were in same-sex relationships a legal position as like marriage as possible. In order to do that, Section 1 of the Marriage Act had to be amended so that instead of expressing it in these columns it did it by way of relationships. That was done in the Civil Partnership Act. Section 1 of the 1949 Act was also amended so that the Act no longer proceeded on the columns but went on relationships as the Civil Partnership Act did.
When the 1949 Act was passed, as I said, there was no question of it applying to same-sex marriage. I strongly believe that the same-sex couples marriage which this Bill introduces is different in important respects from opposite-sex marriage. In particular, opposite-sex marriage includes as one of its purposes—not its only purpose—the natural procreation of children. That is not a purpose of the same-sex couples marriage for reasons that are obvious.
The second point I want to make is that I have heard same-sex couples marriage described as gay marriage. That is not correct. The correct description is same-sex couples marriage and I can see nothing in the Bill that suggests anything to do with sexual relationships. Therefore it is perfectly open for people in same-sex marriages to have a completely platonic relationship. That raises the question of the applicability of the prohibited degrees to same-sex marriage. I want to raise the question of whether prohibition requires reconsideration in relation to same-sex marriage. It is one thing to have it for opposite-sex marriage but does it require reconsideration in respect of same-sex marriage?
In introducing the Bill, my noble friend said:
“So much do we believe in marriage and its importance to our society, we want all couples, whether gay or straight, who are prepared to affirm publicly their commitment to each other and all the responsibility and joy that comes with it, to be free to marry”.—[Official Report, 3/6/13; col. 938.]
That means all. Obviously if someone is married already there is no possibility or freedom to remarry, but subject to that kind of consideration the general assertion is that all couples should be free to marry. Therefore we have to look at the prohibited degrees which are prohibitions on couples who may wish to marry. One such couple—to take an example—is brothers. I know of no love which is more widely commended than brotherly love. There is nothing to suggest that brothers cannot love each other perfectly properly and in such a way as to be willing to commit to each other in the full sense with which my noble friend used the expression in introducing this Bill, unless of course it has some relationship to what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, was talking about later—earlier—today. Yes, I am getting confused. At 11.40 pm it is not surprising.
Earlier today she raised the question in relation to civil partnerships but I raise the question more fundamentally in relation to marriage and same-sex marriage in particular. At present I do not understand why it should be closed to all of the present prohibited degrees. I would like to know to what extent the Government have previously analysed this position and have reached a conclusion on it because as yet I have seen no discussion of this particular aspect in any detail. It is an important aspect to my mind, and I think it has a bearing on how some people in our society view the provision for same-sex couples marriage. A lot of people—we have heard it today once or twice—refer to it as gay marriage. That is restricting the scope of this Bill in a way that is not justified by the terms of the Bill itself.
The importance of the fact that ordinary marriage—what I will call opposite-sex marriage—has as one of its purposes the natural procreation of children is that the institution is there to offer protection and safeguards to children. When it works properly it is a very effective safeguard for children. As I said the other day, the state has not shown the ability to protect children to anything like the same extent as a well functioning marriage.
I received in connection with this Committee stage a request to make it clear that I am against homophobic bullying in any way. I certainly want to make that abundantly clear. The function of ordinary marriage—the marriage of opposite sexes—includes protecting the children against any form of bullying and any form of homophobic bullying, and preventing them taking part in such bullying. We all know that children are quite quick to notice differences between their circumstances and those of other children, perhaps in the same class. That is often a source of improper bullying of one kind or another. I make it clear that I regard one of the functions of opposite-sex marriage as protecting against all forms of damage to the children.
The noble Baroness on the opposition Front Bench referred, in the context of another amendment, to the presumption that when a child is born to a married woman the other party to the marriage is parent of the child. That presumption is set aside in this Bill—an important fact that must be taken into account. In opposite-sex marriage the three ways in which children of the marriage can be produced are by natural procreation, IVF or adoption. In same-sex marriage it will be by IVF or possibly full sexual relations, which according to the Bill may constitute adultery—which is slightly unfortunate from the point of view of the child being produced. According to the Bill, that child will have no relationship with the marriage at all. Of course, the other method is by adoption.
Same-sex marriage, as the Bill makes plain, does not embrace children in the same way as the natural child is embraced by the marriage of opposite-sex couples. All of this has a bearing on the relationships that are prohibited—the prohibited degrees. At the moment I can see no reason why brothers and sisters should not be able to have a same-sex marriage if they felt that they wanted to. A noble Lord pointed out earlier that of course you can end a relationship only with a divorce. That is absolutely true. The marriage relationship would be over and above the relationship between sisters or brothers. If they decided to end the marriage relationship that would be sad, but it can happen with same-sex and opposite-sex couples and it is sad whenever it happens. However, it could happen. One would not wish to contemplate that as happening very often, but of course it is certainly a possibility.
Against the background that all couples who love one another are able to marry—that is what we want—I find it difficult to see why brothers or sisters who are willing to marry should not be able to do so. The Bill needs to consider a little more carefully than it has done this provision raised by the noble Baronesses on the Front Bench in their amendment for no presumption in favour of a child born to a woman in a same-sex marriage. That child is left without any marriage connection at all as far as I can see. That seems to me highly unfortunate. Although it is important to consider the rights of adults in relation to same-sex marriage—that is what the Bill is primarily about—it is extremely important to think about future generations and the relationship with children as well as the prohibited degrees matters that I mentioned. I believe that the prohibited degrees were first inserted into the marriage institution for the primary reason of protecting against inbreeding with normal procreation. These reasons, of course, do not have any place in same-sex marriage, and therefore I think we need to look at the justification, if any, for the prohibited degrees, at least in their present form. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, in all the time that I have been in your Lordships’ House, I have enjoyed and loved the way that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has often weaved a sticky web of legal mischievousness around issues that we have had before us, and so he has done this evening. I look forward to the conversation that the two learned Scots before me are about to have on this issue.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I welcome the interesting debate that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay has generated. He is right to challenge us to consider it and I can indicate at the outset, although I will say more, that the Government do not feel able to support his amendment. It would permit siblings of the same sex to marry, and I assume that that could include uncles and nephews, grandfathers and grandsons and mothers and daughters. The Government do not feel able to accept the extension of marriage to close relatives. Clearly, as my noble and learned friend indicated, the origins of this go back to concerns about the need to prevent incest and potential inbreeding.
However, it is also fair to point out that, in terms of procreation, not all marriages, even heterosexual ones, are contracted for the purposes of procreation. It would almost be a logical extension of the argument that when an opposite-sex couple are past a certain age, or the woman passes a certain age and is incapable any longer of having children, perhaps the degrees of affinity regulations and prohibitions should fly off. Even just saying that indicates the real sensitivity around this and how it is difficult to readily accede the point being made by my noble and learned friend.
Before returning to some of the substance of his argument, I note that my noble and learned friend indicated in his opening remarks that he seeks by this amendment to restore Section 1 of the Marriage Act 1949 to what it was before the Civil Partnership Act 2004 amended it. It is important to point out that the 2004 Act created one gender-neutral list setting out the prohibited degrees of relationship. The amended Marriage Act makes it clear that no person can marry any relative listed in Schedule 1.
I am not founding my argument on this point because it is a technical matter which no doubt could be addressed. But in reverting back to the original Section 1 of the Marriage Act 1949, the amendment does not lead to any change in the relevant schedules, so that certainly could lead to confusion, although no doubt my noble and learned friend could do something about that if he wished to persist with this and bring forward amendments to the schedules as well. Paragraph 17 of Schedule 27 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 replaced the two separate lists. Under the amendment, that single gender-neutral list would still stand and would need to be repealed and the original wording restored.
I have sought to indicate that the Government do not accept the principle of what my noble and learned friend is trying to achieve. He referred to platonic relationships. If this Bill is passed, it will be open to individual couples, whether of opposite sex or of the same sex, to determine whether to engage in sexual activity and to consummate their marriage. Couples are not required to consummate their marriage; there is only an option for opposite-sex couples to apply for an annulment if one party applies to have the marriage annulled on that basis.
On the point about two brothers being able to marry, as I indicated, the Marriage Act sets out the relationships of people who cannot marry each other. The Government want to ensure that same-sex couples are able to marry under the same provisions as opposite-sex couples. The provisions in the Marriage Act on prohibited degrees of relations are already capable of applying to same-sex couples and therefore no change from what was put in place for civil partnerships is required.
My noble and learned friend referred to the debate we had earlier on the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. In my response to that I referred to tax issues. To be fair to my noble and learned friend, he did not use that argument. His argument was based more on grounds of principle. Nevertheless, the proposal would have consequences in terms of tax. However, I also think—I made this argument during that debate—that there are power relationships within families. Who is to say that pressure could not be brought to bear on a brother to marry another brother if it was thought that that would best serve his inheritance interests? You cannot tell what goes on in families. That is why my noble and learned friend is absolutely right to talk about the need to protect children. We are not necessarily talking about infant children or children under the age of 16, but within families lots of power can still be exerted when children are young adults or even older. While concerns about incest and inbreeding clearly lie at the heart of the prohibited degrees of marriage, there is also a recognition that within families powerful relationships can often be at play.
As I indicated, this amendment would allow father and son, mother and daughter, uncle and nephew, aunt and niece to marry. We think that the pressure is more relevant at an intergenerational level than at a sibling level, although that is not to say that it could not occur at a sibling level. Therefore, we should be very cautious about going down that road. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, referred to civil partnerships in this connection. We believe that the nature of marriage is one which people recognise as being different from the relationship that exists between two close members of the same sex of a family. For these reasons, I ask my noble and learned friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, if I had an answer, I would be happy to withdraw the amendment. The point I am making relates, for example, to brothers. The idea that this is something to do with pressure is ridiculous because, as we know, pressure is exerted in families far beyond same-sex relationships, and that has to be dealt with somehow. There are plenty of laws relating to undue pressure being put on people to get married or otherwise. What I am talking about is the marriage that was described by my noble friend at the beginning, where people love one another and wish to undertake the responsibilities of marriage.
I can understand that there are different considerations for different parts of the prohibited degrees, and that is why this needs to be considered. However, I have a feeling, and I may be entirely wrong—
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I thank my noble and learned friend for giving way. Does he accept that if a man at, say, the age of 60 wished to marry his sister who was aged 60, where procreation and therefore inbreeding was not possible, the rules on the prohibition of close relationships should be set aside after a given age, if they love each other and want to make that commitment? Is that his argument?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
This is a justification for same-sex marriage that has been put forward. That is what I am talking about. I said in my speech at Second Reading—I invited correction but so far that has not come—that the reason for the prohibited degrees applying across marriage generally is because the natural procreation of children was a central purpose. I quite understand that people far beyond the age of childbearing are subject to the rules, and if George Clooney does not hurry up, you never know what might happen. The rules are there because a central purpose of opposite-sex marriage is the normal procreation of children, and therefore the rules are put generally to the whole lot. That does not apply to same-sex marriage at all.
The idea of pressure is just as likely to occur in relation to people who are not directly related. Parents, particularly in some situations, try to persuade their daughter to marry X for reasons of their own rather than hers. That kind of pressure is something that has to be looked at. However, I do not see why such pressure should be particularly rife between brothers at full age and thus perfectly entitled to consider what they want to do. I cannot see that it is a reason for cutting brothers out. So far, I have not heard any reason that contradicts the general statement of principle which was made when introducing same-sex marriage into our law.
At midnight it is not suitable to press my amendment, but I think that this needs to be considered, and I would like to hear more about it before Report. On the technical point, what we have done is amend the statute and the schedule that works in accordance with the statutory provision. It does not matter because I can easily alter it, but the amendment was tabled with assistance, as noble Lords will understand. I do not say that they necessarily got it right, but I think it is right. Anyway, if it is wrong, I can easily put it right; it is a very technical point and my noble and learned friend has accepted that. However, the essential point needs to be considered carefully and I would like to hear more about it by Report. In the mean time, at one minute to midnight, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
“39A After section 26 (harassment) insert—
“26A Discussion or criticism of same sex marriage
For the purposes of this Act, and for the avoidance of doubt, discussion or criticism of same sex marriage shall not be taken of itself to be discrimination or harassment.””
Lord Dear
My Lords, I am conscious of the fact that a pumpkin will shortly come into your Lordships’ House. I would simply reflect that Amendment 56 is a freedom of speech amendment and sits closely to Amendment 46C, moved and debated in this Chamber by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. In fact, one is the obverse and reverse of the other. Had the time been different, I would have tried to distinguish between them, but having regard to the similarity of the amendments and the fact that we have already had a full debate on Amendment 46C—and particularly because of pumpkins in the air—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)
My Lords, I am afraid I have to ask the noble Lord, in view of the fact that he has spoken to the amendment, if he would please move it before withdrawing it, in order to give noble Lords a chance to address it if they wish
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am particularly grateful to him for drawing comparisons with the amendment that was put down in the name of the right reverend Prelate earlier this evening. I agree with him that it is very similar and the response and arguments that I would have made to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, are similar to those which I have made at length on several occasions in Committee.
I will take this opportunity to make a couple of points. First, I hope that if this Bill is to become an Act—and I certainly hope that it will—we arrive at a point where it is accepted that the law allows marriage of same-sex couples, and it is possible for us all to respect differences of view about whether marriage should be between a man and a woman. Although the noble Lord, Lord Singh, is no longer in his place, I take exception to his assertion earlier that we have brushed aside concerns about freedom of speech in Committee. I have been happy to respond comprehensively to the debates we have had on that matter. I take on board the serious concerns that people have had in this area, and hope that I have been able to offer reassurance to noble Lords.
By the same token, I was a little perturbed by the comment that the noble Lord, Lord Dear, made earlier about me not responding with any real scope for consideration of the debates that have taken place in Committee. As my noble and learned friend will be responding to the final amendment and this will be the last time I am on my feet in Committee, I point out that in addition to the list of amendments I referred to in response to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that we have already tabled to the Bill, during debates at Committee, I—or my noble and learned friend—have committed to respond to noble Lords on a range of different issues.
This is not an exhaustive list and I am sure we may have other meetings with Peers on other topics. I have, for example, already agreed to have a meeting with my noble friends Lady Cumberlege and Lord Elton to discuss registrars. On the amendment earlier this evening about religious freedom for faith schools, I said that this was a matter that we continue to consider. In the debate earlier today about transgender matters, I said that I would write to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about her particular point. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, my noble friend Lady Barker and I will probably meet to discuss that again. On the public sector equality duty and the definition of “compel”, we have agreed to write in detail to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, about the points she raised. I add, because it was not mentioned during the debates last week, that I have already had a meeting with my noble friend Lady Berridge and the Secretary of State has already met the noble Baroness on that matter.
On humanists, I said that we would reflect further. On presumption of parenthood, I said that I would write in great detail to set out what is proposed in that very important area, which my noble and learned friend has just referred to again. On reviewing of the Act, which was an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dear, earlier today, my noble friend Lady Northover responded comprehensively. While there were differences in approach, it was clear that we were very committed to seeing the need for a review of the Act in future. On the debate about pensions, as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, was gracious to acknowledge in his response to me at the beginning of today’s debate, I took the time to speak to the Pensions Minister before the debate took place today.
I say all that because I want to put on record that we are listening, we continue to listen and the debates will continue. I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will withdraw his amendment on freedom of expression.
Baroness O'Loan
“39A Section 149 (public sector equality duty): after subsection (9), insert—
“(10) Compliance with the duties in this section requires ensuring that a belief regarding the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is respected and that no person should suffer any detriment in respect of the holding or the reasonable expression of such a belief.”.”
Baroness O'Loan
I appreciate how late it is, and will be brief, but I do want to move Amendment 56A, which relates to Part 2 of Schedule 7, on the last page of the Bill. As I reflect on tonight’s debate, I would say to the Government that this may not be as simple as it seems. The reality is that, despite the repeated assurances of certain noble Lords, the United Kingdom has repeatedly been found to be in breach of its obligations under the convention and, more recently, under the Human Rights Act.
Along with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I would say to the Minister that there is both courage and common sense in considering the Bill again and in bringing it back on Report with amendments. I have heard the Minister’s comments on that and have seen government amendments. I asked the question that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, asked at Second Reading. However, I did not get any response to any of my questions at Second Reading—a matter on which a number of noble Lords commented to me.
More remains to be done and I am pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, say that the door is open. However, I would like to see something rather than just ex post facto post-legislative scrutiny. We need more than that because there is an expectation in this House that the Bill will become law and I want to place on record that I was somewhat concerned at the earlier tenor of the debate. I understood that the process in this House was to raise issues in general at Second Reading, to put amendments in Committee and hear a government response, and to revert to unsolved issues on Report. Otherwise, surely, there would be no point in anything other than Second Reading and wherein would lie our scrutiny function? I would also like to place on record, in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, the fact that I and, I think, several other noble Lords have received a letter signed by a significant number of Members in the other place, saying that although it was broadcast as a free vote, it was not quite as free as it was made out to be.
The Bill as drafted is not limited in its consequences to the issue of conducting same-sex marriages, et cetera. It does not ensure that there can be no detriment to an individual or organisation in their interactions with a public authority, because it does not deal, in this context, with a Section 149 issue and does not deal with the risk of the attribution of discriminatory action against persons with a protected characteristic; namely, sexual orientation. I want therefore to speak very briefly about individuals who, for reasons of conscience, feel unable to promote same-sex marriage in the way that the law, currently, would appear to suggest that they might have to do.
Teaching sex and relationship education tends to be something which is asked of teachers who do not specialise in the topic but may be mathematicians, physicists or historians. SRE has to be taught and some staff must teach it. The risk for a teacher is that, directly or indirectly, something they say may be interpreted as relating to the subject matter of the Bill and may be interpreted as discriminatory by pupils of a homosexual orientation. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, was right when he said earlier that teachers of course have to act as professionals. They can develop rules; for example, that in their classroom no teacher or pupil can be asked a personal question. However, the reality is that a classroom of 30 or more teenagers is not the easiest place to operate. There may be pupils who see an opportunity to embarrass a teacher by asking repeated questions, by making suggestions or by their conduct generally as the teacher tries to ensure that all the children are kept safe, that there is no bullying and that the children actually learn. Teaching is not the easiest occupation.
We even have to take into account that a teacher may have to face what may be a mischievous, but nevertheless damaging, allegation of discriminatory behaviour which is completely unwarranted. We know that there are mischievous and unfounded allegations of sexual abuse of children in schools. I know that that is a difficult issue to introduce in this context but we need to be aware that working in the classroom is not as simple as some noble Lords appear to think it is.
Finally, it is my belief that this amendment, or a similar one, could be introduced to prevent the adverse and unintended consequences to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, referred earlier. It would provide protection against detriment resulting from the operation of Section 149 for any person holding conscientious beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. It would not permit homophobic action, but it would provide a balancing between these difficult and sensitive competing rights.
Lord Alli
My Lords, I think we have debated this issue, like a number of others, over and over again, so I do not wish to detain the House for any longer than is necessary. However, I want to say that this is a good Bill and a balanced Bill. As the Minister said, there is some work to do before Report, but this is the last amendment in Committee. I put on record my thanks, and I am sure the thanks of many Back-Benchers, to the Front-Benchers of both parties for the way in which they have conducted this stage of the Bill. It does them credit, and this House too.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I shall address my remarks to the actual amendment, which is about the public sector equality duty. This amendment seeks to place an express requirement on public authorities to protect individuals who hold a view that marriage should be between a man and a woman under the public sector equality duty. This amendment misunderstands what the public sector equality duty does, and I am slightly surprised that the noble Baroness would suggest it. It is a duty to:
“have due regard to the need to:
Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct that is prohibited by the Act:
Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a characteristic and those who don’t:
Foster good relations between people who share a characteristic and those who don’t”.
It is not a duty to compel or ensure certain actions by a public body, as Amendment 56A would require. However, that due regard applies to religious belief in the same way that it applies to sexual orientation. No other beliefs or specific issues are singled out for special consideration under the public sector equality duty. Singling out one particular belief above any other risks undermining the equal balancing of protections for religious organisations and other protected characteristics, which is specifically enshrined by this duty. We suggest that this amendment is both unnecessary and potentially damaging to the protections—
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, I did not deliver the speech I had intended to deliver, given the lateness of the hour. I therefore ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware of the increasing jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, which indicates that in balancing individual rights and rights which affect such issues as discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, the courts actually give a greater measure of discretion to the state. It is therefore important that the state acts to protect individuals. I can make that argument at greater length if colleagues wish me to do so, but that is the point I ask the noble Baroness.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the noble Baroness for those comments, but there is nothing that she has just said that would take me away from the view which I have just expressed, because this is domestic law. I add that I think the Government team which has handled this Bill, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, has done a brilliant job in taking it through Committee. I look forward to the next stage.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, I have listened to many amendments in Committee. Like the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, I worry that it would be a great pity if someone in a local authority stated publicly that the most important thing to them was marriage between a man and a woman, and that somehow they were threatened with the loss of their job, but the local authority would not step in to try to defend them. I know it is late in the evening, but I have been here for the best part of the day, and if the Chief Whip will allow me—
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
For the assistance of Hansard, I make it clear that it was not the Government Chief Whip who made any comments. I would not want that to be recorded in Hansard.
Lord Martin of Springburn
I am sorry about that. I am behind the times. I worry, and I reflect on some of the cases. In one case it was not a local authority but a government agency—namely, a housing association—which disciplined someone because they had left a crucifix on their van. It was claimed that offence would be given to other drivers if that type of thing continued. I share the worries of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for her further amendment regarding the public sector equality duty. It is similar, although not identical, to Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Baroness and that of the noble Lord, Lord Singh, which the Committee discussed at length last Wednesday. I certainly do not intend to rehearse all the points that were made then. I undertook, following that debate, to write to the noble Baroness on a number of points that were made in that debate—I think that that suggestion was made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben—and to circulate the letter to all those who took part. I also indicated that if the recipients of that letter wished to follow it up with a meeting, I would more than happy to do so. Certainly, if there are any further points arising out of the contributions to the debate that have been made this evening which require to be covered by that, I shall do so.
The amendment is couched in different terms from Amendment 13 and would have a slightly different effect but, again, the Government believe that it is unnecessary and potentially harmful. As we discussed last week, the public sector equality duty places a duty on public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination because of, among other matters, religion or belief. Where this is relevant to the exercise of their functions, public authorities are already required to have due regard to the possible impact of their policies on people who believe that marriage should be between only a man and a woman. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
However, the amendment is also potentially harmful—the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was right to say that this is our domestic legislation. The amendment would mean that public authorities would be required to consider this particular belief about marriage, giving precedence to it over all the other beliefs to which they are required to have due regard whenever they take a decision, regardless of the context and the relevance to the decision.
Moreover, the public sector equality duty is a duty to have due regard. It is a duty to think; it is not a duty to act or to achieve a particular outcome. The amendment goes far beyond the duty to have due regard. It places a duty on a public authority to ensure that the belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman is respected, and to ensure that no one expressing such a belief will suffer any detriment. That is of course a desirable outcome, but it is not clear to me how any single public authority, or indeed all public authorities working together, could ensure that that would happen. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn. It was in one of our first debates that my noble friend Lord Lester made the point—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, then quoted it back—that you cannot legislate against some public authorities or some individual doing a daft thing; “idiotic” may have been the word that he used. Mention has been made of the case of the housing officer who lost his job for something that was put on a public website, when in fact the law actually protected him. When the case went for judicial review, the judge put it on the record that, had he taken the matter to an employment tribunal, he would have had more substantial damages than he was able to get under a judicial review. The law has worked. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Martin, that I think that we all get very frustrated sometimes when daft things are done, but we believe that the Bill ensures that those protections are in place. I do not believe that the way to deal with those occasions where public authorities have not applied the current laws properly is to start trying to meddle with the equality protections and to risk unintended consequences. Rather, we should address them by doing what we can to ensure that public authorities understand the nature of the requirements on them and what they mean in practice.
That is why, as I explained on Wednesday and as my noble friend Lady Stowell has also explained, the Government will work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to ensure that its guidance for public authorities is as clear as possible, in particular by making it clear that the equality duty cannot be used to penalise an organisation or individual for opposing same-sex marriage and indeed that to do so would be unlawful. I also remind the Committee of my commitment given last Wednesday that we will address issues relating to the equality duty when we respond to the Joint Committee on Human Rights before Report.
On behalf of my noble friends Lady Stowell and Lady Northover, I thank noble Lords for the kind words that have been said. I thank all Members of the Committee, because we have had some very important and worthwhile debates. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has received the further reassurance on this issue that she has sought. I therefore ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, I would like to associate myself from this side of the House with her comments about the Front Benches on both sides.
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, in withdrawing this amendment, I also express my appreciation to the Front Bench for the way in which they have conducted the debate. I reserve the right to bring this matter back, not in multiple amendments, but in an amendment on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.