House of Commons
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 4, page 1, line 15, clause 1, at end add—
‘(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not reduce the obligations of the authority not to discriminate against—
(a) those with religious beliefs different from those supported or espoused in the prayers or other observances referred to in this section; or
(b) those without religious beliefs,
and to treat them equally in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010, section 149.’
Sir Edward Leigh
I warmly welcome the Bill, which seeks to provide a legislative basis for continuing the tradition, wherever it may be desired, of prayers before meetings in local government. The purpose of new clause 1, without at all inhibiting the freedom of councils and local authorities to employ or not employ prayer at their meetings, is to ask those bodies to keep in mind the religious heritage of our country and the religious foundations of the state, which are of a Judaeo-Christian nature. That is what my new clause proposes—having regard to the Judeao-Christian nature of our country.
Helston town council in Cornwall came in for a bit of flak in 2010, when resident Pat Woodhouse attacked the council for having “Christian-only prayers”. The local newspaper reported her to have said:
“Let’s face it, we are supposed to be politically correct now.”
What authority has determined that “we” are “supposed” to be politically correct? Why should citizens of any philosophical or religious world view unthinkingly surrender to the totalitarian and ever-shifting ideology of political correctness? In the Helston case, Ms Woodhouse is reported to have said:
“If anyone really took offence they could criticise the council. It isn’t right. With respect to the reverend who opens the meeting with a prayer, is it politically correct to only have Christian prayers at the beginning of the meeting?”
Note that she uses the word “if” anyone took offence—we are dealing with a pure hypothetical.
Doubtless, opponents of Christian prayer can cite actual cases where offence has been taken by someone, but I suspect it is pretty rare. We are supposed to be mature adults. I believe that anyone who is grievously offended by the Christian nature of prayers in councils needs to have some regard to the roots of our country. I am sure that both sides of the argument agree that we should not be a nation of triumphant Christian supremacists, but nor should we be a nation of molly-coddlers seeking to wrap the entire population in a protective layer of liberal gauze. We should abide by the principles of tolerance and respect: tolerance for belief or non-belief, twinned with respect not just for this country’s present, but its history.
We in Britain are known for our adherence to tradition. I would argue that this Parliament is the most beholden to tradition of any legislature in the world. Chesterton famously described tradition as
“the democracy of the dead.”
For when we make our decisions today, why should we not take into account the Britons of centuries past? Of course, the reality today is that the Christianity associated with the state—prayers before meetings, Remembrance day services, the role of the Church of England—is a thin whitewash over the official reigning ideology of liberalism. That is true, but these acts, be they prayer or worship, tie us intimately with our ancestors. I believe that that is what conservatism is all about. They connect us, I dare say, with the communion of Saints, four of whose number—George, Andrew, David and Patrick—serve as the traditional patrons and protectors of these nations. One can see their images in mosaic form looking down upon us in the Central Lobby of this Palace. Even in law we have the four quarter days of the year: Lady day, the feast of the Annunciation; Midsummer, the feast of St John the Baptist; Michaelmas, the feast of the Archangel Michael; and Christmas, the great feast of the Incarnation of Our Lord, which is celebrated so widely among those of profound religious belief or of none. The reason the tax year starts on 6 April is that it is the Gregorian equivalent of Lady day in the old Julian calendar that we in Britain held out in using for so long.
It is important to recall that other laws reinforce the Judaeo-Christian foundations of our society, and they should be celebrated in prayers before our meetings. Nobody is suggesting that should be compulsory; it is simply the decision of the council. Schools are still required to provide
“daily collective worship wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character”.
That is in our legislation. The Guardian finds that “incredible”, and it is worth noting that while we Conservatives can take credit for this requirement in passing the Education Reform Act 1988, The Guardian says that this was last reaffirmed in 1998 under new Labour—so presumably it is not that controversial.
It should be recalled that the etymology of the word “worship” comes from “worth ship”, the act of attributing or recognising worth, honour, esteem or distinction. With their conversion to Christianity, the Anglo-Saxon kings could no longer exert an arbitrary power over the kingdoms and peoples, but were subject to and restrained by, they realised, a higher power. This worship or esteeming of God laid the foundations for His creation—man—with numerous consequent ideas flowing forth about the dignity of the individual and our freedom of conscience. After all, what value is there to worship if it is not done as an act of free will?
Even more recent aspects of British society have Christian roots. Lord Alton, a former Member of this House, now in the other place, has written eloquently about the Christian foundations of the welfare state, noting that
“the thoughts, words and actions of the Christian community were central to bringing”
the welfare state “to fruition”.
Is it any wonder that what we can fairly describe as traditionally Christian countries are the ones that are today so tolerant of those of other faiths or indeed of none? The traditionally Christian societies are the most successful economically because they are tolerant of all other beliefs. It is that tolerance that has laid our economic success.
When we look at the past 50 years and observe officially atheist states such as the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China or officially Islamic republics such as Iran and Pakistan, we find their level of tolerance disappointing at best. Would someone rather be an atheist in Tehran where the mullahs rule the roost or in Beirut where the political and legal culture took root during the decades in which Lebanon had a Christian majority? I suspect that the overwhelming majority of British atheists are mature and respectful people, tolerant and perhaps even appreciative of the Christian foundations of the state and society. Rare is the man or woman given to sudden fits of apoplectic rage at the appearance of a nativity scene in public around Christmastide.
It has been rare in our time that an event has promoted as much comment and discussion on the nature of freedom and its responsibilities as the recent tragedy in Paris. France, of course, has a unique status in British society, serving simultaneously as our favourite traditional enemy as well as our closest friend, whose culture we most enjoy, love and revel in more than that of any other country. Britons will be the first gently to mock the French and some of their silly ways—and we have some silly ways— but our reaction to the recent atrocities committed in Paris has shown that we are the first to rush to their defence and express our solidarity with the French people. Chesterton was very prescient when he restated that to have a right to do something is different from being right in doing so. We believe in the freedom of speech, and while we hope that this freedom is used responsibly, we know that any attempts by the state to act as a determinant or guarantor of what is and what is not said is not a responsible exercise of freedom and is inherently threatening to our liberty. That is why I was a prominent supporter of the Reform Section 5 campaign about the right to offend other people. In this society, we have a right to offend others. If, dare I say it, prayers before council meetings offend some people—I doubt if anyone will be very offended—I believe that it is an inherent right nevertheless and it should be exercised.
It may astonish the House for a moment, but I confess that there are some aspects of political correctness that I find welcome. Political correctness to a certain extent incorporates a good old-fashioned sense of politeness. I am not a Muslim, so satirical depictions of Mohammed are ostensibly none of my business, but I do not understand the mentality that seeks intentionally to degrade and insult someone else’s most deeply held beliefs. To me, it seems plainly rude and ungentlemanly, and while these terms are viewed by some in our society as old-fashioned, it is just such forms of tradition and social dignity that say we should not deliberately intend to insult someone’s religion. That is up to the individual, not the state. It is such ideas, too, that affirm that we should not go slaughtering people because they insult us and our religion. In the end, being outrageous is all too often employed by the unoriginal and uninspired as a handy substitute for talent.
This is an opportunity to think more generally about the role of religion in our society and the world. What a shame, but also how natural, that religion is so often in the headlines because of warfare and conflict—we are all familiar with the so-called Islamic state. However, there are no headlines about the small kindnesses, the little acts of love and dignity, that people all around the world undertake, inspired either wholly or in part by their faith. I see no harm in councils’ proclaiming that faith before their meetings.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point in support of his new clause, but will he confirm that, because of the way in which it is drafted, nothing in it would restrict prayers to those from the Judaeo-Christian tradition? It only requires that that tradition be kept “in mind”. Could not prayers from other religions take place as well?
Sir Edward Leigh
I drafted my new clause carefully. It is meant to constitute a serious contribution to the debate. I am not arguing that there should, or must, be prayers before a council meeting. Of course, no one needs to go to them anyway. It is simply a decision that is made at the time of the council meeting. Nor am I arguing that the prayers must be of a Judaeo-Christian nature. I am, however, making the serious point, in this House of Commons, that this is our past. This is our foundation. This is what has made us free.
We cannot just say that we must have a “time for reflection” before council meetings, and that anything goes, because if we do that we lose contact with our history. I think that in losing contact with our history of tolerance—which is the foundation, or essence, of the British state—we actually encourage religious extremism. It is often people in whose families there is absolutely no religion who are led astray into following bizarre sects and the like.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
It is not just our past, though, is it? It is also our present. In Parliament, we start every day with prayers, and those prayers are Christian prayers; they are not from any other religion. However, people do not have to participate in them if they do not wish to. My hon. Friend is much more religious than I am, but I am not aware of anyone who objects to starting the day with prayers. It is actually a rather good way in which to start the day. Wouldn’t it be nice if local authorities started their proceedings in the same way as Parliament?
Sir Edward Leigh
That sums it up: wouldn’t it be nice? No one is using the language of compulsion. Wouldn’t it be nice? What is wrong with a moment for reflection?
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
In Parliament, when we start our day with Prayers, we obviously start our day with prayers of the Church of England, which is the established faith in our country. If my hon. Friend wished to enshrine the traditions of this country in the Bill, did he not consider enshrining the Judaeo-Christian tradition of the Church of England rather than any other Judaeo-Christian tradition?
Sir Edward Leigh
I think I would have been criticised if I had done that, although I should have been happy to do it. Speaking for myself—if it is at all relevant—I am very ecumenical. I serve on the Lincoln cathedral council, and I have absolutely no objection to taking part in Church of England services and Church of England prayers; nor, I am sure, does anyone else who is sitting here. However, I think that if I had tried to lay down a particular denomination, I would have been severely criticised. As far as I am aware, the Church of England is a Christian denomination. A broad encompassing new clause which talks about Christianity does not prevent Church of England prayers from taking place. So I am afraid that I cannot accept that argument, but if my hon. Friend—who tabled the Bill—wants to advance it, it is for him to do so.
Secular liberalism often purports to have the answer to religion. Everyone and everything is free, and people can do whatever they want. Yet there is a curious aversion to those who choose to do religious things, especially if they are done in public. Why do some people have an aversion to others having prayers before Parliament and before council meetings? I am not sure that I understand that aversion, although I am sure it is sincerely felt.
In reality, the liberal secularist perspective is as much an all-encompassing and behaviour-determining world view as Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any religion. In purporting, whether explicitly or implicitly, to be “above” religion, liberal secularism is making truth claims just as strongly as religions do. Somehow this can be viewed as reassuring, as we are just dealing with one religion or world view as we have dealt with others. The new clause seeks to reaffirm our connection to the past through the actions of the present. There is a grave danger of we in Britain becoming severed from our roots, and lacking an understanding of our history. Such a deracinated population would be much easier to manipulate, whether by a Hitler, a Stalin, or some other modern-day tyrant whose dominion we fear. Asking not even that we affirm the Judaeo-Christian tradition of our country, but merely that councils keep it in mind, is one small way of keeping us in touch with our roots. That is why I propose my new clause.
May I end by reading out that marvellous prayer which we used to say in this House, and which is worth quoting from? We used to say that we
“humbly beseech thee to send down thy Heavenly Wisdom from above, to direct and guide us in all our consultations; and grant that, we having thy fear always before our eyes, and laying aside all private interests, prejudices, and partial affections, the result of all our counsels may be to the glory of thy blessed Name, the maintenance of true Religion and Justice, the safety, honour, and happiness of the Queen, the publick wealth, peace and tranquillity of the Realm, and the uniting and knitting together of the hearts of all persons and estates within the same”.
What glorious language from our established Church, from the King James Bible, from the Prayers before Parliament. I commend my new clause to the House.
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I do not want to take up too much time because there is a lot of business to be got through this morning and I do not want to hold it up. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) says. He speaks, of course, as a prominent Roman Catholic, so I thought his answer to the last intervention on him was glorious. I have a probing amendment—amendment 4—which I almost certainly will not press to a Division.
I am a politician so my natural course is to wish to please people—if someone does not have that trait, they are unlikely to be elected—and so it is rather odd that I shall spend much of this morning disappointing people. First, I shall disappoint people by saying I am not in the least religious. My father was once the Second Church Estates Commissioner, and I was christened and confirmed, but since then I have lost those beliefs and the faith that I once had, and I am perfectly comfortable with that. This is the first time, however, that I have ever acknowledged that in public. It may be true that the pressure on a Conservative politician in particular to keep quiet about not being religious is very similar to the pressure that there has been about keeping quiet about being gay. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not gay either, but I just want to say that it is telling that it has taken me 28 years in this House—and, frankly, the knowledge that I will not be standing at the next election—to make this point.
I remember that when Peter Walker was a Minister answering questions in the House, he was asked something like whether his motivation for supporting a particularly right-wing policy had been sycophancy or cowardice, and his answer was, “Almost certainly both.” I would like to give the same answer for my having kept quiet about not being religious. So I shall disappoint some of my constituents, some members of my family—many of whom are strongly religious—and some hon. Members and hon. Friends by saying that I believe that the National Secular Society has a point: not everyone is religious.
In order to reserve a seat in the House on a crowded business day, such as Budget day, we have to put in a prayer card and come into the Chamber for Prayers. I do not have a major problem with that because I was brought up in a Christian household in a country that has an established Church of England, but really, why should I have to do that if I am not religious? It does seem to be a relic of the past. My hon. Friend said that this was our past and, although he was brought up short by an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I think he was right. More importantly, the requirement to pray in order to reserve a seat seems out of touch with the country that we politicians are meant to represent.
Mr Arbuthnot
I will give way to my hon. Friend, who is himself a prominent churchwarden.
Mr Nuttall
My right hon. Friend mentioned that we had to pray in order to reserve a seat. Actually, as I understand it, we simply have to be in our place. There is no requirement to offer up any prayers. We simply have to be here and stand, or sit, in our place.
Mr Arbuthnot
That is a fair point, and I will come on to that in a moment when I talk about the potential contents of the prayer.
I was saying that the practice seems out of touch with the majority of the people we represent, because only a tiny proportion of our constituents go to church. According to the 2006 Church census, just over 6% of British people go to church. In a YouGov poll in 2011, 34% of UK citizens said that they believed in God or gods. However, according to the 2008 European social survey, 46.94% of UK citizens—nearly half—never pray. I find that an odd statistic, because it implies that 20% of UK citizens pray but do not believe in God.
Jake Berry
Part of the Bill is about celebrating and protecting the traditions of our land. Of course, I believe in Father Christmas, which is one of the reasons that I am happy to celebrate Christmas, but how many people who celebrate Christmas still truly believe in Father Christmas, as opposed to appearing to do so simply because they enjoy the traditions and celebrations of that time of year?
Mr Arbuthnot
My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons used to give a speech about the really difficult questions that a Leader of the Opposition could ask the Prime Minister. The most difficult question that he was able to come up with was “Does the Prime Minister believe in Father Christmas?”, because whatever answer the Prime Minister gave, he would frankly be scuppered. So I shall not answer my hon. Friend’s wonderful question. Instead, I shall move on to tell him what is wrong with his Bill, if I may. I shall do so in the most gentle way, because I know that he is motivated by the good of the country and of the people he represents.
Of course I know that my hon. Friend’s Bill would not force people to pray, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) has just said. I know that it would not force councils to decide to include prayers as part of their business, although the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) proposes that councils “shall”—rather than “may”—include time for prayers. I shall come to that point later. I also know that the Bill would leave the decision to local authorities, and what could be fairer than that?
However, the Bill would allow the majority of local councillors to include, as part of the council’s business, a practice that might be embarrassing and possibly even anathema to other councillors. Prayer is not anathema to me, as I was brought up in a Christian household; I just find it rather quaint. If people think that their god listens to what they ask for rather than what their god thinks is right and appropriate, that is a matter for them—it does not bother me. But why need I sit through it? Let me move on to the possibility of it being anathema. What am I to do if I am a local councillor where religious observance is to be part of the business? What am I do to do if the prayers offered actually are anathema to me?
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises, as most people in the Chamber will, that in such circumstances the appropriate behaviour would be to call the police immediately, because the gentleman in question who was giving those prayers would have incited people to hatred?
Mr Arbuthnot
Yes, but one can create a prayer that does not incite people to hatred but which nevertheless remains anathema to the people listening to it. Let me give the hon. Gentleman another example, in a Christian context. What happens if the prayers call on God to grant enlightenment to those who support gay marriage? That might be anathema to some of the councillors who do support gay marriage. What should one do as a councillor in those circumstances? Should one heckle the priest or the imam? Should one walk out, even though, as a councillor, it is one’s right and indeed one’s duty to be in the council meeting, preferably for the whole time.
So the National Secular Society, which I would like to thank for drawing some of these issues to my attention—I am not a member of the NSS and I doubt I ever will be—has a point when it says:
“The absence of prayers from the formal business of local authority meetings does not impede the religious freedoms of believers or deny anybody the right to pray.”
If local authorities want to hold a moment of reflection at the beginning of a meeting, they can do so. If councillors wish to meet for prayers before the meeting, they can do so, and no change in the law is needed to achieve it. So it is the principle of the Bill that is of concern to me, but the proposal tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough highlights some of the concerns that undermine the value of the principle of the Bill.
My amendment 4 is about the public sector equality duty, whose effect is similar to the first amendment to the US constitution, which states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
That has been interpreted in the United States by a majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway, which was decided in May of last year, to require that prayer said before local authority meetings should not discriminate against minority faiths in determining who may offer a prayer.
The rather odd effect of that decision was that at a meeting of Lake Worth city commission last month the invocation was given by an atheist called Preston Smith, who began it with the words:
“May the efforts of this council blend the righteousness of Allah with the all-knowing wisdom of Satan.”
The fact that the effect of the public sector equality duty on this Bill is that local authorities choosing to hold religious observance in their meetings will not then be able lawfully to discriminate against the observances of the religion of Satanism might surprise my hon. Friends, but it seems to me to be a clear and unavoidable interpretation of the effect of the two statutes.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Each time I have risen in support of this Bill, I have sought to emphasise my reason for doing so, and it is that this Bill seeks to protect a freedom of choice, and indeed a freedom of local choice. This Bill makes it clear that the choice of including prayers, or not, is for the local authority alone. Equally, I do not believe that it is right to go further than that. To go further would undermine our trust in local authorities to take account of the views and traditions of their communities and to make the right decisions.
I speak from my own experience in local government, in an area of many and diverse faiths and of strong communities, religious and non-religious, where the inclusion of prayer was something that united those communities rather than divided them. In our council, prayer and reflection was an opportunity to bring people together. So many of our prayers, which were led each year by the chaplain to the mayor—of whatever faith—contained universal messages that underlined shared values, a sense of unity and community that reflected our diversity. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), as I am minded not to support his proposed new clause today should he push it to a vote. It seems to me that we would be stepping beyond the important line and risk fettering the discretion that we want to give to public bodies to make their own localised decision.
I say to the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot)—he is indeed a gentleman and I shall certainly miss him when he leaves this House—that I agree with the sentiment and intentions behind amendment 4. But I am confident that local authorities and public bodies, all of which are already subject to the public sector equality duty, will exercise their choice with the utmost sensitivity to their communities. We should trust their judgment and believe that they will make the right choices and not the wrong ones.
It is important that we maintain that trust in anticipation that local authorities will be sensitive to local communities and their responsibilities within the law. I remain hopeful that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Penny Mordaunt)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) on his work on the Bill, the aims of which are wholly supported by the Government. There was a useful discussion about the Bill in Committee where support for it was clear. There was recognition that the Bill is really about freedom rather than compulsion: the freedom to pray or not to pray; the freedom for a local authority collectively to make a decision to hold prayers as part of official business, or not; and the freedom of individual councillors to attend the meeting during that item of business, or not—there would be no requirement to sit through it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) said.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) described the Bill’s provisions on giving local authorities the freedom to hold prayers as part of official business as a measure so gentle that someone would have to work very hard to find a way of taking any sort of umbrage or insult from it. That is an excellent way of describing the provisions and intent of the Bill; they are indeed gentle. It is worth reminding ourselves why the Bill is necessary at all. The Bill gives councils that statutory power and gives them the freedom to pray.
I will not be supporting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). It is not consistent with the spirit of the Bill, which is about trusting local people to make local decisions. We should trust them to do that. It would be wrong to single out any one particular faith or to identify any one particular tradition. The Bill as drafted is absolutely correct to celebrate our multi-faith society and because it gives local authorities freedom rather than compelling them to take certain actions, it is not necessary to require them to be mindful of their obligations not to discriminate against those with religious beliefs and those without religious beliefs. There is no requirement for anyone who does not wish to attend town hall prayers to do so, so this provision is not necessary.
With those reassurances, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire will not press the new clause and the amendment.
Jake Berry
I have a lot of sympathy with the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), as it sits very closely with my own beliefs. I believe that there is a direct link between praying for things within one’s own religion and things happening in one’s life. I am a Christian and I am proud of it and, in a way, the Bill has given me the opportunity on occasion to bear witness to my own faith and the belief I have in the power of religion in our society.
Although I agree with the sentiments of the new clause, I do not think it should be supported, largely because the Bill is permissive in nature and has sought to encompass the wide group of faiths in our society today. Much of the criticism of the Bill has focused on the fact that people of different faiths or no faith at all would be or would feel discriminated against in the council chamber if prayers were to be held. I do not think that the Bill as drafted could be accused of that, and it was described in Committee, as the Minister has just said, as the gentlest of Bills.
It would be a mistake to single out any particular religion on the face of the Bill. We are a multi-faith society. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough spoke of the different faiths in our society and of how people of all faiths and of none enjoy living in a society that acknowledges and respects their faith, so it would be a mistake to remove from councils the freedom to decide their own business. The entire Bill has been about freedom and the freedom of local authorities to make individual decisions about how they conduct their business.
Mr Nuttall
Can we be clear? My hon. Friend refers to taking away the freedom of local authorities to decide these matters, but I do not think that anything in the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) takes away any freedom. If it were to be passed, it would merely require that they keep in mind the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
Jake Berry
I thank my hon. Friend and near neighbour in Bury North for raising that point. I understand it, but in a multi-faith society in which all faiths are respected and acknowledged and in which people of no faith are also respected and acknowledged it is important that we do not prefer in legislation one particular faith. He might disagree with that view, but I think that the Bill as drafted is acceptable to people of all faiths and of none and I fear that to start preferring one faith might create division in our council chambers where none needs to exist or should exist.
My hon. Friend mentioned Ms Woodhouse, who objected so strongly to council prayers. If the Bill is enacted, there is a way for her to make her objections heard: she can stand for the local council, get elected, argue in the council chamber that there should not be prayers and win the support of the majority of her colleagues. There will then be no obligation on them to have prayers. If she finds the issue so offensive, that course of action is open to Ms Woodhouse.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am disappointed, particularly by the Minister’s reply to, I thought, my comprehensive introduction—but there we are. I have been here long enough to know that we keep soldiering on.
Sir Edward Leigh
I’ll get over it.
I am also disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) does not want to accept my amendment. I repeat that my amendment does not require prayers in the Christian tradition. It was put forward in a serious way, but my hon. Friend says it is not appropriate for this country, which is a multi-faith and presumably multicultural society. Without wanting to repeat what I said in my speech, I should say that that was precisely my point. We should have regard for the fact that our roots are of a Judeo-Christian nature. I was simply asking councils to have regard to it.
Much as I feel strongly about the issue, I am aware that the Lobbies of the House may not be seething with hon. Members this morning; if we were to have a vote, there might not be the required number to enable the Bill to continue. I cannot risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is too risky to have a vote for that reason. However, I still have one or two friends left in the world and some are in the other place. I shall have a word with them in the hope that the other place might return to the issue. Meanwhile, in a spirit of good will, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1
Powers of councils
Mr Arbuthnot
I beg to move amendment 5, page 1, line 5, at beginning insert “Subject to section 138BB”.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, page 1, line 5, after “may”, insert
“if it has been resolved by a two thirds majority of the members of the council, in a meeting called specifically for that purpose”.
Amendment 12, page 1, line 5, leave out “may” and insert “shall”.
Amendment 3, page 1, line 8, at end add—
“( ) in no case may more than three minutes be devoted to business under this section.”
Amendment 6, page 1, line 17, at beginning insert “Subject to section 138BB”.
Amendment 2, page 1, line 17, after “may”, insert
“if it has been resolved by a two thirds majority of the members of the council, in a meeting called specifically for that purpose”.
Amendment 7, page 2, line 7, at end insert—
“138BB Local referendum on religious observances
(1) If a local authority wishes to use powers under sections 138A or 138B, it must obtain the consent of the electorate through a local referendum.
(2) The referendum is to be held on a date decided by the local authority and may be held on the ordinary day of local elections.
(3) The persons entitled to vote in the referendum are those who, on the day of the referendum would be entitled to vote as electors at an election for councillors of the local authority.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the conduct of referendums under this section.
(5) If a local authority wishes to use powers under section 138A, the question to be asked is of the form “The council of the (County/City/Borough/District) of proposes to hold religious observances as part of the formal business of council meetings. Do you agree that the council should be allowed to do this?”.
(6) If a local authority wishes to use powers under section 138B, the question to be asked is of the form “The council of the (County/City/Borough/District) of proposes to support and/or be formally represented at religious events. Do you agree that the council should be allowed to do this?”.
(7) If the majority of persons voting in the referendum under either subsection (5) or (6) approve of the proposal, the local authority may use the powers under the respective sections 138A or 138B for four years from the calendar date of the referendum.
(8) In no event may a further referendum be held within four years of the day on which a referendum under this section has been held.”
Mr Arbuthnot
There are several amendments in my name. The first is on the need to have a local referendum before the issue, which in some cases is controversial, is decided. All I ask is that we should give the local electorate power to make this decision. What could be a greater example of localism than that?
Amendment 1 suggests that there should be a two thirds majority of councillors called in a council meeting specially designed for the purpose. That is in order to ensure that the councillors themselves decide the matter by a strong majority, rather than it being delegated, for example, to the mayor or even to officers of the council to make a decision. Again, that is a good example of localism. Amendment 3 proposes that any such religious observance should be limited to three minutes because, in view of what I have already said at some great length, I do not think we want to have these religious observances extended too long.
I hope that those simple amendments might find favour with my hon. Friend the Minister, but if not I shall withdraw them.
Philip Davies
I intend to follow the lead of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) and be brief. I agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), that many of us will miss my right hon. Friend when he is no longer in the House. He has had a great impact on my time here. I am very grateful to him for that and wish him well for the future.
I should make it clear from the start that my amendment 12 was always designed to be a probing amendment intended to stimulate a debate. I have no intention of pressing it to the vote. It changes the word “may”, with reference to having prayers at council meetings, to “shall”. The only reason I tabled the amendment was to give the opportunity to debate what is so wrong with this as a practice that councils follow.
I am surrounded by Members who are much more devoutly religious than I am. I am not coming at this as some sort of fundamental Christian—far from it. However, one of the things I have been struck by in my time in Parliament is the worth of Prayers at the beginning of the day. Even though it would not be my normal practice to engage in Prayers, I think it sets us up well for our day in Parliament. I will give an illustration; my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) did something similar. When we start our day with Prayers, what strikes me are the following words—it is amazing how many people quickly forget the Prayer the moment they have said it, which to some extent argues against me, but saying it and hearing it is worthwhile—
“Lord, the God of righteousness and truth, grant to our Queen and her government, to Members of Parliament and all in positions of responsibility, the guidance of your Spirit. May they never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals but laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind”.
I do not believe that I am the only person who is always touched by that part of the daily prayer. It seems to embody what we are here to do. Every day it is a worthwhile reminder of that for us all. What is wrong with that? How can anybody find that offensive, no matter what their religious belief is?
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Gentleman said that although we say those words, sometimes they are not observed in the subsequent proceedings of the Chamber. I recall the words of Claudius in “Hamlet” after he had been praying, ostensibly, when he said:
“My words fly up, my thoughts remain below:
Words without thoughts never to heaven go.”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I might be able to help a little bit. We are not discussing the Prayers of the Chamber. I recognise the benefits and there is an analogy between the two, but the debate is about local government prayers. I have allowed a lot of leeway, but I am sure we will hear the connection made shortly.
Philip Davies
I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Politicians, whether in the national Parliament or in local government, should always be mindful of these things when they start their proceedings. I am not aware that anybody, whether they have no faith, a Christian faith or some other faith, objects to our starting our proceedings in that way or finds it offensive. For people who do not want to participate in prayers, there is no obligation on them to do so; they can sit them out, as some do, and I fully respect them for that. It should not be compulsory for individuals to have to engage in prayer, but I do not see the objection to people in politics—people serving the public—starting with a reminder of their duty to the people they are elected to serve. That is why I tabled my amendment.
I would go slightly further than my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. I think it is important that we start with Christian prayers. We are a Christian country and that is our heritage; we should never be ashamed of it. I do not think that people of other faiths are offended by the fact that we are a Christian country either. We still have an established Church of England, and I do not see the problem with that, whether or not we all support it personally. That is our heritage in this country; it is what our values are based on. We should not be ashamed of that; we should be proud of it. It should not cause any offence if everybody started their proceedings in this way.
This is a probing amendment and I do not intend to press it to a Division. I just wanted to stimulate a debate and make people think about why this is not such a bad thing.
Mr Nuttall
I have a couple of points to make on this group of amendments.
Amendment 7 deals with a requirement on a local authority to determine this question by holding a local referendum. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) said that he would not press the amendment to a Division, because in view of the financial position of the country and of local authorities, it would make complete nonsense of the Bill. One of the great beauties of this Bill is that it does not impose any financial obligation on local authorities. The amendment would impose a completely unnecessary burden and make a mockery of all the other decisions that local authorities take.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend saying that if the amendment were passed, the Bill would require a money resolution and therefore fall at this stage?
Mr Nuttall
As I understand it, the Bill already has a money resolution, so I think we can be satisfied on that point. The amendment would certainly increase the amount from what was originally envisaged; it is for others to determine whether that requires a change to the money resolution.
In view of all the matters that local authorities decide for themselves without the necessity of a referendum, requiring a local authority to hold a referendum across the whole district merely to determine whether it holds prayers is bordering on the faintly ridiculous. I therefore oppose the amendment.
My second point is on amendment 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), which would replace the word “may” with the word “shall”. My clear view is that all council meetings should start with prayers and they should be of a Christian nature, but I am against making it mandatory. I think it should be for local authorities to determine for themselves whether to hold prayers.
Let me put to the Chamber a particular scenario. This might be unlikely, but it just might happen that, for whatever reason, all the elected councillors in a particular area have no religious belief whatsoever. They might all be atheists. It would be absurd, would it not, if they were required by the Bill to hold prayers before their meetings? That might not happen, but it should be for the councillors to decide for themselves.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire—
Jacob Rees-Mogg
That is the same as me—my constituency is Somerset North East and we North Easts have to stick together in the broad scheme of things.
I support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot). I always believe in trusting the people. I like having referendums because the assent of the people shows where their spirit and mind are. I happen to think that most people would turn out in a referendum and vote in favour of prayers if the council thought that was a good idea. I think we would find that people are very much in tune with the history of the nation and that they like the fact that, even if it is not their Church —it is not mine—this country has an established religion. I happen to feel that the ceremony, tradition and link with our history that that brings is broadly popular, even with people who are not of that faith, and, therefore, that the referendums would pass. I would be more than happy, however, to put that to the vote, to see whether my speculation is right or whether the view of secular society is right.
Mr Arbuthnot
My hon. Friend is being extremely kind and, as always, courteous and articulate, but if I were to join him in calling for a vote on the amendment, the entire Bill might collapse. That is not necessarily what I want to achieve, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) is promoting the Bill with the best possible motivation. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) would like to reconsider his position.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I am well aware of the numbers issue and, for obvious reasons, I would certainly not want to see a Division in which fewer than 35 Members participated. If my right hon. Friend chooses to withdraw his amendment, I shall not shout—or even mutter—against that. I shall certainly support him if he does that. I simply support the underlying principle of his amendment.
I disagree to an extent with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on the cost. Of course, there will be some cost, but a referendum could be held on an ordinary council election day—it would not need to be a special election day—on the first Thursday in May, so I think the cost is broadly affordable. One should always be willing to put one’s own view to the test of the view of the British people—the electorate—and have confidence that they will come to the correct decision.
There is an extraordinary trend of radicalism in being on the side of the secularists, and I am not entirely sure that I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), which is a very rare event, because he is one of the wisest Members of this House and almost invariably right. However, I feel that “shall” does not go far enough and goes too far at the same time. I would be in favour of a Bill saying that every sitting of every council should start with an extraordinary form mass—the Tridentine mass—as that would be absolutely splendid. Ideally, it would be a high mass with so much incense that people started sneezing. It would be a fine piece of legislation, but it is not what the Bill is trying to do; it is simply to enable people to pray if they want to. The word “shall” would take this Bill too far, but if one were introduced in the next set of private Members’ Bills to re-establish Roman Catholic worship at the beginning of all such sessions in our public life, I would certainly not oppose it.
Lyn Brown
On this group of amendments, I will reiterate what I said earlier. I am confident that councils will make decisions on how they choose to vote or decide to include prayer in a way that suits their local circumstances. A council may well choose to adopt prayers on a majority, a two-thirds vote or an alternative proportion, or under a different procedure. Likewise, it may well decide that prayer should last no longer than three minutes, or it may decide alternative parameters. Such a matter is up to the council, so I say gently to the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) that it should be a local choice, built on an understanding of individual local communities and circumstances. I hope that he will therefore understand why I cannot support his amendments.
I have already made the point that the measures in the Bill should not be prescriptive, and I gladly make it again. This is permissive, enabling legislation, and choices and judgments should be made locally. That is particularly important with regard to amendments 5 to 7, which would require public bodies to undertake a referendum to decide whether to include religious observances at meetings. Although I agree with the thrust of the speech of the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), at a time when finance is scarce, I do not want to put new burdens on local authorities, and we certainly should not require them to incur additional financial cost. Referendums are expensive and, especially in these straitened financial times, councils would not want to commit to those costs.
Mr Nuttall
I want to clarify my remarks, because the shadow Minister may have got the wrong end of the stick. I made it clear that it is not appropriate for local authorities to have to spend money on holding a referendum.
Lyn Brown
I was agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry: I know it is not normal, but Fridays are unusual, and we just have to ride with it.
Frankly, if we insisted on a referendum, unlike the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) I do not think that everybody would necessarily turn out to vote. If we enabled local councils seeking the power to hold prayers at meetings to hold referendums, I fear that the turnout would not justify the cost. To introduce referendums on the subject would provide a clear disincentive for councils to consider the inclusion of prayers at all. I therefore cannot support the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire. We need to provide local councils with the freedom to choose to hold prayers or reflections, without fettering that discretion or imposing new financial and administrative burdens on public bodies.
On the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I am sure that it will not come as a surprise to him that, although he read out my favourite part of morning prayers, I cannot support any suggestion of making prayer compulsory. I would not support the amendment if he pressed it to a vote.
Penny Mordaunt
The Government have worked hard to get rid of burdens on local authorities and empower the public to hold local authorities to account, and we therefore believe that the amendments are unnecessary. However well intentioned, I am concerned that they could be a burden on local authorities and hence the taxpayer, and they could obstruct rather than enable the intention of the Bill, which is to allow local authorities to hold town hall prayers as part of official business if they wish. There is no need for an amendment to require a two-thirds majority to enable the local authority to hold town hall prayers. Such a measure would mean that a minority might vote against prayers but still stop the council holding them as part of official business, and a minority stopping a majority from taking part in an item of business that nobody is compelled to take part in is what the Bill intends to put to an end.
In addition to provisions on town hall prayers, the Bill will ensure that local authorities are able to support, facilitate, and be represented at events with a religious element. It is, sadly, not too much of a stretch to imagine that individuals or organisations with an axe to grind might also choose to attack the proper role that local authorities play, for example by organising a Remembrance Sunday event by closing a road. That should never happen, and the Bill will help to ensure that any such challenge will, quite rightly, be a non-starter.
An amendment to make the provision subject to a vote has the same possibility of a perverse outcome, with minority opinion resulting in the council being unable to exercise functions that it may already be exercising, as well as preventing it from taking part in activities that the majority wish to participate in. The Bill intentionally does not define what “prayer” or “observance” is, and the amendment that seeks to limit the time that the council may spend on an item of business—in this case, town hall prayers or an observance connected with religious or philosophical belief—to three minutes, is indeed odd. I presume it is to ensure that town hall prayers do not take up too much valuable time, but I question whether it is necessary. Protracted sermons may be a stock feature of some comedy novels featuring the clergy, but I question whether such an issue would arise in the council chamber, especially as that chamber is open to the scrutiny of the public who can film, tweet, blog or otherwise report the goings on of the local authority. We should trust local authorities and councillors to serve the interests of the public to whom they are accountable, without the need for a steer on how long they should take over this or that item of business.
Continuing the theme of scrutiny, trust and accountability, I am concerned about the amendment that would make any local authority decision in the Bill first subject to a local referendum. That seems unnecessary gold plating, and an unnecessary expense for the taxpayer. There are also technical issues to be considered, such as how the referendums would work with those local authorities exercising the general power of competence. The Bill is to enable smaller parish and town councils, and other local authorities such as single-purpose authorities, to hold town hall prayers as part of their business if they wish, but those local authorities are not mentioned in the amendments.
Amendment 12 is perhaps my greatest concern. The freedom not to hold town hall prayers is the choice of the local authority, and just as important as the freedom to hold them. Compelling a local authority to hold town hall prayers, or an observance connected with a religious or philosophical belief, is against the spirit of the Bill, and it would no longer be the gentle and inclusive measure that celebrates all faiths that is intended. I hope that the message is clear that we should trust our local councillors and the public with the measures in the Bill, and that the amendments will not be pressed.
Jake Berry
I have several concerns about the group of amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), but they have been helpful in enabling us to discuss and further explore the extent of the Bill. I have a particular concern about the proposal to limit prayers to three minutes. We have talked about the parliamentary Prayers with which we start every day here in Parliament. I glanced over my shoulder this morning just as we finished our prayers to see that they lasted three minutes and 40 seconds, so parliamentary Prayers would offend the proposed three-minute limit. I do not think that in religious observance of any kind there is room for a stopwatch.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on the issue of a stopwatch. I would like to bring to his attention the fact that in the church in Nempnett Thrubwell in my constituency there is a 20-minute egg timer for the sermon.
Jake Berry
I can think of several church services I have been to recently where I might have wanted to take the egg timer with me. I will come on to the comments made by my hon. Friend in a moment. I look forward in particular to supporting his Bill, following the next private Members’ Bill ballot, to reintroduce a full mass before every sitting of the House.
I came to this place in 2010. I, and colleagues, have had the privilege often of being in this Chamber when huge events of national importance were about to take place and we were about to consider and debate them. I think particularly of the riots, where Parliament was recalled, and the parliamentary votes on whether to take military action in Libya and in Syria. On each occasion when I attended Prayers, they extended beyond three minutes. The Speaker’s Chaplain the Rev. Rose, who is a wonderful and inspirational preacher, extended the prayers to discuss—they are held in private, but if I may just lift the veil briefly—the matters being considered later that day. I am sure colleagues of faith and of no faith enjoyed the extended opportunity to consider the very difficult decisions we faced, and enjoyed the style and eloquence with which the Speaker’s Chaplain conducted proceedings. If the three-minute rule were introduced in local authorities, where they have similar difficult decisions to make on issues of local importance—opening schools, closing schools or cancelling bus services—they would be hampered by the time limit.
I am also concerned about why it should be necessary for a council to have a two-thirds majority to have prayers. If we were to have a two-thirds majority for prayers, why should that not be the case for everything else? I am sure local people would feel that lots of important issues of day-to-day relevance should be decided by a two-thirds majority—moving from weekly to fortnightly bin collections, for example. Such issues have more relevance and impact on people’s lives than council prayers. The decision on whether a council is able to pray should be made by a simple majority. I will be resisting the amendments and hope that they will not be pressed to a Division.
The proposal to hold a referendum every four years is unnecessary and overly bureaucratic. It should be for councils to decide locally, in their town hall, what goes on. Everyone who opposes the decisions they make already has a vote in a referendum every four years: they can sack all of their councillors. I have known some very lazy councillors in my time—I will not name them—and I would encourage people to sack them at local elections.
If people oppose what is done, either in Parliament or in the council chamber, they now have many ways to communicate it. They can contact their representatives on Facebook and Twitter. They have even been known occasionally to send Members of Parliament e-mails—several hundred a day. They do not need a referendum if they are unhappy with decisions; they can vote out councillors every four years and, in between, have many, many ways of making contact and corresponding with them. I am grateful for the amendments that have been tabled. They have improved the debate today, but I do not think they are necessary and I hope they will be resisted.
The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is also valuable in enabling us to discuss the Bill’s provisions and how they would affect local people. I am an advocate of and a believer in localism. I do not think it is for Whitehall to dictate to councils how they should conduct their business; the town hall should be free to do so. We should not seek to mandate from this place or even move towards mandating from this place how local authorities conduct their business, especially in such a sensitive area as religious belief. The Bill is, as has been stated repeatedly, about freedom and about empowering and entrusting that freedom to our local authority councillors, the vast majority of whom, if not all, are excellent individuals who have sharp and keen minds capable of making the decision locally about how to conduct their business.
Finally, I promised to return to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). The idea of his private Member’s Bill for starting all proceedings in local authorities with a mass and incense might be an idea with legs, so I will watch with interest where he comes in the private Members’ ballot next year. I may be prepared to become a subscriber to his Bill, although I am not sure that I would support the abolition of the Church of England and the restoration of the Roman Catholic Church. There are, of course, Anglo-Catholics who are almost more Catholic than the Catholics in some of their tastes and traditions for their own Church, so this could be explored further on a future date.
With all those assurances, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire will be willing to withdraw his amendment and that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley will not press his.
Mr Arbuthnot
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Reading
Jake Berry
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I shall not detain the House for long. We have had a good debate today, and I have enjoyed it immensely. I am grateful for the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for Shipley (Philip Davies), my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), the Minister and the shadow Minister.
Let me briefly put on the record my thanks to the Minister for her support of this Bill and my profound thanks to all the officials from her Department who have been excellent. Whenever I had a question to ask, they were happy to help and advise. They have been instrumental in ensuring the smooth passage of the Bill through the House. I thank the shadow Minister and Opposition Members for their support. It is clear that this Bill can unite parties and people across the House in support of providing freedom for people to pray.
It has been a great privilege for me to have the opportunity to bring forward a private Member’s Bill in an area that is of particular interest to me—religious freedom and faith. It is a great privilege to have this Bill now being read for the Third time. I have been contacted by churches and people of faith in my constituency, including imams and representatives from our local mosque. The Bill has not only been discussed here, but has been held in the prayers and religious observances of many people across Rossendale and Darwen. I am sure from the number of people who have written to me to wish us luck that many across our nation have been inspired by the Bill.
I said at the time of the money resolution that I believed—and I still believe—that there is more power in prayer than in the stroke of any Minister’s pen, than in the power of the Chair—and you were in the Chair at the time, Madam Deputy Speaker—or than in any Division of this House. I am extremely grateful to people all over the country, and more particularly in my constituency, who have held this Bill and its passage through Parliament in their prayers. I hope that they will continue to hold it in their prayers as it proceeds through the other place.
Lyn Brown
It is a privilege to rise again in support of this Bill. Let me express my thanks once again to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) for taking it through the House with such confidence, style and aplomb.
Last week’s discussion in Committee indicated a breadth of support from all parts of the House, and I am pleased that the point was made—time and again—that this Bill fundamentally protects freedom of choice. I warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on seeking to preserve the balance in the Bill, and I applaud the gentleness of the language. The word “may” as proposed in clause 1 is crucial. It is not for us to determine whether prayers should be included; it is our role simply to enable those decisions to be taken at a local level and based on individual local circumstances.
As I have said, I come from a multi-faith community—one that celebrates diversity of religion and culture. Our gurdwaras, our mosques, our temples and our churches of all types and denominations are full on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. Having served as a local councillor, I know it was our tradition to have chaplains of all faiths exercising their role in the council chamber. Prayer was used as a means of bringing people together and highlighting the common ground that is found in many, if not all, faiths.
The Bill does not make prayers compulsory. It is simply about giving councils and public bodies the right to include prayers if they so wish. It is right that these decisions are taken locally, that they take into account the range of traditions, cultures and views of communities and that councils are sensitive in exercising their discretion. Should they decide to incorporate prayers or reflections of whatever tradition, councils will be able to take decisions about the detail of arrangements to ensure that they are inclusive and that no one is left feeling excluded or alienated. We must trust that our councils are best placed to make decisions that accurately reflect the needs and wishes of their own communities.
I welcome the Bill, which delivers the same degree of choice for a wide array of public bodies listed under clause 2. I think it is a clever way of emphasising that all public bodies, of whatever stripe, have a role to play in supporting communities and promoting community cohesion, as well as encouraging faith and non-faith groups to engage with those public bodies and contribute to that cohesion. I thought that was really well done.
I support the hon. Gentleman, too, in his efforts to ensure that all types of local authorities are entitled to make a decision of their own and to contribute in the same way as larger bodies. I am grateful for the clarification he brought to underline the opportunity for local authorities to contribute to religious events. He illustrated clearly in Committee, and again today, that the Bill will protect traditions that we take for granted at the moment.
At its heart, the Bill is about maintaining the right balance, providing choice without prescribing measures; enabling prayers to be included, while also making it clear that this is a localised decision to be based on local circumstances. I believe the hon. Gentleman has got the balance absolutely right, and I am happy to support the progress of his Bill.
Mr Nuttall
I rise to support the Third Reading of this Bill. As the House will be aware, the Bill received what I described in Committee as the equivalent of a bye in the first round of the FA cup in that there was no debate on Second Reading. There was a brief discussion about the Bill when the money resolution was passed. Apart from that and the Committee debate, today has been the first—and, indeed, the only—occasion on which the Bill has been discussed on the Floor of the House. Let me thank my parliamentary next-door neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), for introducing the Bill.
From time to time, we are faced with situations brought about as a result of an unexpected turn of events in the courts. Judges sometimes reach decisions that throw into question the whole basis on which we have previously conducted our affairs in this country. In 2010, earlier in the present Parliament, there was a court case involving Bideford town council, a member of which, with the support of the National Secular Society, objected to the holding of prayers at the beginning of council meetings. Prayers were included on the agenda as the first item, before apologies for absence. Although the council member tabled motions to end the practice, they were rejected, so—again, with the help of the National Secular Society—he took the council to court, where it was argued that the council had no power to hold prayers as part of its formal business. Everyone in the land had always assumed that councils did have that power.
It is testimony to the ability of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen that he has managed to pilot the Bill to its current stage, with the result that it is now crystal clear that councils have the power to hold prayers as part of their proceedings. It also clear that councils can take part in and facilitate religious events. That is particularly relevant to remembrance, and specifically, in my own local authority in Bury, to the marking of Gallipoli day.
Mr Arbuthnot
My hon. Friend is making a very good point about councils needing to be represented at remembrance events, but, speaking as one who does not have a belief in God, I wonder whether those events need involve God. I think it is very important for us to commemorate, honour and respect veterans and those who have died fighting for their country, and I have no objection to this part of the Bill, because I think that councils need to be represented at such events, but I find it regrettable that those events must necessarily involve something in which many people do not believe.
Mr Nuttall
No one is suggesting that those who have no faith should not be equally able to commemorate events of the past in their own way, but we have a long-standing tradition in this country of commemorating them by attending a religious service. Of course, there is no reason why those who have no faith whatsoever cannot organise a separate event with no religious content. However, I think that most authorities hold religious services. Bury council has a long tradition of commemorating Gallipoli day, marking it with a special Sunday on which it holds a civic service every year. The centenary of Gallipoli will be commemorated this year, not just in Bury but across the country.
For all those reasons, I am pleased to be able to support the Bill. I am sure that it will be given a Third Reading, and I wish it a speedy passage in the other place.
Penny Mordaunt
I do not wish to delay the House, but I think it is worth our reminding ourselves why the Bill is necessary at all. It is necessary because in 2012 the High Court ruled, on the basis on a narrow interpretation of the Local Government Act 1972, that councils had no statutory power to hold prayers as part of official business. The Bill will give councils that statutory power, and gives them freedom to pray.
As has already been made clear, the Bill does not compel anyone to pray; nor does it define what constitutes prayer, or what constitutes religion. It does not contain an exclusive list of religions or a definition of what constitutes prayer, because it gives bodies and individuals freedom to determine those matters for themselves. It takes a workable approach, giving local authorities freedom to include in their business time for prayers or other religious observance, or observance connected with a religious or philosophical belief. It also enables them to support, facilitate and be represented at events with a religious element.
Throughout the Bill’s passage so far, I have had in mind an event in my constituency: our Remembrance day service in Portsmouth, which, as would be expected in Portsmouth, is a pretty spectacular event. Representatives of all the main faiths in the city give readings and say prayers, which are interspersed with secular poems and hymns. It is an amazing event, which gathers huge crowds. I think that it is much stronger for the participation of all the city’s faith groups, and I say that as one who did not swear on the Holy Book when I affirmed my allegiance to Her Majesty and took my seat, but made a secular affirmation. I recognise the important role that religion plays in civic life, and I think that my local branch of the Royal Navy chaplaincy would have been very concerned to hear the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot).
Faith can be a unifying force for good. Faith organisations are intertwined with our communities. Councils, and councillors, should be free to allow faith to play a part in their business should they wish it to do so. The Government support the Bill because it gives authorities freedom to pray if they wish. The choice will be a local one. It will be for councils, and for the public who elect their councillors, to decide whether meetings will begin with a prayer, a reflection, or neither. It will be for councils to determine the content of prayers, which may, for instance, reflect the faith composition of their local areas. We consider that the Bill performs a valuable function. It is right for an authority that makes the decision to say prayers as part of its formal business to be able to do so. We should trust local people to decide.
I commend this straightforward, sensible and proportionate Bill to the House, and I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry).
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Control of Horses Bill
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 8, leave out “an” and insert “a pony, jennet,”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, page 2, line 35, in clause 2, leave out
“to whom the horse belongs”
and insert
“both to whom the horse belongs and an address within the United Kingdom at which proper service as defined under this section may be made”.
Amendment 3, page 2, line 36, in clause 2, at end insert—
‘( ) For the purposes of this section proper service of a notice may be made by posting by first class post to the address of the person to whom the horse belongs a written notice—
(a) stating that the horse has been seized and the date and time at which it was seized; and
(b) giving details of how contact can be made with the person detaining the horse.”
Mr Arbuthnot
It is strange that I should have views on both this Bill and the one that preceded it. I entirely support this Bill, which does something necessary and helpful.
Amendment 1 clarifies the definition of “horse” in clause 1. I just suggest that it should, as the Welsh equivalent Bill does, make it clear that the word “horse” includes ponies and jennets.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I am not trying to be clever or unhelpful, but I do think that the normal definition of a horse would include anything that was of the same species as a horse—that is to say equus ferus caballus—which ponies and jennets are. Donkeys are separately identified because they are not the same species. They are equines, but they are equus africanus asinus, if I remember correctly, and therefore they have to be defined separately, but—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I very rarely pick up on points like this, but the hon. Gentleman must address the Chair—or must look as if he is just occasionally addressing the Chair—and not have his back to the House.
Mr Heath
Please forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have not been in the House for very long, as you know, and that is a mistake that incomers make. I do apologise. I also sound like I am lecturing the right hon. Gentleman, but I am not trying to; I am simply saying that I think his amendment is otiose.
Mr Arbuthnot
My hon. Friend is almost certainly right. It is clear from his intervention that he knows far more about this matter than I do—he probably knows far more about most matters than I do.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman has said the legislation is already in place in Wales, and, as a Welsh MP, may I say that I think it is important to make the distinction, as the vast majority of animals left on these fields are ponies?
Mr Arbuthnot
As it happens, until a couple of years ago we had, in the meadow next to our house, a pony—that sadly died at the age of 35, which I think is going it some, frankly. It was as a result of the knowledge of our own pony, who was called Porky, that I moved this amendment. If this amendment is unnecessary and we do not need to describe what a horse is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) suggests, I will move on to my second and third amendments.
I think these two amendments are more important. I think they genuinely address what may be a problem with the Bill, but my hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt set me right on that when he comes to speak. I think the problem may be this: the detention of a horse under the provisions of this Bill could be continued beyond 24 hours if the person who detains the horse does not know to whom the horse belongs, provided he tells the police about it, but it could not be continued beyond 24 hours if the person who detains the horse does know to whom the horse belongs, but does not know how to get hold of him. These amendments are intended—despite my own, no doubt, cack-handed drafting—to deal with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome will no doubt tell us whether they achieve the clarity and helpfulness I intend to achieve, but that is the purpose behind them.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
One can only speculate as to why the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) has brought forward this group of amendments. However, Opposition Members would not wish them—or amendment 4, which is to be debated later—to delay the passage of the Bill, so I will be brief.
Amendment 1 attempts to clarify further the definition of what actually constitutes a horse, and I would encourage the Minister to put on the record later in the debate a full definition and whether, indeed, this covers a jennet or a pony. The term “jennet” is used to describe a Spanish jennet horse. It is, I understand, a fairly new breed registration dedicated to an attempt to recreate the coloured variety of gaited horses that resembles the historical jennet or “Spanish jennet.” It would seem obvious, therefore, that the term “horse” as already used in the Bill would cover a jennet, but I await the Minister’s response.
The term “pony” is used to describe a small equus which, depending on context, can be a horse that is under an approximate or exact height at the withers—usually 14.2 hands, if memory serves, with the hand being 4 inches in imperial measure—or alternatively is a small horse with a specific conformation and temperament. Again, the Minister may wish to elaborate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) for tabling these amendments and asking some important questions about the Bill.
Amendment 1 seeks to add ponies and jennets to the definition of a horse covered by the Bill and, in turn, to the provisions on horses in the Animals Act 1971. It may be helpful quickly to explain how the provisions in the Control of Horses Bill amend the Animals Act 1971. The Bill carves out special arrangements in the 1971 Act for stray and fly-grazing horses and other equidae. Its leaves the measures in the 1971 Act as they apply to other livestock unchanged. The provisions cover a range of equidae. As well as horses, the Bill’s provisions apply to asses, mules and hinnies. These equidae need special mention because, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) pointed out, they are not horses. Each is a different species. Horses are of the equus ferus caballus, and ponies are of the same species, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. It might also be worth clarifying that the legal definition of a donkey is an ass, so they are also covered.
A pony is just a small horse and does not need to be specified, so they are already covered. Similarly, a jennet is a small breed of horse. Thus neither ponies nor jennets need to included in the definition of horse.
For completeness, I should say that I asked a number of questions about the definitions when scrutinising this Bill with officials, and I therefore point out that a mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse, and a hinny is the offspring of a male horse and a female donkey. That is made clear in the legislation.
I understand the reasoning behind amendments 2 and 3. My right hon. Friend just wants to make it clear that there is a proper process for contacting the owners of a horse, where this is known. Unfortunately, it is not always easy for a person or local authority detaining a horse to identify the owner and then serve them with a notice of detention. Many fly-grazed horses cannot be identified through microchipping, as required by law, and even when a horse can be properly identified, the person detaining it might not be able to access its identification data.
We considered these points and decided that the police should remain the central point of contact for reporting detained or missing horses, and that notice of detention should be registered with the police in any case, even when the person detaining the horse is able to notify the horse’s owner. Under the existing provisions in the Animals Act 1971, the police have systems in place for registering this kind of information, which is often shared with local authorities. Horse owners should therefore contact the police immediately if they are concerned that their horse might have been detained.
The Bill leaves it open to the person detaining a fly-grazing horse to contact the owner directly, if the owner is known to him, but I believe that it would be a backward step to prescribe what form such action should take, such as sending a letter by first-class post, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire suggests. The person might know which caravan the owner lived in, for example, and could go and knock on their door and talk to them. Alternatively, they might know the owner’s e-mail address. It would be wrong to be prescriptive in this regard.
I asked questions about this again when we were considering the Bill, and I want to reassure my right hon. Friend. Clause 3(2) of the Bill states:
“The right to detain the horse ceases at the end of the period of 24 hours”,
and goes on to say that the person detaining the horse must notify the police and the owner, if they know who that is. If the Bill had required notification of the police or the owner, but not both, he might have a stronger case for requiring more clarity. I believe that the requirement to notify both, and to contact the police in any event, will provide sufficient clarity. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), pointed out, we are keen to get the Bill through and it would be wrong to introduce measures that were inconsistent with the 1971 Act. I therefore hope that, in the light of these clarifications, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak briefly to amendments 1, 2 and 3, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot). I must also put on record my thanks for his support for the Bill. On amendment 1, the Minister has already set out how a horse is defined for the purposes of the Bill. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), has set out his position on that as well, and I do not need to say more on that.
I should like to speak briefly to amendments 2 and 3. I completely understand the very sensible intentions behind the amendments, but I believe that the police must remain the central point of contact, as the Minister has said. It is also clear that there has to be flexibility in these circumstances. First-class post might be the most appropriate way of notifying an owner in certain circumstances, but it is essential to have flexibility on that decision, and not to specify in statute exactly what should be done. The Minister talked about the time involved, and using first-class post might delay the notification so that it did not arrive within the required four clear days.
I fear that the introduction of detailed specifications of how notifications should be served could unnecessarily delay what should be an immediate process relating to animal welfare. Such delay must be avoided in the interests of all parties involved, not least the fly-grazed horses, in the light of the welfare issues involved. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will not press his amendment to a vote.
Mr Arbuthnot
I am not entirely convinced that we have dealt fully with the circumstances in which someone might know the owner but not know how to get hold of him. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) will consider this point further when the Bill goes to another place, but in the circumstances, and given the gracious way in which he has dealt with the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5
Commencement, extent and short title
Mr Arbuthnot
I beg to move amendment 4, page 4, line 20, leave out “and Wales”.
I have tabled this amendment because I am puzzled. In 2014, the Welsh Assembly passed the Control of Horses (Wales) Act 2014 to deal with this issue. As this is now a devolved matter, there is no reason why it should not have done so; indeed, there is every reason why it should. Clause 1(1) of this Bill states that
“a local authority in England may detain a horse”,
and the entire Bill seems to apply to England until we get to clause 5(2), which states:
“This Act extends to England and Wales.”
That leaves me wondering what on earth Wales is meant to do with the legislation, and how it can extend to England and Wales. I therefore suggest that we leave out “and Wales”.
Barry Gardiner
I rise again to speak briefly to this amendment. It is not unusual for Bills passing through this place to include Wales in their jurisdiction. My understanding is that Wales is included in the Bill for technical reasons. The Animals Act 1971, which the Bill amends, extends to both countries, and any Bill that amends that Act needs to apply its provisions to both countries. However, because the Welsh Assembly has legislated for fly-grazing separately in the Control of Horses (Wales) Act 2014, the provisions of this Bill will in effect apply only to England. The 1971 Act does not apply to either Scotland or Northern Ireland, so they do not need to be included in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister reassured the House that the provisions in the Bill will apply in effect only to England. If that is the case, we would not wish to support the amendment.
George Eustice
Amendment 4 seeks to limit the extent of the Bill to England only, and not to England and Wales as currently drafted. I realise that it might be confusing to have a Bill that extends to both England and Wales but has provisions that apply only to England, but I can reassure hon. Members that this is not a mistake. The Bill extends to England and Wales for legal reasons. As the shadow Minister pointed out, the Bill amends the Animals Act 1971, which extends to England and Wales. Because the 1971 Act extends to England and Wales, any Bill that amends it must also apply to England and Wales.
I shall give the shadow Minister the reassurance that he seeks. Although the Bill extends to England and Wales, none of the provisions will apply in Wales. Furthermore, none of the amendments that are made to the Animals Act will apply to Wales. I should also point out that we took soundings from the Welsh Government when considering these matters, to ascertain whether they wanted Wales to come under the scope of this Bill, but the feedback that we received was that because they had introduced their own legislation in this area, they did not want to confuse matters further by extending these provisions to cover Wales. That is why the Bill explicitly excludes Wales. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) will not press his amendments to a vote.
Julian Sturdy
Again, it is a privilege to speak to amendment 4. As the Minister rightly says, the Bill extends to England and Wales, not because of a mistake but for legal reasons. Although it extends to England and Wales, none of its provisions will apply to Wales. An important reason for that is what the Welsh Government put in place in 2014 and I pay tribute in this House to the Welsh Government for acting and introducing what became the Control of Horses (Wales) Act 2014. One reason I introduced my Bill was to follow on from that to make sure that this is covered in England, too.
Mr Arbuthnot
With those wonderful explanations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Reading
Julian Sturdy
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is huge privilege to speak on Third Reading. First, I must draw the House’s attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As hon. Members will be aware, my background is in farming, and it is from a deep affinity for the land and countryside that my interest in this Bill first arose. Thankfully, I have not suffered from the devastating effects of fly-grazing personally, but I have witnessed at first hand the problem it causes farmers, the unfortunate horses themselves and unwitting motorists in my constituency.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting his Bill through to this stage and, indeed, on introducing it? He is a great champion of his constituents, but I can assure him that on this issue not only they but many of my constituents will be grateful. This is a Bill and we are all grateful to him for the way he has steered it through.
Julian Sturdy
I very much thank my hon. Friend for those kind words. I know only too well that not only in his constituency but across our great county of Yorkshire we have areas that suffer greatly from fly-grazing horses and the problems that go with that. The issue does not just affect our great county of Yorkshire—it goes right across the country. Other hon. Members in the Chamber have issues to deal with in their constituencies and counties. That came across loud and clear in Committee, when a lot of hon. Members raised valuable concerns and gave examples of the impact that fly-grazing had had on their constituents and in their area.
I wish to thank all those who have contributed their time and energy to getting this Bill to Third Reading. After some disagreement last year with those who manage the time in this House and seek to control this place—such disagreements can be fatal to such proceedings—few thought this Bill would ever see the light of day, let alone make it to Third Reading, so I must also thank all those who have helped to remove the obstacles to this Bill. I especially wish to thank the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for its support from day one, when I was drawn in the ballot. I am also especially grateful to a large variety of animal welfare charities, including World Horse Welfare, the British Horse Society, HorseWorld, Redwings and Blue Cross. I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that such animal welfare charities set an example to us all in their tireless work to improve the lives of those who have no voice of their own.
My Bill is somewhat unusual as it is also supported by a large variety of rural and countryside organisations, which do not always see eye to eye on some issues with the animal welfare charities I just mentioned. I am also grateful for the support of the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association and the Countryside Alliance. All these organisations have worked together on an animal welfare issue that unites them. It is an important issue, which is why I was delighted to introduce my Bill—indeed, it is so important that it unites organisations that are apart on certain issues.
I also wish to thank the original supporters of the Bill, without whose earlier, much-needed support it would never have been possible. I am also grateful to Members from both sides of the House who served in Committee last week, in addition to the Bill’s sponsors. The cross-party support the Bill has received is a fantastic example of how, even in the run-up to what some might say is the most important general election for a decade, those on both sides of this House can look beyond party boundaries and work together in the interests of the common good. I wish to thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), for her work. We have enjoyed numerous meetings together to discuss the contents of the Bill. As I said in Committee, I know at first hand of her commitment to the Bill and to animal welfare more broadly. She could not be here today as she had hoped to be, but I wish to thank the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) for attending in her place.
I am also exceptionally grateful for the steadfast support I have received from the Public Bill Office and the Clerks there, to whom I remain greatly indebted, particularly with regard to some of the House’s more detailed procedures. I recommend to anyone wishing to obtain a deeper understanding of the parliamentary process that they undertake a private Member’s Bill—it has certainly been an illuminating education for me. Many Members in the Chamber today already know all about that, because they participate in many Friday sittings and have participated in many private Members’ Bills.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I wish to thank this Minister and Lord de Mauley, and their Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials. I have had the privilege of working closely with them, receiving their full support. That has been transformative for the Bill’s prospects, and I am grateful for all their hard work in this process.
Animal welfare forms the backbone of the Bill, which, in its amended form, will go a long way towards improving the existing legislation on fly-grazing. Our ability to protect horses from a life of neglect on both private and public land will be greatly enhanced. From my numerous meetings with animal welfare charities it has been clear that the existing laws are having a negative impact on everyone, apart from those who seek to abuse animals. Clearly, we need to tackle fly-grazing consistently across the whole of England, on both public and private land, and that is the Bill’s aim. If we do not do that, this mobile problem will continue to move from farm to farm, and from council to council, with no respite in sight for the horses involved.
The problems that animal welfare charities are having to cope with are all too clear. It has been widely reported in the local media that parts of the country are under siege from thousands of fly-grazed horses and their irresponsible owners. That presents a danger to not only the horses, but, sadly, the wider public. In Committee, hon. Members recounted vividly some shocking examples of how abandoned horses have particularly affected their constituencies and constituents. As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge mentioned in Committee, a horse escaped on to the M25 last week, resulting in the motorway having to be closed for more than an hour. That caused commuters horrendous disruption, but, luckily, a serious accident was averted. However, the horses themselves have not always been so lucky. The RSPCA reported last week that at least five horses being fly-grazed in a field near Leighton Buzzard had all died from contracting the small redworm parasite. The horses were reported to be underfed and severely unkempt. They had not received the proper care and attention they deserved and needed. If they had received such attention, they would have still been alive today.
Furthermore, towards the end of November, the British Transport police reported that 12 horses had been killed near Cambridge. The animals were struck near the Fen road level crossing in Milton by two trains travelling in opposite directions. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was devastated to learn of the horrible tragedy. Four seasoned inspectors attended the scene and said that it was one of the worst things they had ever seen and that they would never forget it. Emergency services, including firefighters, police, paramedics and air ambulance crews attended the collision, which blocked the track in both directions and caused major travel disruptions. A number of minor injuries were sustained, but, thankfully, no passengers were seriously injured.
Unfortunately, fly-grazing has caused a number of problems in my own constituency. Just before Christmas, a dozen horses on council-owned land near Osbaldwick had to be seized by the local authority due to welfare concerns. In September, an accident on the A64 between York and Scarborough involved two abandoned horses and a cement mixer. One horse died immediately, and a second had to be put down soon afterwards. It is my understanding that the owner of the horses has yet to come forward to claim responsibility for the appalling lack of care.
Last November, three abandoned ponies in an extremely poor condition of health were rescued by officers. They were categorised as emaciated by the attending vet. Although the RSPCA was advised on the identity of the owner, it was unable to prove ownership, so the case did not proceed to court. Thankfully, the ponies in question have been safely rehomed.
A further case from my postbag involved a horse being hit by passing traffic on the A1079 from York to Hull. When the owner learned of the accident, he did not come to the horse’s aid, but callously decided to leave the animal in a terrible state and in pain in a nearby field without any veterinary attention.
Such examples clearly make the case for why we need the Bill to be on the statute book as soon as practically possible, so that such abuse can be swiftly dealt with. Indeed, the Bill does not only seek to remedy the current weaknesses of the law, but has at stake a wider point of principle. As I said on Second Reading, no one should be above the law. There are those who attempt to frustrate the laws by which everyone else lives. Abandoning a horse to a life of neglect has no place in civil society and we should not turn a blind eye while people’s land is seized without their permission purely so an owner can avoid the responsibility of caring for their own horse.
It is impossible to know how many horses have been abandoned across the country, but animal charities estimate that at least 3,000 horses are being fly-grazed in England alone. The problem is acute and expensive for landowners, local authorities, enforcement agencies, welfare charities and, ultimately, taxpayers. The lack of care the horses receive and the intentions of their irresponsible owners are threatening the livelihoods of farmers and landowners, creating significant horse welfare problems, depriving people of the use of public spaces and risking the lives of motorists. The current lack of clarity in the legal process to deal with the problems is only making matters worse.
Philip Davies
I beg to move, That the House sit in private. Question put forthwith and negatived (Standing Order No. 163).
Julian Sturdy
The current lack of clarity in the legal process only makes matters worse. It has also been pointed out that intimidation and violence are commonly used against charity workers and good Samaritans who try to hold to account the irresponsible owners. Those who have suffered from fly-grazing are all too often powerless to remove horses from their land. Although several pieces of relevant legislation exist, none provides a definitive answer to the growing problem and all contain loopholes. A major stumbling block is the requirement to identify the owner of any horse being fly-grazed unlawfully. However, more than 70% of abandoned horses are not identifiable, which demonstrates the physical scale of the problem.
The main mechanism for dealing with fly-grazing has been the Animals Act 1971. Under the Act, after 14 days landowners may detain horses that stray on to their land and sell them at auction. The legislation was drawn up at a time when animals fetched a good price and not so many horses were being fly-grazed. The Act was not designed for the problem of deliberately fly-grazed horses. There are, therefore, numerous problems with using the Act to deal with this growing issue, which is affecting not only my constituency—the great county of Yorkshire—but areas right across the country. For example, the Act refers to animals straying on to other people’s land, but with fly-grazing we are concerned with animals placed deliberately on someone else’s land without their permission, which is a different matter altogether.
The Act allows animals to be sold at auction, but often the horses have little or no value, and it is commonplace for the owner to buy back the horse at a knock-down price, the horse having been micro-chipped by the person or the local authority responsible for the horse’s initial detention. Thus, the irresponsible horse owner who engages in fly-grazing at the expense of others receives the windfall of a fully vetted and legally compliant horse at little cost. The current law, therefore, has the effect of allowing the abusers of animals to benefit from their actions, leaving local authorities, farmers and taxpayers to pick up the bill.
Welfare charities have argued passionately for a mechanism whereby the horse being fly-grazed can either be rehomed or, in some circumstances, humanely destroyed. Sadly, World Horse Welfare says that rehoming centres are full of unwanted horses. It is therefore essential that the cycle of fly-grazing is brought to an end, before the number of unwanted horses grows out of control.
The loopholes in the current law must be closed, and this Bill will make several small but significant amendments to the 1971 Act in order to make it easier to tackle fly-grazing head on. The Bill gives local authorities and, since it was amended in Committee, landowners and occupiers in England the power to detain a horse on their land when they have a reasonable belief that the horse is there without lawful authority. It is worth noting that the provision can apply to both stray horses and ones deliberately placed there by irresponsible owners. The measure is similar to the powers available to local authorities in Wales under the Control of Horses (Wales) Act 2014, from which I received my inspiration for the Bill. After detaining a horse, the local authority or person must inform the local police within 24 hours of its right to detain the horse, as well as informing the horse owner if their identity is known. Once the police have been informed, the horse may be detained for a total of four working days from when it was first detained.
If after that time, the horse has not been claimed, the horse may be disposed of by selling it, arranging for it to be humanely destroyed or by gifting it to an animal welfare sanctuary. After four working days, the owner of the horse will no longer be able to claim it back, crucially breaking the cycle of abuse and neglect. Where a horse is sold and money is left over from the sale, any excess money, once the costs of looking after it have been deducted, can be claimed back by the owner.
As I have previously explained, it is essential that the Bill applies not just to public land but to private land and I am delighted that it has since been amended to include all land in England. It would be ridiculous for private land to become the unintended refuge for suffering and abandoned horses with landowners ill-equipped to alleviate the animals’ suffering.
It has been made clear that fly-grazing affects a great number of people in many ways and Members have given vivid examples on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report of how it affects their constituents and constituencies. In almost every case, an innocent, law-abiding person is either endangered or taken advantage of. It is my sincere hope that this will be the last winter in which abandoned horses are left outside in the cold without the protection of local authorities and private landowners acting in the animal’s best interest. I believe that the Bill will go a long way towards tackling the scourge of fly-grazing and I commend it to the House.
Mr Heath
I welcome the Bill and warmly congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), who has achieved two things that I have been unable to achieve. First, as a private Member he has steered a Bill to this stage in proceedings, something I have never achieved in 18 years in this House. If the Bill passes through the other place, he will also, as a private Member, have put in place legislation on antisocial behaviour which it is an open secret I would have liked to implement when I was a Home Office Minister. This is a signal victory for common sense in dealing with an issue that is a real problem in many of our constituencies.
I first came across the difficulty some years ago when a constituent came to see me in my advice surgery. She was in despair because she had horses on her land and there was absolutely nothing she could do to remove them—she had looked into it. She felt that the law was simply inadequate to meet her needs. Subsequently, I heard of many cases, particularly in the Frome area of my constituency and the parish of Selwood. I had a very valuable meeting with Selwood parish council, the members of which were very exercised by the issue. Anecdotally, I understand that one gentleman in my area owns up to 80 horses but no land. They are all grazed on other people’s land, and that is theft; it is antisocial behaviour, irresponsible and a dereliction of the duty of care for those horses. I think that the Bill will go some way towards rectifying the situation.
Of course, this is not just about rural areas, as the hon. Member for York Outer correctly says. It applies across the entire country and in some areas it seems to be a particular scourge. I remember having a very valuable meeting with the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who described the difficulties in his area and his feeling that something along the lines of this Bill would be helpful.
The hon. Member for York Outer has done a great service to many landowners around the country in introducing this legislation. Does it do everything that is required? No, of course it does not. It makes a contribution and certainly improves the situation in legislation, but there is still a significant issue that I have never found a way of successfully addressing: the question of strict liability on the part of the landowner for animals on their land. It seems completely wrong to me to have insult added to injury by not only having a horse one does not want on one’s land but being responsible for any actions of that horse and for its welfare. For somebody who does not want the animal, that is a preposterous position to be in, but that is perhaps for another day.
I hope, assuming that local authorities and police take it seriously and use the provisions within it, that the Bill will make it easier to secure the early removal of horses that are illegally grazing on land that is not in the ownership or possession of the owner of the horse. It will make it easier for horses to be removed even where it is difficult to know exactly who owns them, which is part of the problem. Such horses are often not chipped, so it is difficult to establish ownership, and that is one way in which people deliberately evade their responsibility.
The Bill is warmly to be welcomed and I hope that it will have a swift passage in the other place. If that is the case, as one hopes that it will be, the hon. Member for York Outer will have done a great service to many people around the country who are looking to this House to address what they see as a significant issue. He has done that, so well done.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on his success in the ballot—I think he came eighth, and he has done better than some who came higher up in piloting his Bill through to Third Reading. I thank him on behalf of my constituents on the western side of the Pennines; I thank him from Lancashire, as he represents a Yorkshire constituency. I recall one case in which a constituent found it necessary to complain and bring to my attention an apparently abandoned horse. The Bill will benefit not only horses but landowners.
Had the Bill not been amended in Committee, I would have found it more difficult to support. It could have led to a ridiculous situation in which private landowners found the problem increasing rather than decreasing, as it would have had the unintended consequence of making those who wanted to fly-graze or abandon their horse to do so on private rather than public land. The Bill would not have stopped them, so I am pleased that that quite obvious loophole was closed in Committee. I hope that the Bill will receive a fair wind in the other place and that there will be sufficient time for it to find its way on to the statute book before the Dissolution of Parliament.
Barry Gardiner
I, too, heartily congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy). This is an important Bill for many people in this country concerning a matter that needed to be tackled and required attention. The serious issue of horses illegally grazing has vexed many individuals and organisations for a long time and has been getting worse year by year. I hope that the passage of this Bill will ensure that those problems are brought to an end for many people.
Recently, the RSPCA, the Blue Cross, World Horse Welfare, HorseWorld, the British Horse Society and Redwings produced a damning report that has informed much of the thinking on this Bill. That report, “Left on the verge: In the grip of a horse crisis in England and Wales” catalogued appalling neglect and animal welfare abuses all over the country, including in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Although it is important to stress that there are many good horse and pony owners who behave responsibly, a minority do not care about animal welfare and frequently put the welfare of their horses and ponies at risk by dumping them on other people’s land, allowing damage and other dangers to occur as a result of their irresponsible actions.
There is no doubt that irresponsible breeding and a significant drop in the value of horses has provided an inauspicious context to the development of the fly-grazing problem. The issue is also not helped by the complexity of outdated legislation, which allowed unscrupulous owners to dance around the authorities and enforcement agencies, often at great expense to taxpayers.
The problem is also expensive; the RSPCA alone spends in the region of £2.95 million a year on horses that it has taken into care. That figure excludes the veterinary costs. Many of the animals illegally fly-grazed are still not cared for and often in very poor health. The Opposition are convinced that it is vital that the issue be dealt with—not just to help communities plagued by the problem, but because we need to tackle the welfare issues arising from the illegal activity, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
As an Opposition, we have for some time been calling on the Government to act on this issue and we are pleased that the Bill is making progress through its legislative stages. We also welcome the Government’s U-turn on the inclusion of private land; one can only speculate about why private land was not included from the start, but I acknowledge that the problem has been resolved and the Opposition are thankful for that.
We have been consistent in our approach to this legislation and have co-operated fully with the Government because we recognise its importance. We want the Bill to complete its Commons stages and progress to the other place—if it fails to reach the statute book, that will not be because we have stood in its way. However, if the Bill does fail, I assure the House that, if we form the next Government, we will be determined to introduce measures that ease the burden imposed on communities and local authorities by illegal fly-grazers. On that note, I shall conclude as I do not want to jeopardise the progress of this important Bill.
George Eustice
I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on getting his private Member’s Bill to this stage. I have been in the House for only five years, but I did have a private Member’s Bill in the first year of the Parliament. It was not successful, I am afraid; it did not even get its Second Reading, let alone progress to Committee, Report and Third Reading.
The Bill addresses a serious and growing problem. There is a charity called the Flicka Foundation in my constituency; it is a donkey sanctuary, which also looks after some ponies. Its representatives tell me that in recent years they have seen a huge increase in the number of abandoned donkeys and ponies that they are asked to re-home. Other equine charities say the same.
There are a number of key implications to the situation: the impact on the welfare of the ponies; the hazard on the roads—as my hon. Friend pointed out, accidents can be caused; and the huge burden on landowners unable to do anything about the abandoned ponies they have been left with. Sometimes, people game the system. People have abandoned their ponies on somebody’s land for up to 14 days and then, just before the order to seize the horse, they move it on to somebody else’s field and start the whole process again. As my hon. Friend said, there have even been instances of people abandoning their horses without a microchip and buying them back at auction after the landowner has been required by law to have them microchipped.
The problem is serious. My hon. Friend has championed the issue for many years; his first parliamentary debate on the matter was in 2012. A number of other hon. Members have also been consistent champions. The first time I debated the issue was in Westminster Hall in November 2013, a debate led by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot). I have received a great deal of correspondence from concerned colleagues on this issue.
Throughout the debate, there has been a suggestion that we should adopt an approach similar to that implemented in Wales in 2014. It is worth pointing out that there has always been a range of other legislative tools in the box. I will reflect on those, as I highlighted them in earlier debates. First, there is the Animals Act 1971, which this Bill seeks to amend. There is also the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Highways Act 1980, which deals with stray livestock. The new Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 could also be used in this area.
All that said, as the debate progressed, particularly after the 2013 Westminster Hall debate, we conceded that a number of important things had changed. First, the requirement to microchip horses had increased the costs and burdens on landowners who took remedial action when horses were abandoned on their land. Secondly, the original legislation restricted disposal methods to sale at auction. When the law was originally put in place in 1971, people could expect abandoned ponies to fetch reasonable prices at auction. That is not the case now. As the shadow Minister pointed out, there has been a period of irresponsible breeding of cob ponies, which have very little value so landowners are unable to recover their costs in auctions. We recognised that two important things had changed since the 1971 Act and that there was a gap that we should seek to address, borrowing elements from the approach adopted in Wales.
The Bill creates new options for disposal, including the ability to gift abandoned ponies and horses to charities; that is not possible under the existing legislation—first, they have to go through an auction process. For the worst cases, the Bill creates the possibility for euthanasia. Nobody wants that to happen, but welfare charities would point out that having a large number of ponies abandoned on verges and starving is not good from a welfare point of view. Sometimes in those cases, euthanasia can be the right approach.
The second and most important feature of the Bill is that it condenses the time scale of the detention period from 14 days to four working days. It also reduces the notice period from three days to 24 hours. When withdrawing his amendments, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire said that he hoped I would give further thought to his points, which he did not feel had been adequately covered. I owe it to him to have another go at persuading him that we do not need to change things as he suggested.
We think four working days a reasonable period for detention, and sufficient to enable people to report the situation to the police, because the animal welfare codes for looking after horses are clear: people should attend to their horses—checking that they are okay—at least once a day. If somebody has not reported a missing horse to the police within four days, that is a pretty good indicator that that horse is not being cared for correctly. In normal circumstances, we would expect somebody to realise within 24 hours that their pony had gone missing—escaped out of a field or jumped the hedge. They would then immediately report that to the police. Having a notice period of 24 hours and a detention period of four working days provides ample time for the situation to be picked up and for legitimate owners who have legitimately lost their horses to be protected.
Mr Arbuthnot
I accept my hon. Friend’s point, but if he thinks it is sufficient to give notice to the police, the Government ought to consider dropping the point that if the person detaining the horse knows the person to whom the horse belongs, notice should be given to that person as well. If notifying the police is sufficient, that subsection should be dropped.
George Eustice
We put the subsection there as an additional mechanism. I do not see a reason not to have it. If the person detaining the horse feels they know the owner, they can tell them directly and quickly, but that does not remove the requirement for them to tell the police in any event. The starting point is that if they decide to detain a horse, in any event they must notify the police. If they happen to know the owner of the horse, it is reasonable to put on them a due diligence requirement to notify the owner at the same time.
In Committee we broadened the scope of the Bill so that it covered detention of horses not just on public land, but on private land. As the hon. Member for York Outer pointed out, that is important. If the scope had been limited to public land, as is the case in Wales, there is a danger that the problem would merely be displaced to private land. If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing properly. The Animals Act 1971 deals with both public and private land and we concluded that it was essential that the Bill should be consistent with that Act and cover private land as well.
In conclusion, I am very pleased that my hon. Friend’s Bill has reached this stage. The Government fully support it and hope that we can get it through in this Session, before the break-up of Parliament, reassured that we have full support from the Opposition Benches and cross-party support. I wish the Bill a fair wind as it goes through proceedings in the other place.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Control of Offshore Wind Turbines Bill
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is the first opportunity I have had in my time in this place to introduce a balloted Bill as a private Member’s Bill. I was lucky enough to come 17th in the ballot and I took a punt on whether it was likely to find time to debate the issue if I put my Bill forward for this day. I am delighted that the stars have been so aligned that I have the opportunity to speak at greater length on the subject than I was able to do last year, when a similar Bill called the Control of Offshore Wind Turbines Bill 2013-14 had its Second Reading debate on 17 January. Unfortunately, on that occasion the debate started at 2.25 pm and lasted for only five minutes, although even during that short debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), the present Secretary of State for Defence, who was then the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, was able to say that he could not support the Bill.
In the hope that I will be able to persuade the Government of the merits of my Bill, I have expanded its scope slightly for this Session. I also have some heavyweight supporters—my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), and for South Dorset (Richard Drax), the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), for Poole (Mr Syms) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans)—a formidable collection. I am delighted to see my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for Shipley (Philip Davies) in the Chamber today.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether any of those right hon. and hon. Members have ever visited north Wales, where we have a £3 billion-plus economy based on offshore wind, which would be destroyed by his Bill?
Mr Chope
I am not sure that it would be destroyed by the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we had a debate about that in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago, and I heard then the case for north Wales. The point I put to him is that if that great development in north Wales is so good, why can it not be sustained without taxpayers’ subsidy?
Mr Hanson
The issue is not just the taxpayers’ subsidy. Clause 1(1) states:
“No wind turbine shall be constructed or erected within fifteen miles of the coast of England and Wales”.
Clause 1(3) states:
“No wind turbine shall be constructed . . . if it would form part of a group of wind turbines which totals more than one hundred”.
In my constituency area we depend on a large amount of investment, which would be destroyed by both aspects of clause 1.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is disappointing for me to hear that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) supports the Bill, which would be very damaging to East Yorkshire and my region, Hull. We have just attracted a £310 million joint investment from Siemens and Associated British Ports—an investment in my area which will transform the prospects for people in the city and the wider region. The Bill would clearly damage something that has not quite started yet.
Mr Chope
I hear the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but surely it is important that we should have an industrial policy which does not require indiscriminate taxpayer subsidy. What the hon. Gentleman describes is a situation where, because the Government are intent on the manic proposal to develop so many offshore wind farms, and because most of the technology is from overseas and almost all the profits from those wind farms go back overseas, the Government have decided that the only way they could try to mitigate the situation—and it is only a small amount of mitigation—would be by putting additional subsidies into supporting the manufacturing industry in places such as the hon. Gentleman’s area.
Karl Turner
Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not support his party’s manifesto, but that is a side issue. The issue for me is that in Hull, Siemens will manufacture wind turbines to be exported around the world. It is a fantastic opportunity for people to get into good quality employment in my area. It is terribly disappointing that the hon. Gentleman’s colleague who has a seat in the region is attacking that idea.
Mr Chope
The hon. Gentleman says that the wind turbines are to be exported around the world. In fact, we are being used as a test bed for developing offshore wind activity at a time when many other countries are reining back on it. Ironically, Denmark, from where much of the technology emanated and where there are already many offshore wind farms, has decided that enough is enough and it is not going to build any more, because of the ludicrous waste of taxpayers’ money in subsidising them. Similarly, Germany has decided to rein back on offshore wind. We are on our own in this. The hon. Gentleman is suffering from a delusion if he thinks the development in his constituency will be on the back of an enormous global export business. The Government have decided that in order to make a presentational case, they will subsidise the manufacture of the turbines in the United Kingdom.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Has my hon. Friend noticed the remarkable situation in that it was not long ago that the Labour party claimed to be the champion of low energy bills, yet now Labour Members in the Chamber are arguing vociferously for a form of energy that does more to put up energy bills than anything else? Has my hon. Friend noticed the great contradiction in the points made by Opposition Members?
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks about subsidy. Nuclear power, which I support, needs a subsidy, and we have security of supply, which is very important, as a result. Is he opposed to nuclear power on the same grounds?
Mr Chope
This Bill is about offshore wind turbines, and the subsidies going to those are twice as much as any subsidy going into the nuclear industry. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what was said in an article in The Economist on 4 January 2014:
“Unfortunately, offshore wind power is staggeringly expensive. Dieter Helm, an economist at Oxford University, describes it as ‘among the most expensive ways of marginally reducing carbon emissions known to man’. Under a subsidy system unveiled late in 2013, the government guarantees farms at sea £155…per megawatt hour for their juice. That is three times the current wholesale price of electricity and about 60% more than is promised to onshore turbines. It is also more than the £92.50 which Britain’s new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point will get—though that deal is for 35 years, not 15.”
That is the situation succinctly expressed, showing beyond doubt that the taxpayer subsidies going into offshore wind are obscene. The only people who support offshore wind are those whom I must describe as subsidy junkies.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
My constituents already face the extension of an existing wind farm, Scout Moor. Can my hon. Friend assure them that this Bill would not increase the pressure to have more onshore wind turbines? That would be a cause of great concern for my constituents, who are of course completely landlocked.
Mr Chope
I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the ironies of the situation is that because of pressure from people such as my hon. Friend and members of the public concerned about onshore wind turbines, the Government reduced the subsidies for onshore wind turbines, but in so doing chose to increase the subsidies for offshore wind turbines. I am sure he will be pleased to know that one of our hon. Friends is to have a Bill on the Order Paper to remove subsidies from onshore wind turbines as well, and that will have my support in due course. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
On that buoyant note, let me go on to describe the provisions of this Bill. As is implicit in the fact that support for it is largely centred on Members of Parliament in the area around Christchurch bay and Poole bay, a developer is intent on constructing there a wind farm that would be the largest in the world and would have an enormous environmental impact on the local community. It is a joint venture between Eneco Wind UK Ltd and EDF Energy Renewables. The developer wants to construct and operate what it calls Navitus Bay wind park, which would be bigger than any other wind farm currently in operation and the first to be proposed adjacent to a vibrant leisure economy, adjoining a coast of outstanding natural beauty, and bordering a world heritage site. It would comprise up to 194 industrial-scale 200-metre-tall wind turbines; each one would be 15% taller than the Spinnaker tower. They would dominate Poole bay, occupying 153 sq km—an area similar in size to Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole combined. At their nearest points, they would be 9.1 miles from Swanage, 10.9 miles from the Isle of Wight, and 13.3 miles from Bournemouth. The Government guidelines say that no wind turbine should be constructed offshore within a 12 nautical mile limit, and these proposals do not comply with that.
The wind farm is controversial and contentious. As evidence of that, the plans for the development have received almost 2,700 interested representations—the highest number for any proposed offshore wind farm that the Planning Inspectorate has handled. I have not been able to bring along the filing cabinet containing all the representations that I have received from outraged constituents, but I know that I am speaking not just for my constituents, but for those of my hon. Friends along the south coast, in expressing our concern and outrage at what is being planned.
Bournemouth borough council believes that the wind farm
“will cause serious harm to the intrinsic appeal and beauty of Poole Bay’s natural seascape. The industrialisation of our beautiful coastal setting will have an unprecedented and damaging effect on the local economy.”
Surveys carried out by the developer in 2012 and 2013 show that over 1 million visitors a year will stop coming to the area, taking more than £100 million of income from the local economy. As a result of taxpayer subsidy going into developments in Hull, the economy there may receive a temporary boost, but as a direct consequence, on the admission of the developer, there will be a loss of £100 million a year to the local economy, mainly the tourist economy, in the area that I have the privilege to represent. That loss of real spending in our area would negatively affect local businesses and potentially result in business failures, with an estimated loss of some 2,000 jobs. For that reason, the local councils have joined together to spend a lot of money on campaigning against this wind farm development.
I think it is a useful exercise to reinforce those concerns by introducing this Bill. Clause 1 covers the location and height of wind turbines. Subsection (1) says:
“No wind turbine shall be constructed or erected within fifteen miles of the coast”.
That is a necessary minimum requirement that has particular regard to the Government’s guidelines.
Subsection (2) says:
“No wind turbine shall be constructed or erected within twenty miles of the coast…to a height exceeding 100m as measured by the highest point of the turbine blade above sea level from the date of commencement of this Act.”
That means, in effect, that if there are going to be very tall wind turbines that will be more visible, they need to be situated further offshore than those that are not so tall. The article in The Economist referred to the situation in Edinburgh, where a wind turbine under construction was nudging 200 metres in height—and what a monstrosity it was. We are talking about not just one such turbine, but getting on for 200, off the coast of Dorset. Subsection (3) says:
“No wind turbine shall be constructed or erected off shore if it would form part of a group of wind turbines which totals more than one hundred and no group of wind turbines shall be constructed or erected off shore within fifteen miles of any other such group.”
That is designed to reduce the visual and other impacts of such developments, and to stop them appearing like an industrial landscape out at sea.
We now come to a very sensitive matter. Subsection (4) states:
“No wind turbine shall be constructed or erected offshore within twenty miles of any World Heritage site.”
I would have thought that that was a fundamental point and I am amazed and extremely disappointed that the Government have been so laid back in their response to UNESCO’s concerns about the impact of the Navitus Bay wind park on the world heritage site known as the Jurassic coast. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is supposed to be the guardian of the Jurassic coast. It is promoted as a great tourist centre and we are trying to attract visitors to admire the coast.
UNESCO says that the project’s potential impacts on the natural property of the Jurassic coast
“are in contradiction to the overarching principle of the World Heritage Convention as stipulated in its Article 4, as the completion of the Project would result in the property being presented and transmitted to future generations in a form that is significantly different from what was there at the time of inscription and until today. Specifically, the property will change from being located in a natural setting that is largely free from human-made structures to one where its setting is dominated by human-made structures.”
That is slightly flowery language, but what UNESCO is saying, in essence, is that putting 200 wind turbines so close the Jurassic coast would turn it from being a natural landscape into an industrial landscape. UNESCO wrote in its letter to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on 4 May 2014 that it wanted its comments to be taken into account in deciding whether the matter should even go to a public inquiry. Instead of responding to that request, DCMS Ministers simply shuffled off UNESCO’s representations to the public inquiry itself, which was a completely wrong-headed way of dealing with such major concerns.
There are a lot of examples around Europe and the rest of the world of UNESCO withdrawing world heritage status from sites that have been adversely affected by development. Only yesterday, a colleague from elsewhere in Europe drew my attention to the fact that, because of an insistence on building an unsightly bridge, part of the city of Dresden lost its world heritage status. We cannot be complacent. We need to look at the substance of the issue. Surely it does not make sense to build such monstrosities so close to a world heritage site, and that is what clause 1(4) covers. Subsection (5) sets out the way in which the
“distance between a wind turbine and the coast shall be measured”.
Clause 2 covers the operation of wind turbines and states:
“No wind turbine situated in or within five miles of an established area used by migrating birds shall be operated during the season for bird migration.”
This is a very big issue. Unlike perhaps the coast of north Wales, the coast of Dorset, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is frequented by migrating birds. It is extraordinary that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has not been more active in campaigning against the development, because it could have an enormous adverse impact on the migrating bird population.
In the summer months, almost all of the 4,500 nightjars in this country are located in and around New Forest and the Dorset heathland. People cannot develop within 400 metres of the heathland because their dogs or cats might attack the habitat of nightjars, Dartford warblers and so on. We are at great pains to protect the habitat of the nightjar on the Dorset heathlands, but when those nightjars wish to migrate in August they will have to go through a mass of enormous wind turbines extending to 200 metres in height. As their name suggests, nightjars travel at night and the impact of the turbines on their migratory pattern will be immense.
One of the main reasons there has been a significant decline in the number of migrating birds coming into the United Kingdom—this has been witnessed by lots of bird watchers—is the impact of wind turbines, not just off our shore, but off the shores of other countries through which those birds migrate during spring or autumn.
Mr Chope
Yes, the United States—the hon. Gentleman may not have heard of it. The material shows clearly the impact of wind farms on migrating birds. Obviously, given that these wind turbines are stuck out in the middle of the ocean, it is very difficult to show that so many birds have been killed by their rotating blades at night. We should, however, give the benefit of the doubt to the migrating birds, and one way of doing that would be to ensure that the wind turbines do not operate during the migrating season. That should not be a great burden, because whenever there is a patch of really cold weather, they do not operate anyway, so when we really need that energy and have high pressure, if there is no wind and the turbines do not rotate, they do not generate any electricity or make a contribution to the national grid. Clause 2, therefore, states that we should extend the non-operation of wind turbines to the period when birds migrate, rather than confine it to those times when there is no wind. If we were talking about just one or two wind turbines, it would be possible to argue that the birds can go round them, but we are talking about wind turbines that are close together and that each has a 200-metre wide reach—there is also vortex that they generate—and birds in their vicinity almost certain to fall foul of them and die as a result.
Mark Tami
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, certainly from the evidence I have seen, bird numbers as a whole are suffering as a result of pesticides and other pollutants? Many of them come from coal-fired power stations, of which, after getting rid of wind turbines, he would no doubt want to see more?
Mr Chope
I am a great bird lover, and I do not want any decline in the bird population, but we are talking about particular species that migrate to the south of England after travelling hundreds of miles. We already have restricted numbers of them, and certain species of migrating birds will probably be in effect wiped out at a time when we are saying that we want to look after heathland habitats, which I support.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is pursuing an interesting line of inquiry. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), may I ask what data the hon. Gentleman has about the impact of catastrophic climate change on migrating bird numbers and patterns?
Mr Chope
I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by “catastrophic climate change”. The Chinese have said that they will continue to increase their carbon emissions until at least 2030. If we are trying to counter that by putting our migrating bird population into such jeopardy, we have a completely distorted sense of priorities.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman must know only too well that the Chinese have in fact said that their emissions will peak no later than 2030, with the expectation that they may well peak earlier. In relation to the carbon footprint of China, they are operating at a far lower per capita level than we are.
Mr Chope
All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I am sure that that will be a great consolation to the bird population. We in our country are responsible for less than 2% of global emissions, and the idea that we have to invest—if that is the right use of the word—or put subsidies into the most uneconomic form of renewable energy seems to me to be absolutely senseless. We do not have to do that; we could invest more in nuclear power or other renewables that do not have such an adverse impact on migrating birds.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is talking eloquently about the effect of wind turbines on the bird population. One thing missing from his Bill, which he may seek to correct at some point, is the impact of wind turbines on aviation, and particularly on radar. Is he aware of the aviation industry’s concerns?
Mr Chope
I am aware of that, not least because Bournemouth international airport is in my constituency. One irony in relation to the developers’ proposals is that such issues have been left to bilateral discussions after the public inquiry, with people being told, “Oh, don’t worry about that. We’ll sort that out between ourselves and the airport after the inquiry.” Our hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), a private pilot, is concerned about the strong vortex that wind turbines can generate and its impact on those engaged in private recreational aviation. We know that if wind turbines are more than 100 metres high, they must be illuminated so that they can be seen from aircraft, which makes them look even more unsightly on the horizon. That is an issue, as the developers accept, but instead of being dealt with in a public inquiry, it is being kicked into touch to be dealt with later, which is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
Clause 3 covers the length, location and environmental impact of the connecting cables. One would have thought that the cables from an offshore wind farm would be connected to the national grid at the closest possible point on the shore, thereby minimising the need for disruption on land. In my representation 1713 to the Navitus Bay wind park inquiry, dated 19 June 2014, I referred to such an impact, among others:
“The off shore cables should be connected to the national grid at the closest point to the sea which is Fawley Power Station. This would avoid the need for twenty two miles of connecting cables over ground across sensitive habitats.”
Members of Hurn parish council, particularly Councillor Margaret Phipps, have produced a really compelling case against laying the cables across Hurn forest, which includes an area of special scientific interest. They are concerned that there is an unnecessary additional adverse impact on the environment just from the cabling. There is no reason why the developers should not link up to the national grid at Fawley power station if they so wish. The Bill would require them to do so, rather than to create further adverse environmental impacts with cables crossing the New Forest national park, areas of special scientific interest and special areas of conservation.
Under clause 3, rather than having cables in cut-and-cover connections or left on the surface, cables would be placed in a tunnel under the ground. The main pipelines from the on-land oil development at Wytch Farm in Dorset were put underground, which minimised the impact on nature and the environment. Clause 4 is about subsidies.
The Bill is not confined to the Navitus Bay wind park development, but it would ensure that such an obscenity could not be proposed again, with all the uncertainty and opposition that such developments generate among local people. Surely we are mad as a country to invest tens of millions of pounds in subsidising a development that will have an adverse impact on one world heritage site at the same time as we are quite rightly proposing to protect another, Stonehenge, by building an enormous tunnel nearby to reduce the impact on it. We are prepared to put subsidies into saving one world heritage site, while at the same time using taxpayer subsidies to wreck another. That seems mad to me, and I am sorry if it is Government policy—I fear that it is not so much Government policy as Liberal Democrat policy.
Last week I said that the Bills I was promoting were in a sense a contribution to the development of the Conservative party manifesto. If Ministers are not free to adopt the Bill today because of the constraints of coalition with the Liberal Democrats, I hope that they will be free to do so when we have a majority Conservative Government after 7 May.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I intended to participate in the debate on the next Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), but he has so enlivened the debate on this Bill that I feel it offers me an opportunity to put on the record the fact that his view is not universally shared among Members of the House. I take the view—as, I am sure, does my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—that offshore and onshore wind energy plays a valuable role in helping us meet our environmental targets in energy production. It is also key to the future of manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this matter on a number of occasions. He will know that my part of the world in north Wales is a significant contributor to the UK offshore wind economy. Over many years the former Labour Government, and indeed the current Government, were supportive of the development of offshore wind energy in my constituency and its adjacent areas. I recognise that the Bill is not retrospective, but it is important that we recognise the contribution made by the wind farm and energy industry in places such as north Wales in meeting our carbon commitments, and in stimulating and creating jobs and employment in an area such as mine, which was reliant on the coal industry but now has an alternative energy source that is second to none.
The hon. Gentleman’s list of supporters did not include anybody from north Wales, but Burbo Bank on the north Wales and Liverpool bay coast is a significant contributor to the industry, as is the Gwynt y Môr offshore wind farm and—I do not think you are related, Mr Deputy Speaker—the North Hoyle development off north Wales and Liverpool bay. All those developments are between four and eight miles off the north Wales, Wirral and Liverpool bay coast, and they would not have been approved if clause 1(1) of the Bill had been enacted. The Gwynt y Môr wind farm and other large developments would not have been permitted if clause 1(3) had been enacted, because that prevents the development of a group of wind turbines from numbering more than 100.
The Gwynt y Môr wind farm off the coast of my constituency will comprise 160 turbines although it currently has around 80. In due course it will provide enough energy to meet the needs of 400,000 homes. That project is worth £2 billion. Let me say that again: £2 billion for that one wind farm project. I think that we could and should be—and indeed are—world leaders in offshore wind, and £2 billion for that one offshore site at Gwynt y Môr is valuable investment that helps generate the energy needed for 400,000 homes. Had the Bill been enacted, that development would not have been allowed to progress. There are many examples off the coast of East Anglia, Scotland, north-west England and north Wales where there is potential for further development. If this Bill is enacted, that will not happen.
In 2007 under the Labour Government, 27 nations in Europe agreed to a legally binding target of 20% of all energy to be supplied by renewable sources by 2020. How does the hon. Gentleman think that will be done if we put a stop to offshore wind?
Importantly, I considered a moment ago the knock-on effects of this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) said that Siemens has announced that it wants to build an onshore wind development of offshore blades in the great city of Hull, and that is investment in manufacturing industry. At the moment, the hon. Gentleman will know that much of the technology and hard core infrastructure is imported from Scandinavian countries and elsewhere in Europe, but we now have a manufacturing opportunity in the city of Hull—indeed, I am surprised that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) has sponsored the Bill.
In my constituency, Vestas is working out of Mostyn docks and providing support for new offshore turbines. It is manufacturing those turbines on the Isle of Wight—not un-adjacent to the area represented by the hon. Member for Christchurch. Is he saying that the manufacturing industry on the Isle of Wight should cease because of his ill-thought-out proposals for the future?
I do not wish to delay the House, but although the hon. Gentleman’s view is legitimate, it is not the sole view on this issue. There is real scope to develop offshore wind, and it contributes to our energy needs and supports manufacturing industry. It has also regenerated places such as Mostyn docks in my constituency, which would not exist in their current state were it not for the relationship between the offshore wind industry and employment onshore.
In my view the Bill should be withdrawn—let us not say rejected—and given greater thought. I hope the hon. Gentleman does that so that we can get on to the other matters that I originally intended to discuss.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I do not intend to delay the House for long, but I want to put on record my support for this Bill. I hope that all constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) have seen him in action today—I am sure they regularly watch the Parliament channel—and seen how effectively he represents their interests in Parliament. His speech, as ever, was a master class, and shows how lucky the people of Christchurch are to have him batting for them on this issue and many others.
Not many constituencies in the country are more landlocked than Shipley—that is one reason why I will not detain the House for long. We are about as far from the coast as one can get, so the problems that my hon. Friend describes are not ones that people in Shipley will easily recognise unless they have a particularly powerful pair of binoculars. We can sympathise, however, because we have the problem and blot on the landscape of onshore wind farms. It seems to me that if an onshore wind farm is a blot on the landscape locally, an offshore wind farm will equally be one for people who live on the coast. The two issues are connected.
Apart from representing the interests of his constituents, my hon. Friend has also shone a rather useful light on the muddled thinking of the Labour party. Two or three years ago Labour Members made big play at their party conference of the problem of energy prices—[Interruption.] I notice the deputy Chief Whip busily taking notes on the Front Bench, and I am not sure whether I will get another black mark in his book by saying this, but I think the Leader of the Opposition hit on a good point. Many of my constituents are very concerned about the price of energy. We very much welcome the reductions we have seen in recent weeks. They would not have happened if Labour party policy had been implemented, but that is by the by. The Leader of the Opposition was absolutely right to draw attention to, and shine a light on, the problem of energy prices.
It is, however, bizarre that the party that makes a big thing about how problematic energy prices are to their constituents then decides to pursue a policy that can lead to only one outcome—even higher energy prices—by trying to cover the countryside and offshore with as many wind farms as possible. We all know that wind energy is the most inefficient and most expensive form of energy, so why on earth would a party that is so bothered about energy prices want to add as much of that energy as possible when it will only to add to prices?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am heartened to hear of the hon. Gentleman’s support for Labour’s price freeze, which I will pass on to the Leader of the Opposition. In all seriousness, does he not see the benefits of protecting his constituents from the volatility of fossil fuel prices? I am sure he is an avid follower of the work of the Energy and Climate Change Committee. It has modelled what it believes to be a lower bill scenario through a transition to a low-carbon economy and low-carbon generation.
Philip Davies
On a point of clarity, I did not say at all that I support Labour party policy on freezing energy prices. I just made it clear that, if we had followed that policy, we would not have had any of the reductions in energy prices that we are seeing at the moment. I am for low energy prices: I want them frozen at a lower level. The Labour party wants to freeze them at a high rate, which seems to me to be a nonsensical policy.
I do not want to get sidetracked. The fact of the matter—the hon. Gentleman could not deny it in his intervention—is that his party’s policy will lead to higher energy prices by supporting a huge expansion of wind energy. My constituency is landlocked, but it will be my constituents, just as much as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who will be paying the price for extensive offshore wind farm developments. That is where my interest lies. I want my constituents to be able to have access to the cheapest energy. I do not want them to have access to the greenest energy, irrespective of the cost.
The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), speaking on behalf of the north Wales economy, rather led with his chin when he mentioned how wonderful offshore wind farms are for manufacturing industry. There is a lot of manufacturing industry in my constituency. I am delighted that, under this Government, manufacturing is thriving again, unlike under the previous Government, but the one thing manufacturing is most concerned about is high energy bills. The fact is that wind energy does not help manufacturing industry. All it does is make it even more uncompetitive against businesses in China and America, which benefit from much cheaper energy bills. The extension of wind energy that the right hon. Gentleman wants to see is not helping manufacturing industry in this country; it is the death knell for manufacturing industry in this country. That is why it is so important that we stop this ridiculous expansion of wind energy.
I have a concern about my hon. Friend’s Bill. I might add that if clause 4, on subsidies, was passed it would make the rest of the Bill redundant. If subsidies were taken away from the offshore wind industry, all the measures on planning would be redundant because nobody would want to start a wind farm offshore. Clause 4 is therefore by far the most important clause, because we want to stop the subsidies to stop the higher energy bills for our constituents.
If my hon. Friend’s Bill goes through, I would not want to see an extension of onshore wind, which is just as nonsensical and has a big impact on my constituency. I am very pleased that I helped to object to the latest wind farm development in Denholme in my constituency. Clause 1(4) states:
“No wind turbine shall be constructed or erected offshore within twenty miles of any World Heritage site.”
I just wondered whether my hon. Friend thought it would be far better if it said that “No wind turbine shall be constructed or erected within 20 miles of any world heritage site anywhere.” My constituency has a world heritage site, Saltaire, which is well worth a visit for anybody who has not been. It is a marvellous tourist attraction. It was set up by Sir Titus Salt, a great industrial philanthropist. If no wind turbines were allowed within 20 miles of any world heritage site, it would neatly make sure that there could not be any wind turbines in my constituency at all. That would go down very well with me and with my constituents. What I do not really understand is why my hon. Friend thinks there should be no wind turbines within 20 miles of his constituency’s world heritage site, but that there should be within 20 miles of my constituency’s world heritage site. I hope that that is an anomaly that can be corrected at some future point. I would not want to see, as an unintended consequence of the Bill, more onshore wind farms.
I am against expensive forms of energy that add unnecessarily to the bills of my constituents. The Labour party’s vocal support for wind energy is bizarre. It is, in effect, taking money off poor householders, through their energy bills, and giving it, through huge subsidies, as the party has made clear throughout, to massive corporations and landowners. I have no idea under which part of Labour party socialist thinking that kind of redistribution of wealth was ever envisaged. I always thought that the premise of socialism was to take money from rich people and give it to poor people. The Labour party has stumbled on a policy that is all about taking money from poor people and giving it to big multinational corporations—no wonder it is leaking votes to UKIP at a record rate with that kind of muddled thinking.
I support my hon. Friend’s Bill. My constituents in Shipley, although landlocked and therefore not facing the problems of offshore wind farms, can sympathise, given their own experience of onshore wind turbines, with the issues he has brought before the House today.
I will end where I started by saying I very much hope all of his constituents have seen his speech today, because they can be sure that they are incredibly well represented by him in Parliament.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for bringing forward the Bill, as it gives us the opportunity to discuss what I believe are the erroneous views on offshore wind energy that it seems are held by a significant number of Conservative MPs.
As I begin my remarks, I thought it might be useful to the House to place on record the contribution that wind energy is making as the debate takes place. I have the figures with me here. As we conduct the debate, wind energy is currently providing 8.5% of the UK’s energy generation mix. In the past 24 hours, it has provided just under 13% of the UK’s new domestic generation. As so much onshore wind is embedded in the regional networks, a substantial part of that will come from offshore wind generation.
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has a consistent record on this area of policy. He was one of just five Members who voted against the UK’s world-leading Climate Change Act 2008. As a result, I am not sure that we will find many areas of agreement on the specifics of the Bill, but I give credit to the hon. Gentleman in one regard: his Bill is, at least, brief. In little more than one page, he seeks to annihilate the UK’s world-leading offshore industry in its entirety—an industry with approximately 5 GW of capacity in operation or construction, with a further 3.2 GW awarded under early contracts for difference. The industry directly employs nearly 7,000 people and many more in its supply chain. It is fantastic to see in the Chamber today representatives from east Hull and from Delyn who have been able to articulate the benefits that the industry brings to their areas.
The hon. Member for Christchurch is a strong supporter of nuclear power, as am I. Labour supports the construction of new nuclear power stations at Hinkley and elsewhere. Where the hon. Gentleman and, I am afraid, too many of his Conservative colleagues get it so badly wrong is that they do not appreciate or understand the need for an energy mix. That means new nuclear, carbon capture and storage technology and, fundamentally, renewables such as onshore and offshore wind as well as solar, wave and tidal. That is what we mean by a mix. We cannot meet our carbon reduction commitments or avert catastrophic climate change unless we follow the route to such a mix.
The Bill, if brought into law, would kill the UK’s offshore wind industry. That, on the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, is the Bill’s aim. As he has described, it would mandate that no offshore wind turbine could be situated within 15 miles of the shore or 20 miles for turbines exceeding 100 metres in height. For good measure, the fourth part of the Bill would strip offshore wind of any financial support, as is currently provided under the renewables obligation or contracts for difference. What does not come across from hon. Members who take this view is an appreciation that some form of subsidy is involved in nearly every form of new regeneration in the UK.
Opposition Members agree that, as with all clean energy technologies, the costs of offshore wind must continue to fall. The way to generate the clean energy we need at a price that consumers can afford is not by completely killing the offshore wind industry. It is by fostering innovation, economies of scale and crowding in investment.
Labour is committed to setting a 2030 power sector decarbonisation target—something that the industry has called for—in order to provide the long-term certainty that it needs. In that regard, the Bill is entirely contradictory. One of its clauses is, as we have heard, to limit the maximum height of wind turbines, yet the new generation of more efficient turbines coming on stream has been designed to maximise the energy yield in deeper waters. These turbines, such as the latest products from Vestas and Siemens, will certainly exceed the 100 metre height, with blades perhaps 75 to 80 metres long. These taller, more efficient turbines will help to drive down cost reduction, not to mention the benefit to the UK’s manufacturing investment. The Bill is pursuing two contradictory objectives in those two clauses.
I understand that the hon. Member for Christchurch was one of more than 100 Conservative MPs who wrote to the Prime Minister, demanding that the Government withdraw support for the UK’s onshore wind industry as well. In that regard, they were successful. The Conservatives have now proposed an effective moratorium for onshore wind, which is, of course, the cheapest large-scale form of renewable energy. Indeed, between June 2013 and September 2014, the Communities Secretary intervened in 50 onshore wind applications—projects that could have powered more than 250,000 homes.
Those Conservative Members thus appear to have been successful on that score. Clearly, the Conservative party does not like onshore wind. They also appear not to like solar power, which they have sought to suffocate through endless consultations. The Environment Secretary has managed to extract further cuts by insinuating that solar power was a threat to the security of our supply of apples! Now, almost inevitably, the Conservatives have turned their fire towards offshore wind. The Conservatives do not like onshore wind; they do not like solar; they do not like offshore wind. The question for us today, then, is whether there are any clean energy technologies that they do support.
Thankfully, the Conservatives’ irrational dislike of clean energy is not supported in public opinion. According to their very own figures, the Department of Energy and Climate Change has noted that 74% of people support offshore wind, two thirds support onshore wind and a whopping 80% support further solar development. The hostility to green energy runs counter not only to our energy security needs, but to public opinion.
One colleague who joined the hon. Member for Christchurch in the lonely No Lobby during the vote on the historic Climate Change Act 2008 was, of course, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), who made a final, desperate point of order just before the House divided. Although the House was passing the Climate Change Bill that evening—based, he said, on the supposition that the climate was getting warmer—he pointed out that it was snowing outside, even though it was October.
This is not a debate about climate change, and nor would I wish unfairly to associate the words of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden with those of the Member for Christchurch, but I think we can all agree that climate is different from weather. If we cannot, there is very little point in discussing the intricacies of how far turbines should be from land or what the right strike price is for offshore wind, nuclear or anything else.
The fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provided overwhelming and compelling scientific evidence that climate change is real, that it is caused by human activity and that it will have disastrous consequences if urgent action is not taken to cut our carbon emissions and invest in mitigation.
I am always willing to have a debate about offshore wind, about how we can get investment up and bring costs down. However, no debate centred on a Bill that would implement a de facto ban on offshore wind could, I think, be considered a serious one. Labour is focusing on how we can best navigate the energy trilemma that all economies face. Instead of a tax on clean energy, Labour is providing—through widely supported policies such as our 2030 power sector decarbonisation target—the certainty that is needed if we are to attract investment and bring costs down. Clean energy is crucial to our energy security. Labour is focusing on helping our clean energy industry to succeed, and ensuring that United Kingdom consumers are given a fair deal in respect of their secure, clean energy.
The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)
It is a great pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on what is not his first and surely will not be his last private Member’s Bill. I know that he has a long-standing interest in seeking to ensure that the United Kingdom has secure and economic energy, an aim that the Government fully support. However, having listened to the debate, I am not sure that I shall be able wholly to satisfy his demands.
The Government will oppose the Bill because of the impact that it would have on our policy of supporting appropriately sited offshore wind. Given that the vast majority of proposed offshore wind farms that could be built between now and 2020, and beyond, are either wholly or partially located within 20 miles of the coast, that impact would be wide ranging. In particular, there would be an impact on the agreed planning process for offshore wind farm projects—as Members will know, decisions about the impact of offshore wind are a matter for the planners—and a potential impact on our legally binding 2020 renewable energy target and longer-term decarbonisation targets.
I am aware that my hon. Friend has expressed concern about a proposed offshore wind farm which, if it went ahead, would be built close to his constituency. However, a decision about that project is still some way off. The consent application is still being examined by the Planning Inspectorate, which will ultimately make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that it would not be appropriate for me to go into the details of that particular application, but I can say one thing to him. He said that UNESCO’s comments about the application were going to the Planning Inspectorate. That is exactly where they should be going, because the inspectorate can then take them into account in the report to the Secretary of State.
Mr Chope
May I press my right hon. Friend a little on the timing? The inspectorate has said that it will allow until 4 March for the receipt of further representations. Does that mean that it will not be possible for it to provide a recommendation, and for the Government to respond to that recommendation, before we enter the period of purdah, and does that, in turn, mean that this will be a live issue during the general election campaign?
Matthew Hancock
It is normal for the inspectorate, once it has received all the documentation and representations, to take some time to consider them, and then for the Secretary of State to take some time to consider the application. Given that there are only 26 days between the date that he mentioned and the expected date of the start of purdah—the end of March—it would be a rapid turnaround if the process were completed before the start of purdah, although I cannot rule out the possibility. If I can give any firmer information after looking into the matter in detail, I will write to my hon. Friend.
The Bill is not only about that constituency case, but about the broader impact of a change in the rules governing offshore wind. The House will know that the UK is blessed with a number of advantages for offshore wind. We have relatively shallow seas, we are a very windy country, and the wind is even more pronounced offshore, and it makes sense to seek to take advantage of this resource. We are the clear world leader in offshore wind, in terms of both installed capacity and investment. We worked hard and were proud to secure the investment of Siemens near Hull, which is an issue that I worked on, as did my predecessor as Minister of State at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon). Many others across the Government worked hard to bring that investment to Hull, too.
Karl Turner
This Bill could cause real damage to the prospect of creating much needed jobs in my constituency. Members of Parliament in Hull and the local authority worked very hard together for a very long time, and for a Member of this House from east Yorkshire to support this Bill, which I have described as a silly Bill, is actually pretty dangerous.
Matthew Hancock
The hon. Gentleman is getting a little ahead of himself. The Government’s support for the project at Siemens is rock-solid. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), sitting on the Front Bench next to me now, worked on the project securing the road investment that is critical to unlocking it.
Offshore wind is producing enough energy to provide the annual electricity requirements of about 2.8 million homes. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) read out the proportion, which people can easily read off their Energy UK app on their smartphone, and it is typically between 10% and 15% of the energy requirements of the UK. Then there are the jobs that are supported in the supply chain, although we should be direct about the reasons for supporting renewable energy.
To respond to a point made from the Opposition Front Bench, we are strong supporters of solar energy, especially as it closes in on being grid-comparable. There is a big opportunity for solar, not least because 1 million people now live in homes with solar panels on the roof. One of the exciting moments for the improvement in the mix of energy in the UK will be when solar becomes grid-comparable without subsidy, and it suddenly becomes cost effective without the involvement of the Government for millions more to put solar panels on their roofs.
We always knew that the early offshore wind projects would cost more. The costs are now coming down, and we have tried to put in place a system that promotes certainty, but we are deeply mindful of the need to protect consumers, and ultimately the long-term goal is for low-carbon technologies to compete on price with other forms of generation.
I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) says, and certainly with a lot of what he said today, such as when he pointed out the utter inconsistency of the Opposition Front-Bench position, arguing without any caveat for renewables and without concern for the fact that there is a subsidy. We have introduced a cap on that subsidy through the levy control framework, and made sure that the subsidy that is available is auctioned and provided through a market process. In that way we get the best possible bang for the buck from the subsidy, instead of just laying it on without limit.
My hon. Friend also pointed to the utter inconsistency of calling for urgent action on a price freeze and then complaining that prices are not falling fast enough, when prices for consumers would be £100 higher if the Opposition had had their way a year and a half ago when they called for an immediate energy price freeze. Their squirming and wriggling this week, trying to say that in fact their policy was only ever a cap, while launching it next to an enormous block of ice, shows just how ridiculous and absurd it was in the first place. It has now been thoroughly exposed and we will relish the opportunity over the next three and a half months to point out to anybody who cares to listen that if someone calls for an energy price freeze and when energy prices start to fall complains that they are not falling fast enough, they do not have a shred of credibility left.
Matthew Hancock
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will explain whether he is in favour of an energy price freeze.
Jonathan Reynolds
I do not believe that the Minister is as silly as his remarks might suggest. I think he is perfectly aware that it was always intended to be a freeze on rising prices, with the potential to deal with a fall. He has been gracious in letting me intervene on him, so may I ask him a specific question? He said that we were in favour of decarbonised electricity generation without having regard for the impact on consumers. It is the Conservative party, however, that is proposing a ban on onshore wind development, which is the cheapest form of renewable energy. If he is to stick to the legally binding commitments that this country already has, how will he square his lack of support for the onshore wind industry with his concern for consumers?
Matthew Hancock
We argued successfully in Europe for a decarbonisation target for 2030, to ensure that we could decarbonise at the lowest possible cost. The cheapest way to decarbonise our economy is to make it more efficient. That cuts not only carbon but bills, which is what the public are looking for. They want a policy that allows us to tackle the long-term threat of the risk of climate change at the lowest possible cost while providing certainty for investors.
The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated the pickle that the Opposition are in by his use of convoluted language, which differed from that of other Opposition Front Benchers who this week tried to argue that they had always been in favour of a cap. Well, there was no mention of a cap in the motion that they put before Parliament six months ago when they called for a freeze on energy prices. That freeze has been exposed as an utter joke.
Matthew Hancock
I will certainly give way, if the hon. Gentleman will come to the Dispatch Box and accept that the Opposition called for a freeze and that prices would have been higher now if we had listened to their proposal.
Jonathan Reynolds
The Minister is trying to dodge his previous statement by making points about efficiency, which he knows I agree with—hence our ambition for a much more successful energy efficiency policy than the one his Government have pursued, which has been in most aspects an outright disaster. I say to him again that he is talking about decarbonising at the lowest possible cost while simultaneously ruling out the most cost-effective form of renewable electricity generation. How does he square those two objectives?
Matthew Hancock
The focus is on decarbonisation, and renewables are one part of decarbonisation. We also need to look at low carbon emission energy, of which nuclear is an important part—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Will the Minister pause for a moment? I am sure that he and the Opposition spokesman will accept that the argument that is going on between them, in which other Members are not taking part, is not completely essential to debate on the Control of Offshore Wind Turbines Bill. A general discussion on energy policy is perfectly acceptable, and I have let their argument continue this far, but I am sure that the Minister would not wish to stray much further from the subject of wind turbines.
Matthew Hancock
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On exactly that subject of offshore wind turbines, which we were discussing—broadly—it is important to ensure that those turbines are part of the mix, but in a way that takes consumer costs into account. One of the reasons that we have introduced the contracts for difference is to ensure that the subsidy for offshore wind turbines gives the best possible value for money.
I have already mentioned a number of the benefits of offshore wind, but we must also take into account the wider economic benefit across the UK. The Siemens project near Hull is creating 1,000 direct jobs. The decision to locate the project there was based largely on the expected size of the UK market. Indeed, we have an industrial strategy for offshore wind because of the ability to take advantage of global offshore wind as a world leader in the supply chain. UK Trade & Investment is heavily engaged in enhancing our offshore wind capability, and leading offshore wind suppliers in Germany and Denmark have been attracted to the UK, making investments in Teesside, for instance. Many other UK businesses are also engaged.
The Bill would also have an impact on the planning process and the consideration of applications for development consent for offshore wind farms. In high-level terms, the planning system has been designed to ensure that wind farms are built only where the impacts, including visual impacts, are acceptable on the basis of a thorough consideration of the benefits and impacts of the proposed schemes. The system requires wide-ranging consultation, and it is important that judgments on the acceptability or otherwise of particular projects are made on a case-by-case basis, not on the basis of a one-size-fits-all approach. The appropriateness of the height, location, number and operation of turbines is already considered on a case-by-case basis against the criteria set out in the national policy statements, and statutory restrictions on these factors would be inconsistent with the process described in the national policy statements. The Bill would also regulate the length, location and environmental impact of cables relating to the turbines and offshore wind farms within its purview. Those aspects are also covered by the planning process, and it is our position that it would be inappropriate to set restrictions that are inconsistent with that planning process.
Therefore, the Government remain committed to offshore wind, not unconditionally at any cost, but because it is an important part of the energy mix. Our policies have been specifically designed to achieve that. The potential benefits to the nation are significant and are beginning to materialise. We believe, therefore, that the policies we have in place are working and that the Bill would risk that and should be opposed.
Mr Chope
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me, in summing up this debate, thank everybody who has participated. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) has given me cause to wonder whether on the next occasion I bring forward this Bill it should apply just to England. That might remove one of the big objections.
Mr Chope
He is shaking his head, but I thought one of his big objections was that the Bill did not take account of the special situation in north Wales.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for his generous comments and for his support. As has been pointed out, he and I were two of the five people who voted on Third Reading against the Bill that became the Climate Change Act 2008. I am sure we have no regrets about having taken that decision. Indeed, a lot of our colleagues who were in the House at the time come to us every now and again to say, “I wish I had been with you in the Lobby.” The more that time passes, and the greater the subsidies and the implications for the British taxpayer and energy user, the more that people realise that that Act was a very extreme measure. It is probably totally inconsistent with our long-term economic interests. The Minister is looking at me straight in the eye, and I hope that, in due course, when we have a real Conservative Government, we will take another look at whether or not it did set an example to the rest of the world and cause them to reduce their global CO2 emissions in the way we thought it would. I think that wearing the hair shirt we have potentially done more damage to our own manufacturing industry and our own economy, and benefited those in other countries who are less principled. I continue to be concerned about that Act.
On jobs, my right hon. Friend the Minister rightly says that because of the industrial policy, Siemens has come here with its technology. It has not transferred the technology; it has come here and is making money from offshore wind turbines. Let us not forget, however, that the projected impact in just the Christchurch bay area is the loss of some 2,000-plus jobs from the tourism industry as a direct result of putting up wind turbines, which we are subsidising. So let us keep those jobs in the equation before we say that any jobs generated as a result of turbine manufacture must be a good thing. Let us keep some perspective on that. It has been said that the Bill would effectively close down the industry, but it would not do so, as the industry should be able to develop wind turbines of more than 100 metres in height in deep water beyond the 20-mile limit. That may be available in the future, so the Bill is not quite as restrictive as some claim.
I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley made that just dealing with offshore wind turbines does not address the whole issue. Perhaps next time I will come back with a Bill that covers both onshore and offshore wind turbines.
We heard in the last debate on the control of horses that trying to get the Government to change their mind is an iterative process. Sometimes one cannot do it in one Session, and obviously I have failed so to do this time. But when the Minister comes back after the next general election, hopefully as a Secretary of State in a purely Conservative Government, I hope that he will be more sympathetic to the revised Bill that I hope to bring forward in that first Session.
In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.
Asylum (Time Limit) Bill
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I just wondered where the three-month time limit came from. I am pretty sure that many constituents would say, “Why should it be three months?” Three days is more than enough. Surely it should be on the day that they arrive. Why should we be so tolerant as to give people three months to decide that they are fleeing persecution? Surely they must know that the moment they arrive in the United Kingdom.
Mr Chope
I am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s point, but I am trying to propose a Bill that will get the support of the Government and I thought that nobody could argue that three months was not a more than reasonable time. His point is that three months is a more than reasonable time in which to decide to apply for asylum, which is why I hope that he can accept the Bill.
Once the Bill is on the statute book, the limits could be tightened further but in the first instance we must alert all those people who are already in the country and who are here illegally—we know that there could be between 500,000 and 1 million of those people at least—that if they wish to claim asylum they have three months in which to do so. That would be a reasonable time during which the word could spread on the street that if they were going to make an asylum application, they would have to get it in before the given date. Having decided that we would give a reasonable period of time to people who are already here, it seemed to me that to fit in with that I should say that the same three-month limit should apply to people who arrived after the Bill became law. That was my thinking, but I am prepared to accept the implied criticism from my hon. Friend that I have been far too reasonable and understanding on this point.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of being far too reasonable or understanding. I ask him to accept that many people who come to this country seeking asylum are severely traumatised and have often experienced torture. Many of them do not speak the language. That is a very good reason why he should not seek to tighten the limits in the way proposed by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Many people are afraid of approaching the authorities because of the experiences they have had in their homeland. That trauma is deep and real and needs to be taken seriously by this House.
Mr Chope
The hon. Gentleman is now shaking his head, so I do not know whether I can expect his support.
If somebody comes here who is heavily traumatised, there must come a time within which they must face up to whether they wish to claim asylum rather than waiting months or years before doing so. Quite often, people who have not suffered trauma come here and when the authorities catch up with them and realise that they are illegal migrants coming across as economic migrants, they try to buy time by falsely claiming asylum.
Mr Chope
I am pleased to see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that point.
This is a small issue, but if we put this measure on the statute book, it would generate support from the public and send out a clear message to people who wish to seek asylum and help from our country that they should do so in a timely fashion.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to another debate from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). The Opposition recognise strongly that Britain has a proud history of offering asylum to some of the poorest and most vulnerable people who have come to this great country over the years seeking refuge and asylum from horrors elsewhere. For example, it is to Britain's credit that we welcomed German Jews in the 1930s and ’40s, survivors from Rwanda in the ’90s and more recently those who have suffered the horrors and atrocity being committed in Syria.
At first glance, the hon. Gentleman’s proposal might seem to have some limited attractions, but when we consider it in detail I think that even he would accept that it has some real limitations. I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I think that it is important that we look at the Bill in detail. The hon. Gentleman seems to imply that someone who applies for asylum in country rather than at port is less likely to have a credible claim. I accept that it is important that people arriving at Heathrow airport, at Gatwick or at Dover who seek to claim asylum because they are fleeing persecution, seeking political asylum, fleeing domestic abuse or whatever else declare that wish at the first port of entry.
Let me expand the debate slightly, if I may. I have discussed this matter with members of the Refugee Council, acknowledged experts in the field. They have made it clear that figures on asylum acceptance do not bear out the suggestion that simply because an application is made in country, rather than at the port of first entry, there is no validity to the application. Neither does it need to have been made within the three-month window suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
Take as an example an individual studying at a university—it could be Southampton university, close to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Someone else might be working at a factory on a legitimate work visa, helping develop the British economy. People could be visiting on a visitor or tourist visa and have been here for three, four, five or six months visiting relatives. There might then be a situation such as the ISIL uprising in the middle east that makes them feel that returning home would be personally dangerous to them.
Who would have predicted in December a few years ago that the following January there would be the Arab spring in Egypt, Libya or other parts of north Africa? Individuals might be in this country for legitimate reasons for longer than the three-month window suggested by the hon. Gentleman, and they might have to seek asylum for a range of genuine political and social pressures in their home countries. Those would be considered by the Home Office in a reasonable and practical way. If they had a legitimate claim, that would be accepted; if they did not, as now, the claim would be refused and other arrangements would be made—either visas or some form of deportation. The Bill would mean that nobody who had been in this country for more than three months could have recourse to political asylum. That would be wrong-headed.
Barry Gardiner
I absolutely agree with and endorse the remarks that my right hon. Friend has just made. Many asylum seekers are trafficked here; they may fall victim to the traffickers, be imprisoned or be engaged in the sex trade. There are all sorts of reasons, such as being restrained by their traffickers, why people may not be physically able to make the necessary arrangements.
Philip Davies
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the scenario, painted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), of people coming in as economic migrants, being rumbled by the authorities and then, in effect, playing the asylum system to delay an inevitable removal from the country, often using human rights laws as well to effect further delay? If he does recognise it—and I think many around the country do—what is his solution?
Mr Hanson
The asylum system needs to have integrity. There are mechanisms, which I am sure the Minister will strongly outline, that show real integrity and that if an individual falsely claims asylum they will be removed in due course. It is important to recognise that robust systems are in place and that we try to enforce them. We must not let people play the system, but we must recognise that genuine asylum claims can be made later than the proposed three-month limit.
I turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). It will not have escaped your notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we have been dealing with the Modern Slavery Bill in this House and another place, where it currently resides. That Bill tries to ensure that we deal with the slavery and trafficking that my hon. Friend mentioned. Individuals may have believed, because of language or cultural difficulties, that they came to this country for work or other reasons, but found themselves trafficked, imprisoned or abused. The Government have recognised the issue by introducing the Modern Slavery Bill, and we have supported them on that.
Under the Asylum (Time Limit) Bill, victims of such horrendous crimes—who may have been forced to come to the UK, who may have lived the life of slaves for many months or years but have been resident in the UK—would have no means of claiming asylum because they had been brought here by traffickers. Those are important circumstances that the Bill misses because of its cut-off date of three months.
The Bill is flawed and unworkable. There is a robust system in place. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments, which I am sure will reflect the fact that such a system exists. I would welcome the hon. Member for Christchurch reflecting on the fact that situations change outside the UK, affecting people who may have been here for more than three months, and that through no fault of their own they may need to apply for asylum after that date. As a stark example, if a German Jew were at university in the UK in March 1938 and suddenly realised that they could not return to Germany because of potential difficulties with the fascist regime there, and if they had been here for longer than three months and the hon. Gentleman’s Bill was in place, they would have to be sent back to Germany and ultimately to their death. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish such a situation to affect future asylum claims. He should also reflect on the security provided by the Modern Slavery Bill. Whatever the Minister says, I hope the hon. Member for Christchurch will think carefully about these matters and agree to withdraw his Bill.
The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)
I fully understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) brought his Bill before the House today. He did so with the right intentions, but like the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), we feel that there are serious problems with its drafting. I understand that my hon. Friend is trying to address the abuse and misuse of the asylum system that this generous country has in place for those who need it.
I welcome any contributions to the forthcoming manifesto, which others will be looking for from these debates. As I said, the Bill seeks to address the abuse and misuse of our generous asylum system. The Government have already taken many steps to restore control of the asylum and immigration system that we inherited. Let me outline the situation that we inherited. Asylum applications peaked in this country in 2002 at 84,132. I fully accept on behalf of the Government that last year asylum claims went up by 2% to 24,257. If we look around the world, especially at events taking place in sub-Saharan Africa and the middle east, which the right hon. Member for Delyn mentioned, we can to some extent understand that rise.
The Government are determined, and legislated in the Immigration Act 2014, to tighten our borders and our immigration laws to make sure that asylum is not used as an excuse by someone against whom we are about to take enforcement action because they do not meet the requirements to stay in this country.
Two aspects of the comments from the right hon. Member for Delyn and the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) struck a chord with me. As a new MP in Hemel Hempstead, a seat that I was not exactly expecting to win, although I was immensely proud to do so and am immensely proud to represent, I met a Tamil man aged 24. He came here to study—a very clever man—and went on to become a very good doctor. He is progressing towards becoming a consultant now. While he was here, his whole family in Sri Lanka was wiped out. Death threats against him and his brothers were displayed across the media in Sri Lanka, just because of his parents’ beliefs and birth. He had been here for 18 months. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not have wanted that young man to be sent back to Sri Lanka under his Bill. That, personally, is why I cannot support it, and why the Government will not support it either.
We do understand the need for alternative measures. That is why, as the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Brent North said, we introduced the Modern Slavery Bill. There are people in this country who perhaps never wanted to be here but were brought here under false pretences, bundled into the back of a lorry and abused in ways that we cannot imagine and perhaps prayed would never happen in this country in the 21st century— but the Government know that it has happened, as did the previous Administration. It was a difficult piece of legislation to bring forward, but it is the right legislation.
If someone had been forced to come to this country and, say, forced into prostitution, and we knew that if that person went back to their place of origin after three months they would not only be persecuted again but their lives would be under threat, not least if they gave evidence against the people who had committed those crimes against them, I do not think we would send them back.
I really do understand why my hon. Friend has introduced this Bill. I hear concerns about this in my constituency as well. We are right to be a generous nation, going back further than the events before and during the second world war and the persecution of the Jews—way back to times when we have assisted vulnerable people from around the world. Yes, we want people to declare that they are in a safe place long before they get to this country if that is possible. Yes, some of them are enormously vulnerable and very traumatised when they arrive. I have met such people—some, sadly, within our criminal justice system, where we have people with mental health issues, whether they are British nationals or non-British nationals who needed help long before they came here.
I accept that the Bill has every understandable intention in trying to stop bogus asylum seekers abusing our system and speed the process up, which is what the Government are trying to do as much as possible, as well as, wherever possible, encouraging asylum seekers to look elsewhere. The most recent figures show that in the rest of Europe asylum applications have reached the highest point since the peak of 2002, but our figures are still way below that. However, that is not because we are not a generous nation. I think the rest of the world is starting to realise that we are not a soft touch, but we do have a generous system. Sadly, we cannot support the Bill because it has anomalies that I personally, and the Government, find difficult.
Mr Chope
I thank the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and my right hon. Friend the Minister for their comments on the Bill. While I think they both accept that there is a problem with people abusing the asylum system, they identified certain cases that would potentially be caught by the Bill in its current form. However, this is precisely the sort of Bill that should go into Committee so that exceptions to the bald provisions of clause 1 can be defined.
We want to ensure that we can consider asylum claims from people who come to this country for whatever reason and whose circumstances back home change after their arrival—that is, in essence, what the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend were concerned about—irrespective of how long ago they arrived in this country. That is a specific category of exception. I think that any reasonable person will accept that such an exception should be incorporated within the Bill. I am disappointed that rather than looking at this in the context of accepting clause 1 and then saying, “Can we introduce some exceptions?”, the line seems to be, “Because it’s not perfect we’re not going to accept it and allow it to go further.”
I am also disappointed that, although my right hon. Friend the Minister accepts that there is a problem with people coming here as economic migrants and then, when they are confronted by the authorities, claiming asylum in order to play the system, irrespective of how long ago they arrived, he has not come up with a way of dealing with that. I think that my formula of placing a time limit—perhaps, following this debate, there could be some exceptions—would be a way of doing so.
The mood of the House seems to be that this Bill is not perfect—very few of my Bills ever are—so the best thing to do would be to withdraw it and build on it for a future occasion. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.
Bat Habitats Regulation Bill
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill has attracted a lot of outside interest. Indeed, there was a letter in The Times earlier this week saying what a brilliant Bill it is and that it should command the support of hon. Members. It builds on the concerns that the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) has raised in debates in Westminster Hall and those expressed by church conservation authorities.
I hope it is not out of order to say that, in his Christmas card to me, the noble bishop whose diocese is situated in my constituency wished me good luck with my bats Bill. The reason for that is that this is a narrow but significant issue for churches up and down the country and for our built heritage, including the fabric of churches, whether it be their stone or marble structures, and the brasses and other artefacts inside them. It also applies to people: we may be able to tell those who worship at the church that they should keep wearing their hats if there is a problem with bat infestation, but that does not really work if a children’s day centre or nursery group meets there: we cannot expect all the children to wear bonnets to protect themselves against the bat infestation.
The Bill seeks to increase the number of bat habitats while at the same time introduce measures to prevent bats from being in what might be described as the wrong place. Clause 1 sets out provisions to enhance the protection available for bat habitats in the non-built environment. In that respect, I hope the Bill will find favour with organisations such as the Bat Conservation Trust, because by enhancing that protection we will be able to support our bat population.
Interestingly, a 2013 survey by Hurn parish councillors in my constituency identified eight different species of bats in Hurn parish and Hurn forest in particular. They are concerned about the adverse impact of the cabling for a proposed wind turbine development on that bat habitat. Such situations are covered by clause 1, which would ensure that when a problem in the non-built environment may affect bats adversely, developers should take remedial measures, such as providing a bat box or artificial roost for each bat species located in the vicinity. It would also prevent onshore wind turbines from being constructed unless a local bat survey had been conducted and had established that there was no bat habitat in the vicinity, because of the direct adverse effect of wind turbines on bats.
Clause 2 deals with the issues raised by the Churches Conservation Trust and others about the impact of bats on our churches and those who worship in them. Currently, the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 work together basically to make it impossible for bats roosting and living in our churches to be controlled in any way whatever. In essence, they are above and beyond the law.
If the Second Church Estates Commissioner says that it is absurd that the EU habitats regulations should apply to our United Kingdom domestic bat population and that we should use our common sense, it seems to me that that should be reflected in legislation. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—I am delighted that he will reply to the debate—has Eurosceptic credentials second to none. I hope that he shares my concern about the European Union dictating to us what we can and cannot do with our domestic bat population. We are not talking about migrating mammals—bats are of course mammals, not birds—but our own domestic bats. Surely this is an issue for subsidiarity, to use that ghastly EU word, and an area on which we in the United Kingdom Parliament know what is best for our own bats.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I naturally agree with that sentiment. Why is my hon. Friend seeking to apply the clause only to places of public worship, because I am pretty sure that its provisions would equally apply to other buildings from time to time, and that that would be very much welcomed in different communities, depending on their circumstances? Why is the clause restricted to places of public worship?
Mr Chope
As the Bill is a private Member’s Bill, I was trying to restrict the degree of controversy that might develop about it. I know that the mere prospect of legislating on bats has already created an almost hysterical reaction among some members of bat conservation societies. I am therefore loth to make the Bill wider than is necessary to deal with the immediate problem, which has been drawn to my attention by the Churches Conservation Trust and the Countryside Alliance. They are concerned about the adverse impact of bats and bat roosts in buildings used for public worship. I recognise that other buildings could be similarly embraced by the Bill, and perhaps if it goes to Committee, an order-making power might extend the provisions to other areas in due course.
I am promoting this Bill because everybody recognises that there is a genuine problem. The Church Monuments Society is collectively tearing its hair out at its inability to do anything to address effectively the problem of bat damage that is affecting the conservation of furniture, liturgical objects, funerary and ensemble, works of art and so on, in buildings used for public worship and community functions. I hope the Minister will not say that having no control at all over bats in such places is reasonable. Surely we need some sensible control, and I hope the Bill finds favour with the House.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I rise briefly to expand on why I support the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), and to say why it may be worthwhile extending its provisions.
Recently in my constituency, the great town of Bingley was desperate to see the old Bradford and Bingley headquarters demolished. The building was lying empty and is, I am delighted to say, currently being demolished, although that could have happened much earlier. The building was owned by Sainsbury’s, which decided that it did not want to build a supermarket but would demolish the site and move it on. However, it was told that it could not do that because a bat had been spotted in the building.
We seem to have got ourselves into a bit of pickle. There are bat habitats nearby and I am all for taking measures to encourage bats to move to other habitats—I do not want to destroy wildlife or anything like that, but that seems perfectly reasonable. We seem to have got ourselves into a muddle with the current planning system, because the simple mention that a bat has been seen basically stops anything whatsoever happening. Some of us were rather cynical about Sainsbury’s motives, and suspected that it might want to hold on to the site until it became more valuable, but, as events have transpired, that was probably an overly cynical view. However, the situation was not helped by the fact that the whole process was stopped completely and the regeneration of Bingley was put on hold because of an alleged sighting of a bat.
When I asked Bradford council whether it could verify the sighting or whether it had seen a report to back up the fact that a bat had been seen—one bat, I might add—nothing was produced to show that there was indeed a bat. There was no report or verification. It was based simply on somebody’s word that a bat had been seen. That is what halted the essential regeneration of Bingley. There must be some alternative route and we should apply common sense. In effect, a whole town’s regeneration was held to ransom by the alleged viewing of a bat, even though it was never verified and there was no report of it before or since.
My hon. Friend’s Bill is an excellent first step, but why can it not be extended to help places such as Bingley? If the Bill had been enacted and extended in the way I suggest, it would have provided a perfect opportunity for that development to go ahead without unnecessary delays. As it transpired—I am sure the House will be interested to know this, for completeness—it seems that the bat had disappeared by the time anybody had bothered to go and do a proper report. The demolition could therefore go ahead, but I suspect it could have gone ahead a lot sooner had we had more appropriate laws in place.
I support my hon. Friend’s Bill. I hope the Minister will consider it seriously, because I think it would make a big difference. I would like to the Bill to be extended to other areas. There are many other common sense examples where an opt-out of current legislation would be sensible.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Bill may remind some hon. Members of episode 39 of Monty Python’s Flying Circus. Unfortunately, the Bill does not, in the immortal words of Michael Palin:
“shine out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark.”
It seems more like the stuff that that phrase was describing. I will briefly address the three issues raised by the subject of the Bill: bat habitat in the non-built environment; bat habitat in the built environment; and the legal protection of bats.
First, on bat habitat in the non-built environment, during the 20th century bat numbers plummeted in parallel with dramatic changes in the countryside. Several species of bats were seriously threatened. In the past two decades, one species, the greater mouse-eared bat, became extinct as a UK breeding species. Although all the species monitored appear to be either stable or increasing according to 2014 records, those positive results should be considered in the context of historic severe declines in bat populations. That decline was particularly great in the second half of the 20th century. More sustained population increases will be needed to indicate recovery from that extended period of decline.
The increase in bat populations between 1999 and 2012 should be celebrated as a success of the current regulations. It was also a success for the Bat Conservation Trust and the public, private and voluntary organisations involved in bat conservation. However, it should not be an excuse to set aside the regulations that have precisely achieved that success. We should remember that one year of poor summer weather in 2012 caused a very sharp dip in the population.
The Bill seeks to prevent the occupation of a new building in an area where there is existing bat habitat unless a bat box or artificial roost for each species of bat located in the vicinity is put in place. In so far as that goes, that is welcome. However, it might be more logical to say that the building could not be occupied if it was taking the space where that bat habitat had previously been unless the new bat boxes and the artificial roosts that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to provide were also occupied. That might indicate that some translocation had taken place and provide a degree of comfort, but that is not in the Bill.
It also seems somewhat odd that the same provision, as contained in clause 1(2), has not been inserted into clause 1(3), because in it we find that
“No wind turbine for which planning permission is required shall be constructed unless prior to its construction a local bat survey has been conducted and it has been established that no bat habitat is located in the vicinity”.
It might be more logical, and certainly more in keeping with the first two subsections, if the hon. Gentleman had said that it should not be provided where bat habitat is found, unless, as he has proposed in subsection (2), that
“a bat box or artificial roost for each species of bat located in the vicinity”
has been provided. There is an internal inconsistency in the Bill, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise and seek to rectify and remedy.
The information currently available on bat behaviour in the UK is not sufficient to assess the threat that wind turbines may pose to populations. Anecdotal records of individual collisions exist, but no quantified data at the colony or population level are available. Natural England and Bat Conservation Trust guidance should be followed. That is all we can say based on the evidence we have, so the hon. Gentleman’s efforts go beyond what the evidence base suggests.
Let me turn to bats in the built environment. Bats and people have been sharing dwellings for thousands of years. In the UK, this is most notable, of course, in our churches and cathedrals, as natural roosting sites have become scarce due to development and land use change. The number of artificial roost sites has increased in the form of houses, bridges, mines and barns, but particularly churches and cathedrals.
Natural England, English Heritage, the National Churches Trust and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings all have excellent advice available on how to manage a building where bats are also present. If work is required on a property that has the potential to disturb a bat roost or if issues arise as a result of bats and humans living in close proximity, that advice is available for any dwelling or church.
Due to the good will and expertise of a very large number of licensed volunteers in the UK, there are many instances where such advice can be offered free of charge. It is offered in the form often of a phone call or an e-mail or sometimes in the form of a physical visit to the building to inspect. The visit will result in a letter detailing how to carry out the work with the least disturbance to the bats. This might mean that the work has to be carried out at a particular time of year, which might in some instances cause some of the delays to which the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) alluded. Bats are usually only seasonal visitors to roosts. Sometimes the particular materials that can be used might be affected, but it is neither possible nor desirable—nor, I believe, necessary—to take the actions set out in the Bill.
The suggestion that we should remove certain buildings from the habitats directive altogether is, frankly, absurd. It serves only as a superb example of how an obsession with Europe and a disregard for our natural environment can be combined with a dislike for wind turbines. There is no reason and no excuse for watering down legal protection for bats. We should let the work of Natural England—it is already engaged with this work—improve the regulation. It should run its course and we should revisit the issue when we have adequate evidence and viable alternatives on which to base a debate. The Bill is ill conceived, inconsistent and I urge the House to reject it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
In debates such as this one, we learn something new every day. I learned this morning that there are no fewer than 17 different bat species in the UK. Most evolved to live, breed and forage in or around trees and caves, but many have now adapted to roost in buildings, including barns, houses, churches, tunnels and bridges, because so many natural roosts have been lost through modern agriculture and forestry practices as well as urban growth.
Artificial roosts have thus become essential to the survival of many bat species, but with so many man-made roosts under threat from the demolition of old buildings, barn conversions, an increasing use of artificial lighting and the move towards airtight buildings, the remaining roost sites are of increasing importance. Decreasing the protection afforded to bats in these important sites is therefore likely to have an impact on the conservation status of bats in the UK.
In the light of their vulnerability, bats have been subject to national protection, most recently under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. At the European level, this was augmented by protection under the European habitats directive in 1994. In accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, which transpose the habitats directive, it is a criminal offence deliberately to kill, injure, take or disturb bats. There is also a strict liability offence of damage or destruction to their breeding site or resting place. Additional Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provisions protect bats from disturbance in their place of rest or from the obstruction of such locations.
The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) proposes that surveys must be undertaken before any new buildings are built to assess the presence of bats in the area, and that if there are any bats present, the building should proceed only if bat boxes are provided with the building. However, the requirement to be aware of the existence of bats, and to consider the impacts of any building on their numbers, already exists. Local planning authorities already have a duty to take biodiversity and the requirements of the habitats directive into account when considering developments. Mitigation of damage to bat roosts and resting places may be required, but bat boxes and artificial roosts are only two of the possible measures that can be implemented, and each case should be considered on its merits. Furthermore, bats require not just protected roost sites but suitable habitats in which to feed, and the Bill does not take account of that.
The Bill requires a bat survey to take place, and prohibits the placing of wind turbines in the vicinity of any bat habitat. However, bat surveys are already undertaken at potential wind turbine sites when bats are nearby. An interesting discussion is taking place about evidence of the impact of wind turbines on bats. That evidence is fairly mixed. Some studies in the United States and Canada suggested that there could be an impact, but, in order to clarify the position in the United Kingdom the Government are conducting their own research, which will be completed later this year. If that research establishes that the current approach to planning in respect of wind turbines is insufficient to protect bats, we will review our approach at that point.
The Bill proposes that bats should be excluded or removed from any place of worship unless it has been demonstrated that their presence would not have an adverse impact on the users of such a place. Apart from the fact that the Bill is rather loosely worded—for instance, it does not define an adverse impact or a place of worship—such a blanket prohibition does not take account of either the potential importance of some churches to vulnerable bat populations, or the work that the Government are doing to alleviate the impact in such places when bats are causing a nuisance or distress.
In a changing landscape, where hedgerows and other linear features that are so important to bats have been lost as roosting sites, churches can be important to, in particular, some of our rarer birds. However, the Government recognise, and are sympathetic to, the concern of parishioners who are suffering from the effects of bat droppings on pews, precious artefacts and equipment in the public and private areas of their churches. To address that concern, we have invested considerable resources in research and development to establish how we can reduce the impact of bats in churches.
A three-year research project was completed in March 2014, and a current project, led by English Heritage, is devolving a toolkit to assist churches with significant bat-related problems. That current project is also bringing benefits to some of the worst-affected churches. Natural England, as the Government’s licensing body, is producing a licensing framework as part of the toolkit, which will be the mechanism through which the research will be delivered. External funding is being sought to support the roll-out of the toolkit, and to create an effective national support network for churches with bat-related problems. Major strides are being made. For instance, at one church in Yorkshire, St Hilda’s, work instigated by Natural England has dealt with the problem comprehensively, while ensuring that bats are able to roost in the roof of the building.
My hon. Friend alluded to my Eurosceptic credentials, and asked me about the impact of the habitats directive in this country. He may be aware that the European Commission has committed itself to reviewing certain elements of the directive to establish whether they are proportionate. So, in addition to all the work that we are doing nationally, a European-level review is under way. However, I think that the work that we have done locally and nationally demonstrates that peaceful co-existence is possible, and that we can deal with the problem without necessarily removing bats.
Mr Chope
In the light of what the Minister has just said, I hope that a review of the bat habitat regulations and the directive will be one of our main renegotiating points when we come to renegotiate our relationship with the European Union. While noting some of the measures that the Government have put in place, I also have to note that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs among people involved in church conservation. They believe something much more stringent and urgent needs to be undertaken, which is why I would like to continue this debate—
Business without Debate
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 23 January.
Houses in Multiple Occupation (Energy Performance Certificates and Minimum Energy Standards) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 23 January.
Sugar in Food and Drinks (Targets, Labelling and Advertising) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 23 January.
Defence Expenditure (nato Target) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 23 January.
Convicted prisoners Voting Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (5 December), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 23 January.
Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 23 January.
Road Traffic Regulation (Temporary Closure for Filming) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (7 November), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 23 January.
Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (24 October), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 23 January.
House of Lords (Maximum Membership) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 23 January.
EU Membership (Audit of Costs and Benefits) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 23 January.
Wild Animals in Circuses Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Adoption of Sewers (Home Improvement)
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the Chair this afternoon and to see the Minister for farming, food and the marine environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), at the Dispatch Box.
Many Members will be aware that new legislation was passed by this House in 2011 meaning that the ownership of private sewers and lateral drains was transferred to the 10 statutory water and sewerage companies. This welcome change, which had been sought over many years, came about in no small part as a result of the tireless work of my constituents, and particularly of Pam Brockway of the Woodlands Residents Association in Rugby. I drove through the estate this morning when I was dropping my daughter off at school, and I was reminded of the problems the estate had faced many years ago when the sewers, which had not been adopted by the water authority, failed. This resulted in great expense for many residents and led to the residents campaigning for many years for a change in the law.
The Water Industry (Schemes for Adoption of Private Sewers) Regulations 2011 were eventually introduced. This was a victory for home owners as they were no longer liable for unexpected and often large bills if anything went wrong with the private sewers on their land. They often did not know that they had responsibility for those sewers. When my constituent, Mrs Brockway, was faced with a £1,000 bill because her sewer collapsed, she decided to take action to bring about the much-needed change in the law.
Members of Parliament often get involved in matters brought to their attention by their constituents, and Mrs Brockway took the matter to the then MP for Rugby. It took 12 years, but the new legislation was eventually passed thanks to her determination, her industry and her refusal to give up, and thanks to the support of other residents, including Roy Barnes of the Woodlands Residents Association, along with the help of my predecessors, the former MP for what was then Rugby and Kenilworth, Andy King, and his successor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). I pay tribute to all of them for their hard work. It is only right that in my opening remarks I should acknowledge the efforts of my constituents to get the law changed, because every home owner in the country owes them and all the other people who campaigned on this issue an enormous debt of gratitude.
I raise this matter today not with the intention of bringing about any changes to that hard-fought-for and much-welcomed legislation but to draw attention to the issues now being faced by many home owners when they seek to improve or extend their homes. They have to contact the water companies in these circumstances, and conflicting information is often given out. Also, the water companies often levy excessive charges against them when their proposed improvements extend over, or within 3 metres of, a sewer on their land. This is owing to the requirement for the home owner to apply for a building-over agreement.
Rugby is the fastest-growing town in the west midlands. It has double the rate of house building of that in the country as a whole, even before taking into account the sustainable urban extension of 6,200 new homes, whose development is just starting on the Rugby Radio site. I am very supportive of development; indeed, I am probably as pro-development as any MP in the House. I fully recognise the Government’s work to stimulate development through the adoption of the national planning policy framework, which has led to planning permission for 200,000 new homes being granted in the last 12 months. I also recognise the economic growth that arises from the building of new homes and the contribution to the economy that is made when people extend and improve existing homes.
I understand why the Government introduced legislation to simplify the planning system by allowing home owners to improve their properties, often without the need to apply for planning consent, although I do believe that there is a strong role for the planning system in preventing neighbour disputes. We are now in a situation in which the planning changes are making it simpler for home owners to extend their property, but the adoption of private sewers is pulling in the opposite direction. It is estimated that around 80% of home owners seeking to extend their property will need the consent of the relevant water authority, because the planned extension will go over or near what was formerly a private sewer.
There are important consequences of this situation. There have been examples of water companies refusing to give permission for home owners to extend their property owing to an expected repair to a sewer at some unknown point in the future. This has been known to happen after the planning application fees have been paid, which only adds to the great frustration of the home owners. In other instances home owners are being forced to absorb the cost of repairs to adopted sewers in order to gain permission from the water authorities, which can add significantly to the cost of improving their homes —conceivably, more than the cost of the improvements themselves. The additional costs may prevent the home owner from adding value to their property through improvements, as may the costs of the works, where they exceed the value of the improvements. The home owner may, thus, not benefit from any added value.
There are six key points to consider. The first relates to the concerns over the legal requirement to obtain a building-over agreement. Different information is available from different water companies. Some distribute information stating that building-over agreements are a legal requirement for home owners looking to build on or near to a sewer when in fact they are not. The second point relates to the excessive and divergent charges being levied by water companies—there is significant variation in those. The charges often include a map fee, which determines the presence of a sewer, an application fee and, in some instances, the cost of a CCTV examination of the sewer. Map fees can range from as little as £18 to as much as £60, and application fees can reach more than £500, adding to the significant bill for the home owner. I understand that in Wales the cost can prove even more excessive, as home owners are also required to amend the deeds of the property. Of course, the result of these little charges is that home owners may abandon their proposed works.
The third issue relates to variations in the amount of time the approval process can take. Although there is a set period of eight weeks within the planning system for routine planning applications to be decided—there is a requirement on the local authority to adhere to that—there is no such obligation on the water companies. In the absence of an agreed time limit, home owners often have to wait weeks, even months, before they know whether their improvements can commence.
The fourth issue relates to the cost of possible future repairs. I have alluded to instances where water companies are refusing to give their permission. I have been made aware of a number of cases where home owners are being forced to absorb the cost of repairs to adopted sewers in order to gain permission—the additional costs incurred can total several thousand pounds. The fifth issue relates to the fact that approximately 50% of sewers are currently not mapped by water companies. In some instances the home owners are being required to pay for the map, which can cause additional costs. There are no clear guidelines in a situation where no map is available, which can jeopardise any improvement project. The sixth issue relates to the permitted development rights that the Government have brought forward with the objective of cutting red tape. However, the requirement for permission from the water authorities is acting in the opposite direction and adding red tape, and results in additional costs and delay.
What can be done to remedy this situation? Despite the home improvements industry receiving assurances from the water companies that guidance would be issued, there is no industry-wide set of procedures and cost guidelines. I understand that the Government have previously declared their support for such a solution in guidance issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when it said it was doing work
“with a view to establishing a streamlined process for approval of building over (or close to) small, shallow sewers, which represent the majority of transferred sewers.”
I, like many home owners, would very much welcome a move by all the water authorities to work together to adopt a set of guidelines to ensure that the system is transparent and that home owners have more protection. That could form a national code of conduct governing the process of securing a building-over agreement, and setting consistent costs for the application, map and CCTV fees. That would go a long way towards rationalising the application process, and would give a degree of practical certainty for home improvement projects.
Nobody is arguing for a return to the pre-2011 situation, where householders were vulnerable to unexpected and often substantial bills to remedy faults in sewers they were not aware of or where potential liabilities would lead to the reduction in the value of properties and difficulties in achieving sales prices. My constituents have played such an important part in effecting change to that situation. This is a serious matter. The ability of a home owner to make improvements or extend is a key part of the aspiration of home ownership—an aspiration that this Government fully support. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments and the position of the Government in respect of reassuring home owners who are being subjected to uncertainty and additional costs when looking to improve their properties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) for raising this important issue. As he said, before 2011, home owners were responsible for their sewers and pipes. Should anything have happened to those pipes, it was down to the home owners to cover the expense, and attempt to recover costs from those neighbours who shared the same pipes.
In October 2011, the Government implemented the water industry regulations transferring the ownership of, and responsibility for, private sewers and lateral drains to the water and sewerage companies. My hon. Friend rightly pays tribute to the sterling efforts of his constituent, Pam Brockway and others, in bringing this unfair practice of passing the cost on to individual home owners to the attention of Government, which resulted in those legislative changes.
I have also had experience of this matter in my own constituency. I remember meeting in one of my surgeries an elderly lady who was being bullied by a cowboy builder to sign on the dotted line to say that she would pay £10,000 towards the upkeep of a private sewer that was collectively owned. She resisted that, but I have heard of many other such practices, often involving vulnerable people.
In addition to preventing unexpected and substantial sewer repair bills going to individuals, the 2011 transfer has also meant that the sewer network can be systematically upgraded over time. The consequence has been a regularly maintained and more resilient sewer system.
The 2011 transfer has resulted in a greater focus on the 2010 building regulations. The regulations set out how buildings should be built or improved. Although no changes were made to the 2010 building regulations, the transfer regulations enabled building regulations more effectively to achieve their aim of ensuring that new buildings and extensions are constructed in a way that does not adversely affect the sewers. Given the general lack of awareness among home owners before the 2011 transfer, private sewers were at great risk of compromise or damage when construction took place—ultimately at the considerable expense of individual home owners.
The local authority, or approved private sector building control body, has the final say on whether any works comply with building regulations, although they must have regard to any views expressed by the sewerage undertaker, such as when a sewer is within 3 metres of the proposed works. Furthermore, even if the developer disagrees with the building control body, there is the option to apply to the Department for Communities and Local Government for an independent determination.
I wish now to address some of the points made by my hon. Friend. He pointed out that the 2011 transfer could not resolve all the issues. He has highlighted six important issues including: the legal requirement for a build-over agreement; charges levied by water companies for build-over agreements and works to be done; the time taken for the process of agreement; and the paucity of information about where the sewers are located.
First, there is no formal legal requirement to obtain a build-over agreement. However, it is considered good practice to obtain the permission of the water company responsible for a sewer or drain affected by any proposed building project, and that is also encouraged by the approved building regulations guidance. Water and sewerage companies are best placed to advise on suitable actions or possible risks to the sewerage network as a result of building work.
My hon. Friend makes a very good point regarding the variance in the charges levied by water companies for build-over agreements. We all want to see that any such costs are reasonable, proportionate, appropriate and consistent; otherwise we will have saved home owners one expense through the 2011 transfer only to expose them to new costs.
My hon. Friend highlights the importance of guidance. He is right that the solution to these and many of the other issues would be a joint industry-developed code of practice governing the processes of securing a build-over agreement and bringing transparency to the costs involved. A code of practice could also address any issues concerning timing and make it clear where responsibilities lie for repairs to sewers when the construction is being carried out or who retains liability for the quality of the construction and its potential impact on the sewer underneath in the long term.
The Glass and Glazing Federation has already taken the initiative in drawing up a draft. The Government have been talking to the water companies about working with the Glass and Glazing Federation to reach a common approach and I am told that we can expect positive developments soon. I welcome that, but I want to see even greater momentum behind the idea of the code of practice. In advance of the debate, I contacted the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), who is responsible for water, forestry, rural affairs and resource management. The Under-Secretary intends to write to Water UK, the organisation that represents the water companies, to encourage that development. I hope that from this debate we will see momentum behind the idea of a code of practice, because given that there is no formal legal requirement for the build-over agreements, which are only set out in guidance, home owners are in a strong position to get credible guidance that prevents water companies from charging excessively for these agreements.
Mark Pawsey
One or two water companies seem to be suggesting that the need for a build-over agreement is a legal requirement. Does the Minister agree that that information is inaccurate and should be withdrawn?
George Eustice
They are incorrect in that. There is no legal requirement for a build-over agreement, but it is set out in guidance. The legal requirement is that people should have regard for the views of water companies, so they should consult them. There is no statutory requirement for a build-over agreement, but it is set out in guidance that they should be encouraged. I hope that that clarifies the position.
My hon. Friend raised an additional concern that many sewers are, as yet, unmapped. Section 199 of the Water Industry Act 1991 places a requirement on sewerage undertakers to maintain an up-to-date map of their sewers. However, ownership of some 220,000 km of unmapped sewer and lateral drain pipework transferred overnight in 2011. The impact assessment for the 2011 transfer estimated that mapping all that pipework as part of a distinct project would cost more than £1.3 billion. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that to avoid unnecessary costs for water bill payers, water companies are updating their maps during the course of their normal activities. If the sewer or lateral drain does not appear on the sewer map, there is no requirement for the building control body to consult the water company.
My hon. Friend refers to the Government’s aim to cut red tape and the positive steps taken to streamline the planning regime and help stimulate the building industry. The building regulations set out requirements for construction and how structures are built. Fair and effective building regulations are vital to ensure that the public and the environment are suitably protected. None the less, I reiterate that there is no formal legal requirement to gain permission from water companies, although it is recognised as good practice in building regulations guidance.
In conclusion, my hon. Friend has raised an important point. I agree that the answer is to have a voluntary code of conduct supported by the industry and I believe that home owners are in a strong position given that there is no formal legal requirement for a build-over agreement. I encourage him to engage with the Under-Secretary and perhaps with Department for Communities and Local Government Ministers to make progress on the idea of a voluntary code.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business, Innovation and Skills
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), does the Secretary of State agree that to hear that your job has been put at risk of redundancy not from your employer, but while watching the television news with your family on Christmas day—as was the case with the City Link workers—is an utterly appalling way to be treated?
Vince Cable
I certainly agree that for the 2,300 workers involved it was a very sad and dispiriting event. The company can answer for its behaviour, but the fact is that it was no longer viable and was put into administration.
[Official Report, 8 January 2015, Vol. 590, c. 384.]
Letter of correction from Vince Cable:
An error has been identified in my answer to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) during Questions to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
The correct response should have been:
Vince Cable
I certainly agree that for the 2,586 workers involved it was a very sad and dispiriting event. The company can answer for its behaviour, but the fact is that it was no longer viable and was put into administration.
Topical Questions
Mr Umunna
With so many unanswered questions for employees and contractors of City Link, the entire affair stinks. Why, for example, if the firm was technically insolvent on 22 December, as has been reported, was it planning to trade until 26 December? Is it true that contractors were told that rumours of it going into administration were false? Why was a new subsidiary set up on 9 December?
The administrators will do their work and no doubt make a D1 filing with the Department. Given the numbers involved and the public interest in the administration, will the Secretary of State commit to conducting a full and proper inquiry into the matter, as he did with Comet? Those who have lost their jobs and contractors who are owed money deserve nothing less.
Vince Cable
The difference with the Comet case is the allegation of serious misconduct by directors, and that may or may not be the case with City Link. In six weeks, the administrator will make a report to our Insolvency Service and, depending on what that says, we may want to initiate an investigation, but let us wait and see the findings of that.
[Official Report, 8 January 2015, Vol. 590, c. 385.]
Letter of correction from Vince Cable:
An error has been identified in my answer to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) during Questions to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
The correct response should have been:
Vince Cable
The difference with the Comet case is the allegation of serious misconduct by directors, and that may or may not be the case with City Link. Within six months, the administrator will make a report to our Insolvency Service and, depending on what that says, we may want to initiate an investigation, but let us wait and see the findings of that.
Written Statements
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tax Information Exchange Agreement (Monaco)
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
A Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA) with the Principality of Monaco was signed in London on 22 October 2014 and in Monaco on 23 December 2014. The text of the TIEA has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and will be made available on HM Revenue and Customs’ website. The text will be schedule to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.
It is also available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements.
[HCWS199]
Demolition
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
I would like to update hon. Members on two separate announcements relating to the issue of demolition.
Planning decision on Welsh Streets, Liverpool
Yesterday, as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, I issued decisions on a called-in planning application and a related compulsory purchase order in relation to an area known as the “Welsh Streets” in Toxteth, Liverpool. The proposal was for demolition of 439 small Victorian era terraced homes. After a public inquiry and careful consideration, the planning application is refused and the compulsory purchase order is not confirmed.
The decision letters fully explain the reasons for these decisions. Issues covered in the planning decision letter include: the heritage value of the Welsh Streets—including the effect on the appreciation of Liverpool’s Beatles heritage as the application site includes the birth place of Ringo Starr; the impact of the proposal on the setting of nearby listed buildings and a conservation area; design issues including local character, history and distinctiveness; and the extent to which the proposal is consistent with national planning policy on bringing back empty homes into residential use.
Revocation of outdated guidance
The Coalition Agreement outlined this Government’s commitment to introduce a range of measures to get empty homes back into use, reflecting the 2010 general election manifesto pledges of both Coalition parties. We want to increase housing supply, remove the blight that rundown vacant properties cause and help support local economic growth from refurbishment and improvements.
In the written ministerial statement of 10 May 2013, Official Report, Column 13WS, Ministers committed to revising outdated guidance issued by the former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister which encouraged demolition. I can today confirm that the following pieces of outdated guidance no longer reflect Government policy and so are now cancelled:
Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment and Renewal Areas (DETR, 1997);
Private Sector Renewal Strategies: A Good. Practice Guide (DETR, 1997);
Running and Sustaining Renewal Areas (DETR, 2000);
Addressing the Needs of Run Down Private Sector Housing (ODPM, 2002);
What Works? Reviewing the Evidence Base for Neighbourhood Renewal (ODPM, 2002);
Housing Renewal Guidance - ODPM Circular 05/2003;
Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future (ODPM, 2003);
Assessing the Impacts of Spatial Interventions: Regeneration, Renewal and Regional Development The 3Rs Guidance’ (ODPM, 2004); and
Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment guidance manual (ODPM, 2004).
Instead, this Government are championing a series of policies to get empty buildings back into use. We have:
Provided over £200 million to fund innovative schemes run by community groups, councils and housing associations up and down the country to create new homes from empty properties, both residential and commercial;
Rewarded councils for bringing 100,000 empty homes back into use through the New Homes Bonus;
Given councils new powers to remove council tax subsidies to empty homes, and use the funds to keep the overall rate of council tax down. HM Treasury have also changed tax rules to discourage the use of corporate envelopes to invest in high value housing which may be left empty or under-used to avoid paying tax;
Taken forward the best practice recommendations produced by our independent empty homes adviser, George Clarke—such as refurbishment and upgrading of existing homes should be the first and preferred option, and that demolition of existing homes should be the last option after all forms of market testing and options for refurbishment are exhausted; we have embedded these principles in our housing programme funding schemes;
Cancelled the last Administration’s Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder programme which imposed targets on councils to demolish homes;
Amended national planning policy through the National Planning Policy Framework to encourage councils to bring back empty properties back into use;
Reformed Community Infrastructure Levy rules to provide an increased incentive for brownfield development, and extended exemptions for empty buildings being brought back into use;
Lifted the burden of Section 106 tariffs on vacant buildings being returned to use;
Introduced a Right to Contest, building on the existing Community Right to Reclaim Land, which lets communities ask that under-used or unused land owned by public bodies is brought back into beneficial use;
Funded a new re-occupation business rate relief to help bring empty shops back into use; and
Reformed permitted development rights in a number of ways to free up the planning system and facilitate the conversion of redundant and under-used non-residential buildings into new homes.
This approach is working. The number of empty homes has fallen year-on-year since 2009, and is now at the lowest level since 2004. Similarly, the number of long-term vacant properties has fallen by around a third since 2009.1 hope our programmes will further reduce the number of empty buildings.
For the avoidance of doubt, the call-in decision is not connected to the cancellation of the outdated guidance. I am placing a copy of the decision letters, attached, in the Library of the House.
It is also available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements.
[HCWS205]
Design and Technology GCSE
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
We are reforming GCSEs and A levels to strengthen their academic rigour and to ensure young people are prepared for life in modern Britain. The reforms are extensive and represent a new qualifications standard, keeping pace with universities’ and employers’ needs.
Draft content for the new GCSE in design and technology was consulted on in Autumn 2014. The consultation showed many positive reactions to the creation of a single title for design and technology and the way in which the content had changed to reflect far better the processes of design. These changes will ensure that the subject prepares students well for further study in a rapidly changing world.
The reforms do, however, represent a significant change to the design and technology GCSE. To ensure all the component parts of the qualification work well together, it is my view that more time is needed to give students the best experience possible. First teaching of GCSE design and technology will, therefore, be delayed from 2016 to 2017 to enable the awarding organisations to complete their work and undertake further consultations and discussions with stakeholders.
[HCWS202]
Permanent Secretary’s Review
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
I am today publishing the results of a review by my Permanent Secretary into whether the Department for Education (or predecessor Departments) had received warnings relating to extremism in Birmingham schools, and how any such warnings had been dealt with. Copies of this report will be laid in the Libraries of both Houses.
This review was commissioned by my predecessor in June 2014. It was prompted by the receipt of the "Trojan Horse" letter in Birmingham in December 2013, and subsequent reviews by Peter Clarke, Ian Kershaw and Ofsted, which noted, amongst other things, that warning signs about potential extremism in Birmingham schools had been missed by local agencies over a long period of time. Media reports in May and June 2014 suggested that specific warnings had been given to the Department, in 2010, 2008/9 and 1994.
The review has looked at a 20-year period between 1994 and December 2013, focusing specifically on:
what, if any, warnings were received;
what the nature of those warnings was;
whether those warnings were dealt with appropriately; and
what follow-up actions were taken, and whether these were appropriate given the role of the Department at the time.
The review has found no instances where specific warnings were ignored by the Department and no cases where Departmental officials or Ministers acted inappropriately. It has, however, found that the Department has in the past lacked inquisitiveness on this issue, and that procedures could have been tighter than they were. It notes that the Department needs always to be vigilant and inquisitive, and have robust systems in place if it is to play its part in preventing and countering the issues identified in Peter Clarke’s report.
I endorse this view and all of the recommendations contained in the review. In light of the review’s findings and events in Birmingham, the Permanent Secretary is taking further measures within the Department:
strengthening the size of the Due Diligence and Counter Extremism Division (DDCEG) to 36 staff and establishing it as a standalone group with a director with sole responsibility for this area of work;
introducing a formal system for staff across the Department to refer concerns about extremism to DDCEG. This includes a clear process for staff recognising what might constitute such an issue and a requirement that any instances are reported to DDCEG;
introducing a formal case handling system within DDCEG for logging and managing warnings received from both DfE staff or from external sources;
widening the DDCEG’s remit to include a proactive role identifying potential future trouble spots
establishing a Counter Extremism Steering Group, which will be chaired by the director for DDCEG and will support delivery of the Department’s overall vision and aims by providing coherent strategic oversight of the activity which makes up the due diligence and counter extremism programme;
introducing a requirement for all Deputy Directors to receive briefing on extremism, the Department’s procedures and how it might affect DfE’s work, and to be clear about the arrangements needed within their divisions to deal with any issues arising; and
introducing a system for the DDCEG to report monthly to the Department’s Management
Committee on cases received and action taken.
The Department’s Internal Audit function will conduct a review of these actions after three months and will advise the Permanent Secretary and the Department’s Management Committee on implementation progress. There will be regular six-monthly checks by Internal Audit on implementation, with advice to the Management Committee.
The aims of these actions are threefold:
to ensure that the DDCEG has the right resources, systems and remit to deal with any future warnings;
to ensure that identifying and taking action on warnings is seen as a priority in all parts of the Department, not just in DDCEG; and
to ensure that the Department becomes and remains inquisitive on this issue.
These actions should apply equally to warnings of ‘extremism’ from whatever source.
Work is ongoing on the wider issues relating to Birmingham, and I will update the House in due course.
The current unit, established in 2010, has thus far reported to a director who also had other responsibilities.
It is also available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements
[HCWS203]
Ambulance Service: England
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Today I am announcing that NHS England is to pilot a possible change to the way ambulance services respond to 999 calls, based on clinical advice that this will improve the chances of survival for patients, especially those with the most serious conditions.
In light of the unprecedented increase in demand for ambulance services in the last two months, I asked NHS England to consider whether there were any changes which could be brought forward quickly in order to help ambulance services maintain, and perhaps even improve, clinical outcomes for patients.
I have now received and considered NHS England’s advice. A copy of the letter from Professor Keith Willett, the National Director for Acute Care at NHS England, with his recommendations, is attached and has been placed in the Library of the House. I agree with his advice that there is significant evidence to suggest that giving call handlers extra assessment time to make the right decision for the patient could improve clinical outcomes and improve their chances of survival. At present, ambulance services are allowed only 60 seconds before the clock starts to decide what the right course of action is for that individual patient. This sometimes leads to ambulances being dispatched unnecessarily, so that fewer ambulances are available for patients who really do need emergency assistance.
In the interests of patient safety, I therefore agree that giving call handlers very limited extra assessment time would ensure that ambulances are better deployed to where they are most needed and would allow a faster response time for those patients who really need it.
I have agreed to two local pilots where call handlers will be allowed up to a maximum of an additional 120 seconds for assessment, before the clock starts, for all 999 calls. This will not include those calls which are immediately life threatening (categorised as Red 1 calls). The pilot will therefore allow for a maximum of 180 seconds to assess a call, in order to reach a more detailed diagnosis and send the most appropriate response.
In these pilot sites, a small number of potentially life threatening conditions, such as overdoses and certain types of gunshot wounds, will also be upgraded from the Red 2 category into the Red 1 category so they receive a faster response than is currently the case.
The two pilot sites will be South West Ambulance Service NHS Trust and the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust—one running the NHS Pathways triage system and one running the Advanced Medical Priority Dispatch System. The pilots will start in February and will jointly cover a patient population of around 13 million people.
During the pilot, ambulance targets for all other areas will not be changed. We will continue to publish national data as normal, and the pilot data will be published alongside this in the interests of transparency. Given the pilots will only be affecting two ambulance services for a very limited period of time at the end of the reporting year, we do not anticipate that this will have a significant impact on the overall national data.
The pilot will be subject to rigorous and independent external evaluation which will be published. I will not support any extension of this pilot more widely unless the following three tests are met:
There is clear clinical consensus that the proposed change will be beneficial to patient outcomes as a whole, and will act to reduce overall clinical risk in the system.
There is evidence from the analysis of existing data and piloting that the proposed change will have the intended benefits, and is safe for patients.
There is an associated increase in operational efficiency. The aim is to reduce the average number of vehicles allocated to each 999 call and the ambulance utilisation rate.
After the evaluation has been published, I will consider the outcomes of the three tests and the findings of this external evaluation before making any decisions to implement these changes throughout England.
The letter from Professor Keith Willet can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2015-01-16/HCWS201
[HCWS201]
Enhanced Court Fees
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I am today publishing the Government response to part two of the consultation “Court Fees: proposals for reform.”
We are rightly proud of our system of justice. We have some of the best lawyers, and finest judges, in the world. That is why so many people and organisations choose to bring their disputes to this country.
The courts play a critical role in our society, providing access to justice for those who need it. It is vital that the principle of access to justice is preserved. I believe that the best way to do so is to ensure that the courts are properly funded.
We cannot have properly funded public services without a strong economy. This Government have therefore made economic recovery its top priority. Public spending must be brought under control, and the courts and justice system must bear their fair share.
I have already announced that we will be investing £375 million in the courts over the next five years to modernise services so that we can realise long-term financial savings worth over £100 million per annum by 2019/20. There is, however, only so much that can be achieved through cost efficiency measures alone. If we are to reduce the costs of the courts to the taxpayer, and protect access to justice, I am convinced that there is no alternative but to look to those who use the courts to contribute more, where they can afford to do so.
I have therefore decided to proceed with most of the proposals relating to enhanced fee charging set out in the consultation. Specifically, I have decided to introduce a fee to commence proceedings for the recovery of money of 5% of the value of the claim on claims for more than £10,000, subject to a maximum fee capped at £10,000. Setting the value of claims subject to fees at this level means that 90% of cases will not be affected by the introduction of this fee. A 10% discount will continue to be available for those issuing claims electronically. These measures will deliver an estimated £120 million in additional income, with every pound retained by the courts to invest in delivering a better service for those who use them.
Some respondents were concerned that this would affect legal services in this country, and impact on London’s position in the face of international competition. I do not accept these concerns, given that the increase in court fees proposed would have only a negligible impact on the overall cost of litigation. However, I have decided at this stage not to proceed with either of the options on which I sought views to charge higher fees for commercial proceedings.
Most respondents were particularly concerned about the proposal to raise the fee for a divorce, and having listened to those concerns, I have decided not to proceed with this proposal for the time being.
However, while I have decided not to proceed with a number of the consultation proposals, this has not changed the financial imperative to increase income to the Courts from fees. Therefore, the Government response also seek views on proposals for raising fee income from possession claims and general applications in civil proceedings. The deadline for responses to the consultation is 27 February 2015.
Increasing court fees will never be welcome. I believe, however, it is right that those who use the services should make a greater contribution towards their running costs, where they can afford to do so. I am also sure that those who choose to litigate in our courts will continue to recognise the outstanding qualities our legal services offer, and the excellent value for money they provide.
[HCWS200]
Patrick Finucane Review
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland appointed Sir Desmond de Silva QC in October 2011 to conduct an independent review into the question of state involvement in the murder of Patrick Finucane in 1989. His report was published on 12 December 2012.
On that day, I told the House that we would study Sir Desmond’s report in detail to see whether any further lessons could be learnt. I said that I would ask the Secretaries of State for Defence and Northern Ireland and the Cabinet Secretary to report back to me on all the issues that arise from this report and publish their responses. The responses take the form of a joint report by the Cabinet Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and it will be published on: http://gov.uk, today. Copies are also being placed in the Library of the House.
As Sir Desmond de Silva said in his report “a series of positive actions by employees of the State actively furthered and facilitated [Patrick Finucane’s] murder and that, in the aftermath of the murder, there was a relentless attempt to defeat the ends of justice”. The Government accept these findings unequivocally.
The joint report describes the action Government Departments have demonstrated in response to Sir Desmond de Silva’s report and the ways in which their internal processes have changed in the areas de Silva highlights. Significant changes have been made since the time of Patrick Finucane’s murder to improve the situation and today’s framework for operations bears little resemblance to that of 1989. Additionally, there is far more effective independent oversight and control than existed in 1989.
As the joint report concludes, the approach of the police and intelligence agencies to handling of covert human intelligence sources (CHIS) has been completely transformed in the years since the appalling events under consideration in the de Silva review. Compliance with human rights and other legal obligations has a fundamental place at the centre of activities by the police and intelligence services with the principles of necessity and proportionality now firmly embedded in the culture and systems they apply in their work.
It is also available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements.
[HCWS204]
HS2 (Phase 1 Property)
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
I am today announcing to the House the Government’s package of measures to provide assistance to owner occupiers along the line of route for Phase One of the High Speed 2 project (from London to the West Midlands). This is the final outcome of two consultations;
the Property Consultation 2013, on which the decision was announced on 9 April 2014; and
the Property Consultation 2014, which ran from 8 July to 30 September 2014 and on which the decision is announced today, (http://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/hs2-phase-one-property-consultation-2014).
I can announce today that the proposal for the alternative cash offer (now named the cash offer) and homeowner payment will be introduced. These schemes aim to help maintain the cohesion of communities along the route of Phase One of HS2 and provide an early share of the benefits.
I can also announce that from today HS2 Ltd will accept applications for voluntary purchase, the cash offer and the need to sell schemes. These schemes supplement those launched earlier this year, namely express purchase and rent back. The result is an exceptional package of measures for an exceptional project. Over 2500 dwellings are within the express purchase area, rural support zone (within which the voluntary purchase and cash offer schemes are available) and homeowner payment bands. In addition, the need to sell scheme will independently consider applications regardless of the distance from the railway.
Therefore, the full package available to people is as follows:
Express purchase—is for those people living closest to the line, in what is known as the “surface safeguarded” area. Under this scheme owner-occupiers may be able to sell their home to the Government, if they wish to do so at its full unblighted market value (as it would be if there were no plans for HS2), plus 10% (up to £49,000) and reasonable moving expenses, including stamp duty.
Voluntary purchase— for people in rural areas outside the safeguarding area and up to 120 metres away from the line (this is the area defined as the rural support zone). Owner-occupiers in this area will be able to sell their home to the Government for its full unblighted value at any time up until one year after Phase One first opens for public use.
The cash offer— (known as the alternative cash offer during the consultation). This gives rural owner-occupiers within the rural support zone two measures to choose from, if they wish: selling their property to the Government for its full unblighted market value under the voluntary purchase arrangements described above or remaining in their home and receiving 10% of that value. This payment is a minimum of £30,000 and is capped at £100,000. This scheme will be available until one year after Phase One first opens for public use.
The need to sell scheme—this scheme does not have a boundary and is available to owner-occupiers who have a compelling reason to sell their house (for example this might be as a result of job relocation or ill health) but are unable to do so because of HS2. The Government will pay the full, unblighted value for these properties. This scheme replaces the Phase One exceptional hardship scheme (EHS) and those EHS applications that have not been consider by the panel will automatically be transferred to the need to sell scheme. This scheme is available in both urban and rural areas.
The homeowner payment scheme— will give rural homeowners outside the voluntary purchase area but within 300 metres of the line the opportunity to share early in the benefits of HS2. These payments will be available following Royal Assent of the hybrid Bill for Phase One and will be tapered as follows: owner-occupiers between outside the rural support zone and within 180 metres of the centre line of the railway will receive £22,500, those beyond this and within 240 metres £15,000 and those beyond this and within 300 metres £7,500.
The express purchase, voluntary purchase and need to sell schemes are all accompanied by a voluntary rent back option: owner-occupiers who, having sold their property to government would prefer to carry on living there may be able to rent it back, subject to property suitability checks.
In addition, as part of the desire by HS2 Ltd to improve communication with residents and communities near to the route of the railway, it has been agreed that a residents’ charter will be introduced. This will help to ensure that residents are treated in a fair, clear, competent and reasonable manner. It will embrace a number of key principles:
Discretionary property packages will be communicated clearly, in the plainest, non-technical language possible.
Individuals will be offered a single named case officer.
Individuals will be offered the opportunity to meet in private with a property specialist from HS2 Ltd to explain the discretionary and statutory measures.
HS2 Ltd will commit to a reasonable response time for all property related enquiries.
Today I am pleased to announce that the charter goes live and that Deborah Fazan has been appointed as the Residents’ Commissioner to oversee the charter and ensure the above principles are adhered to.
This package of measures will be administered by HS2 Ltd under these guiding principles and will signal the beginning of a new relationship with the communities along the route of Phase One of HS2.
I will place copies of the related documents in the Libraries of both Houses.
It is also available online at: http://parliament.uk/writtenstatements.
[HCWS198]
Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (Triennial Review)
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper)
Triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring accountability in public life. Today I am launching a review of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC). On the grounds of proportionality I have combined this review with that required of IIAC as a scientific advisory committee. The review will examine the Council’s functions, efficiency and governance procedures. The review is due to be completed in March 2015 and I shall inform the House of its outcome.
[HCWS197]
House of Lords
Assisted Dying Bill [HL]
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
11:45 - Division on Amendment 12B - Ayes: 107 / Noes: 180 - Amendment 12B disagreed.
14:49 - Division on Amendment 13 - Ayes: 61 / Noes: 119 - Amendment 13 disagreed.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
“Legal aid
Legal aid shall be available in respect of the application for the consent of the High Court (Family Division) in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State exerciseable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, this is in the nature of a probing amendment. On the first day in Committee your Lordships decided overwhelmingly that a person may only obtain an order subject to the consent of the High Court, Family Division. You do not need to be a lawyer—I am a very long-in-the-tooth lawyer—to know that applications to the High Court of any sort are apt to be expensive. In respect of what could be an extremely tense, complex and contested application under the Assisted Dying Act, as it will be, the issues to be dealt with by a judge could be both numerous and difficult of deliberation. It is not impossible that members of the family might wish to be heard on such an application. At all events, I put it to the Committee that we cannot legislate on this important measure knowing that access to its provisions will be confined to the better-off.
Most people, particularly those lacking in confidence and articulacy, will not be able to bring an application of this sort without legal assistance. If they want to intervene in the proceedings, similarly they will not be able to do so without legal assistance. That of course means expense—sadly, very considerable expense. I therefore tabled this amendment with a simple objective, which is to make the Bill democratic and fair—a Bill of equal access—and I hope that it will commend itself to the Committee. I am well aware that there may be defects in its phrasing—
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, he has indicated his expectation that the level of cost will be pretty significant. Can he give us in very broad terms an assessment of what the range of probable or likely cost might be?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
The short answer is no. Lawyers charge very different amounts. A city lawyer charging £500 or £700 an hour is rather different from a country lawyer charging £100 or £200. It will also depend, as I said, on the complexity, but one is talking of thousands, not hundreds, of pounds. That is about the best I can do on that. However, as I said, I hope that the principle will commend itself to the Committee and that necessary changes to the drafting of my amendment can be dealt with prior to the next stage. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I was rather taken aback by this being such a short debate. I very much welcome the noble Lord’s amendment. We discussed this matter at a little length on the first day of Committee. As he said, applications to the High Court in the circumstances of the Bill, if enacted, could, but not always necessarily, involve complex procedures. The noble Lord is not able to quantify the cost and that is entirely understandable. However, I recognise that for any Government there is then a problem in not knowing that potential cost.
On the first day in Committee, I thought that the Minister was reasonably sympathetic to the point. He referred to the LASPO Act, which has,
“an exceptional cases provision which deals with questions of the Human Rights Act and the convention requirements”.—[Official Report, 7/11/14; col. 1879.]
He said that that was as far as he could then go on the question of legal support. Without entering into any question of financial commitments, which will no doubt haunt both sides of the Committee, I just ask whether he can go a little further and become a little more sympathetic on this issue.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, it is not a question of sympathy. As the noble Lord well understands, it is a question of not committing a future Government as to how they would respond to this position.
It might help if I clarify that the scope of civil legal aid is set out in the LASPO Act 2012. It provides that civil legal services are to be made available subject to satisfying the means and merits and the matter or type of case being within the scope of the civil legal aid scheme. In order to bring a matter within the scope of the civil legal aid scheme, an amendment to Part 1 of Schedule 1 to LASPO would need to be made. The power to make such an amendment by way of affirmative secondary legislation is already set out in LASPO. It would therefore be unnecessary and not usual practice for separate provision to be made in other primary legislation to provide such a power.
That is the position quite apart from the question of exceptional funding, which is concerned, as I said when we were last in Committee, with matters where it could be said that there was a violation of the convention right or, alternatively, a violation—although I do not think it is relevant—of some provision of EU law. That remains an uncertain provision, but it could potentially be relevant, so that is my answer.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification saying, in effect, that there is already power to make sure that this is covered so far as legal aid is concerned under existing legislation. Three points are worth making. First, the key point is that anyone in the situation of considering an assisted death should feel that they would have access to proper legal advice so that the application would not appear to be a burden. Secondly, I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that it is difficult to identify what an individual case might cost and involve. Some cases will involve no opposition, it being completely agreed and clear that this is the right course to take but nevertheless it should still go to the High Court. It would be very helpful to have a lawyer to help the family through that process. Others may involve more. I suspect that most cases would be on the uncontested end of the spectrum, but we have to provide for the other end of the spectrum as well.
I submit that the appropriate course to take would be that this is covered by legal aid. We should also try to build in easy access in hospitals and with doctors so that people know where they can go to get this help. The key thing is that the family should know that if they need legal help they can get it, it can be obtained easily and quickly and if they cannot afford it it will not cost them anything. I agree in principle with the approach that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is taking. I suspect that it will not need an amendment to the Bill.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s helpful reply and for the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I will consider this extremely carefully. I personally think that it would be appropriate and simplest if we were to have a provision in this Bill rather than having to set in train a completely new statutory instrument, with all the separate procedures that that would involve. I should be grateful if Members of the House, after reflecting on this short debate, would get in touch with me if they have a particular view on the options that are now presented to us. For the moment, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
The noble Lord mentioned that legal aid should also be available to members of the family and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer made the same point. Would he take that view if members of the family were opposed to the wish of the person seeking assisted suicide? For example, if parents of a young person of 18 or 19 wanted to intervene, would his amendment cover the position of such parents?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am grateful for that intervention. I think my answer is this. I speak with the experience in the early part of my career of having had a lot to do with family matters and of acting for a coroner. The sad fact is that applications under the Bill when it is enacted could be highly contested, especially in circumstances where a close relative believes that undue pressure is being brought on the person making the application and is convinced that the application needs proper airing before a judge. I know that doctors will give their opinions, but sometimes the facts are complicated. Members of the family will not be able to approach doctors to say, “For goodness’ sake, do you not know blah blah blah?”. One needs to make arrangements for legal aid in such cases. I am utterly convinced that it would be scandalous if we allowed this to go forward without making arrangements for people who cannot afford legal advice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, this is a clarificatory amendment looking at the purposes of the Bill. We might think that they are already entirely clear and I agree that in negative respects it is absolutely clear that this is not a euthanasia Bill. It is not comparable to legislation that exists in the Low Countries: it is something else. But I think we left Second Reading very unclear about what it is. It is labelled an Assisted Dying Bill, but its provisions are about assisting suicide. That makes a difference.
The evidence that the purposes of the Bill were not well understood at Second Reading can be seen in the number of speeches in which noble Lords related very sad stories about difficult deaths where the death would not have been eligible under this legislation, whether because it was a chronic not a terminal condition or because it was, although terminal, not the case that the person had the relevant mental capacity. It would be helpful to us all to focus on what the Bill is actually about, which is assisting suicide. As a number of noble Lords said at Second Reading, the legislation that is intended to be changed by this Bill is the Suicide Act 1961. It is intended to alter the provisions by which people aid and abet another person’s suicide. It should be very clear in the text of the Bill that that is what it is for. We all believe in truth in advertising. I suggest that we want clarity in legislation and the same sort of truthfulness. I beg to move.
Lord Gold (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment because I agree entirely that we need certainty in our understanding of what this legislation is for. At the moment, although there is some reassuring language in the Bill, I do not think it clarifies what the noble Baroness has just stated, which is that this is a measure to assist suicide.
I am sure that all noble Lords have had correspondence—I have received many letters and e-mails—reflecting great uncertainty as to what this is all about. One of the things we in this House must do is make sure that, if we pass the Bill into law, we have spelt out exactly what it is for and the exact process that people will go through if they are to be able to take advantage—if that is the right word; I do not think it is, really—of this legislation. I hope that we will agree to clarify the position.
Lord Brennan (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment for the following reasons. Parliament should speak the truth in legislation. In so doing, whatever degree of sentiment we strongly hold for or against an issue, when it comes to the very content of a statute there is no room for emotion and definitely no place for euphemism. The right words should be used in their right meaning. An Assisted Dying Bill could easily be understood to refer to a palliative care Bill. An assisted suicide Bill tells the truth, and the Bill should say that on its face.
It is a legislative irony that in Switzerland, which gave rise to Dignitas, the legislation specifically refers to suicide. At present, the word “suicide” appears only once in this Bill, in Clause 6(2), and that occurs because of statutory necessity. For the Bill to pass, the medical participant must be given an exemption from prosecution under that Act, otherwise the law will be broken. In the Bill’s present content the word is used once to amend a previous law, but not again.
It is necessary to use the word “suicide” because, first, death is normally a passive process. Medical participation in producing another person’s death is an active process. It involves the person wishing it, the doctor being satisfied and thus able to certify that it is reasonable, a process for use of the drugs that are to be given, and then the prospect of statutory provision. All of that surely requires clarity of expression. Secondly, it is necessary to better inform both our debate and public debate. In a Gallup poll conducted in 2013, 70% of the participants agreed with the proposition to:
“End the patient’s life by some painless means”,
but only 51% were ready to agree to:
“Assist the patient to commit suicide”.
The more bland and emollient the language used, the more acceptable the proposition becomes. The clearer the language, the more we are in touch with reality, and the better the decision to be made.
The Committee benefits from Members such as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, with her clarity of thinking, accuracy of expression and modesty in presentation. I commend the amendment. Returning to my first point, there should be truth in legislation and, using her advice, we should pass this amendment because it is commensurate with the gravity of the issue with which we are dealing: life, or death, committed at the hands of a third party.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I want to make one brief point. I agree with the speakers who have contributed so far that we need clarity and truth. The issue here is the decision to be made. If someone wants to commit suicide, they are deciding whether or not they wish to die. This Bill is not about that at all. It is about people who are dying, and the only question for them is how they die and whether they can die with dignity. That is an entirely different question, and it is extremely important that the Bill is absolutely clear about that distinction.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I hate to cross swords with the noble Baroness, for whom I have enormous respect, but frankly she is wrong. This is about accelerating a death by wilful means, and there is no case for ambiguity here. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, has made a powerful speech and I endorse all that he said. There is no case for ambiguity. We are talking about terminally ill people who have decided— often, I imagine, after long and careful thought and in consideration of their families—that they want to bring forward the termination. That is suicide, and they are going to be assisted. It would be in the interests not only of clarity but of honesty to make the Bill the “assisted suicide Bill”, because then we would know what we are talking about and people in the country would know what we are talking about. There is a powerful case for the Bill and a powerful case against it, but there is no case at all for fudging it.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I want to speak on this issue and against the amendment. Some colleagues will know that shortly before I entered this House, my partner died of a very aggressive cancer known as angiosarcoma. It came back swiftly and his death, I am certain, was assisted. During that period at the brilliant Royal Marsden Hospital, I was absolutely clear that if my husband of six years and partner of 31 years was to die, I wanted to die with him. I raise this not out of any sentiment or emotion, but for the very clarity that we need when dealing with assisted dying. I was healthy and wanted to commit suicide to end a healthy life. My partner—my husband—was facing a death that could happen in a week, three days or three months. To see him almost completely out of his senses because of the morphine, but still aware that he was unable to breathe, offered me clarity enough that I wanted to commit suicide and that my husband, who was dying, needed his death accelerated. With respect to noble Lords who are proposing this amendment, it will not bring clarity; it will, sadly, do the reverse.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, that was a very powerful speech. The Bill as it stands seems to me to involve no lack of clarity whatever. Clause 1(1) is perfectly clear:
“A person who is terminally ill may request and lawfully be provided with assistance to end his or her own life”.
What does assistance mean? Clause 4(1) is perfectly clear:
“The attending doctor of a person who has made a valid declaration may prescribe medicines for that person to enable that person to end their own life”.
There is no lack of clarity there. We may disagree over whether this is a desirable or an undesirable Bill, but the idea that people in the country do not understand the issues because of the wording of the Bill is simply fanciful.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, with great respect to my noble friend Lord Pannick, I disagree, and totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. There is another issue beyond clarity here. One of the issues that was raised at Second Reading and, I think, on the first day in Committee was the concept that fragile and possibly deranged, angry and distressed elderly people coming into hospital have of the nature of their status as patients. The use of the word “suicide” brings clarity for them, because it makes a very big difference to medical and nursing practitioners, who can quite clearly see that they will not be involved in a process of assisted dying. It is, effectively, suicide, and that limits any notion of how they might feel when they feel that somebody is not really worth supporting in hospital. This is a major problem and will become an increasing one. We see the increasing difficulties in the health service when dealing with cancer care at the moment and the provision of drugs. There will be pressures on budgets and increasing pressures on patients who will feel under pressure to take a decision that is not entirely theirs. I therefore support this amendment.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the previous speaker. I do not believe there is clarity in the country about this matter at the moment. This is the first time I have spoken in Committee on the Bill, and I think I was the only person at Second Reading to draw attention to the practical implications of the Bill for modern multicultural Britain. Today in this country we are privileged to share our lives with virtually every nationality and culture on earth. This is a great privilege but also a considerable responsibility when it comes to the life and death issues captured in the Bill. It is from within this context, having spent the past 31 years working in the East End of London, that I speak today.
On an issue as sensitive and as important as the state helping people in modern Britain to sign their lives away, it is very important that the national debate about these matters is carried out as fairly and objectively as possible, so that British people can make balanced and informed judgments about these important matters that affect both them and members of their families. One of my primary concerns in speaking today is to ensure that the hard facts are all on the table and can be seen in the clear light of day. In that regard, the words we use in the Bill and what we mean by them really matters when we have to translate their meaning and purpose into the languages and dialects of every nationality on earth—but more of that later.
The Second Reading debate in your Lordships’ House and the first day in Committee demonstrated the House at its best and brought to the surface the very real, practical and complex issues for all to see, if only members of the public were allowed to both hear and see them. This House, packed as it is with so much experience and knowledge, is probably the only place in the country where a debate such as this can take place in a way that addresses the detail in all its glory.
That said, I have been concerned during the process of this debate in the country that some of our media, which have a responsibility to educate and inform the general public about all sides of this argument, have simply gone into campaigning mode. It would be interesting to ask how many of the journalists and commentators have actually read Lords Hansard and dug down into the issues with us, and then honestly and fairly communicated their findings. This issue sadly lends itself to lots of sentimental stories on all sides, but the hard realities are far less palatable in a media-driven age that skims across the surface of our lives.
I am concerned that much of our media are not covered with glory with regard to setting out clearly the complex choices and practical issues that need to be understood if members of the public are to seriously engage with the issues and make informed choices on this matter. I have tested this at home with members of my own family and got the sense, before they were encouraged to look further, that, for them, going for this injection would be a bit like going to the optician or dentist. Of course, the dentist analogy carries with it far more personal experience, I suspect, and fear.
There have been considerable sentimental stories about individuals in our media who, of course, have gone through terrible times, without the necessary balance given—
Lord Dykes (LD)
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and I apologise for interrupting him and his interesting remarks. But would it not be a courtesy to the Committee, bearing in mind the pressure on time, to refer specifically to this amendment?
Lord Mawson
My Lords, the words we use are important, as is how the general public hear the words we use, and I think that these matters are far from clear in the country. I am not convinced that the balance has been given and the counterarguments shared. In this matter, I think that what I have to say is important.
Many of us in the Chamber have been involved in campaigns over the years, and we know how easily experienced politicians can collude, through their networks of relationships in the media, with campaigning journalists who love a nice story and funders, and put an act together. Good luck to them, I say. However, on an issue as important as this, this activity needs to be seen for what it is. Good objective presentation must be the order of the day if people are to be able to make informed choices.
Baroness O’Cathain (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. This is such an important day and we are, in effect, time-limited. We cannot really start the day by having Second Reading speeches.
Lord Mawson
My Lords, I am happy to hear that, although I think there is a debate to be had. I am happy to sit down but there is an issue here, which is being drawn to the surface, about the words we use and about what the country understands is happening about this matter. I am happy to sit down, although I was going to illustrate the point with a practical example from the BBC about these matters and with an experience I had, where it was absolutely clear that large parts of the general public were not clear about this. I think the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has put his finger on a point that needs to be listened to.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, has been trying to get in for some time. I think the Committee would like to hear from her.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. I am sorry I have not got a loud voice. I may be a little slow. This is not because I want to hold up the Bill, I just have things to say.
We have been told time and again that disabled people with life-limiting conditions—and I use that term advisedly because we do not recognise the terms “terminal illness” and “months” or “weeks to live”; but more about that later, under a suitable amendment—have nothing to fear from the Bill. We are told that it is necessary only to help a few desperate individuals to end their lives when they have weeks or months to live, and that, if enacted, it will not touch anyone who does not want it. I do not believe that and, it seems, neither do the authors of the Bill. Why else would they elect to name it the Assisted Dying Bill instead of the assisted suicide Bill? If it is truly concerned only with personal autonomy and choice, surely that should be celebrated and clear.
By avoiding the term “assisted suicide”, the Bill circumvents the framework of measures in place to review, monitor and prevent other forms of suicide. It seeks to exclude deaths under the Bill from the general requirement for a coroner’s inquest to be conducted where suicide is considered a possible cause of death. It contains a provision for publication of annual statistics of “assisted deaths” separate from the established arrangements for collecting and publishing statistics on deaths by suicide. It provides for a death under the Bill to be recorded by the registrar as an “assisted death”.
I have a question for the Minister. This Government, like their predecessors, have a major cross-departmental suicide prevention strategy. It seeks,
“a reduction in the suicide rate in the general population in England”,
and defines suicide as,
“a deliberate act that intentionally ends one’s life”.
In the light of this definition, will the Minister inform us whether, if the Bill were to become law, he anticipates a rise in the suicide rate, and would he expect the suicide prevention strategy to contain measures to reduce the numbers in this group intentionally ending their own lives?
We all, in this House and outside, understand the word “suicide”. It centres on the individual. The act of suicide is the responsibility of the person who commits it, and no other. It is impossible to commit suicide without first consenting to do so. The same does not apply to the word “dying”.
Assisted dying is practised in Belgium, the Netherlands and elsewhere. Whatever the initial intentions were, decisions to end life in those places are now not taken only by the individual. It is not an autonomous act. The slippery slope is oiled by the vague euphemism of “assisted dying”. Disabled and terminally people are rightly frightened that the Bill, as currently named, puts them at risk. The purpose of the amendment is to provide some safeguards through the use of plain language. “Assisted suicide” makes it clear that only the individual may instigate and control the process leading to an early, state-sanctioned death. I urge noble Lords to support this argument.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, there is a deep reason why so serious a Bill should be particularly careful about the language it uses. One of the problems we have today is that people use language in order to establish not the truth but a slight version of the truth that they wish to pass off. I hope the House will excuse me if I use what may appear to be a flippant example but I think it sums it up.
In the register of interests, I declare that I am the chairman of the Association of Professional Financial Advisers. The Financial Services Authority decided to call the changes that it wanted in the industry, “treating customers fairly”. This was done to suggest that anybody who did not agree with every fact in the policy would be treating customers unfairly. It was designed to have a particular effect.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name down to Amendments 129, 130, 132 and 152 in this group, which are all concerned to achieve the same purpose as the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill—clarity and honesty.
The point has already been made that this is an amendment to the Suicide Act and therefore consistency alone demands that we use a word such as “suicide” rather than “dying”. Before the Bill started to be discussed, if you asked the average person what the phrase “assisted dying” meant, I think most people would say that it would be to try to help a person who is dying be comfortable and out of pain, and that they had somebody with them to accompany them in this process, this journey out of this world. That is what “assisting” them would be. It would be totally different from taking active steps to end their life. I am rather surprised by the conviction with which the supporters of the Bill are opposing what we are asking for, which is simply clarity, honesty and a doing-away of the cloak of these euphemisms—it occurs not just in the case of the word “suicide” but, as we will discuss later, in the use of the term “medicine” instead of “lethal drugs”. Let us go for clarity and honesty. Even supporters of the Bill should approve of that.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, I speak in support of the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Cormack, Lord Winston and Lord Deben. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has just made clear, the Bill seeks to amend Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961. This should be made explicit throughout the Bill: it will allow doctors to assist in the suicide of a terminally ill patient. Regardless of a person’s state of health, if they deliberately end their own life, they are committing suicide rather than simply hastening the process of dying. Anyone else involved in this act is assisting a suicide.
In making this as clear as possible, the amendments in this grouping, some of which have my name attached to them, are seeking to be constructive. As has been mentioned, some strident voices in society claim that this is a euthanasia Bill; it is clearly not. But outside this place, there is some confusion about what the Bill is seeking to legalise, which must be dispelled. First, doctors must understand exactly what the Bill will require of them. Secondly, the terminally ill, who might seek to take advantage of provisions within the Bill, must understand that ultimately they will be required to take their own lives. Finally, society must understand the change to the law that Parliament is considering.
The amendments encourage us to move beyond mere slogans. They introduce an element of clarity which is a prerequisite for proper scrutiny. They also bring sharply into focus what the Bill seeks to do and what it does not.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, it is a besetting vice of politics to use language which is designed to achieve the maximum of impact and the minimum of definition; I very much agree with the words spoken just now by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. In doing so, we degrade our politics. One expects that in advertising; one does not expect it in politics and in government, and it is very bad for the confidence of the public in politics and the legislative process.
There is a better model that it would be worth looking at for a moment. A Bill was brought into the Scottish Parliament by Margo MacDonald entitled the Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill; it was not entitled the assisted dying Bill. There is the model of precision, accuracy and candour which the Committee should follow. We should support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle, not least because he and I have a greater insight than most into each other’s parliamentary lives, as we receive a great deal of each other’s post on a mostly daily basis.
I hesitate to disagree with words used so firmly by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I do so particularly because, not so long ago, he appeared as my counsel in a public law case with his customary brilliance. However, the emphasis of his assertion, that this Bill is perfectly clear, is in my view just plain wrong, mainly for the reason given so clearly by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. As he was speaking, I was thinking back to the death two years ago of my then 98-and-a-half year-old mother. The family took enormous steps to assist her death. We put her in the place that we thought was most comfortable for her death—she did not agree, but that was characteristic of our robust and loving relationship. We took steps to ensure that all her grandchildren and great-grandchildren went to see her. We brought her her favourite alcoholic beverage, something rather eccentric called Wiszniowka. We did everything we possibly could to make her as comfortable as was possible. But we did not assist her to commit suicide. She died a natural death as a result of, unfortunately, rampant disease which she experienced in old age.
We debated earlier this week part of another Bill, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, in which something was described as the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, which was anything but a privacy and civil liberties board—it was a perfectly legitimate suggestion, but it was not what it said on the tin. This Bill empowers people who would otherwise be committing a serious crime to be excused from the criminal consequences of their action. It enables people—apparently doctors under its provisions as they stand—to kill other people deliberately, after consideration, with purpose. Anyone who believes that that is not the case is not taking a realistic look at the Bill. It is a matter for Parliament whether that is a proper thing for Parliament to do—I am not commenting on that at the moment, although I am opposed to it—but it is misleading to the public not to say what the Bill does, both in a provision such as that proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and in the Title, which we will debate at a later stage, if we get to it.
When we include in the Bill words like those proposed by the noble Baroness and others, we are providing clarity which tells us two things about impact: first, it tells us about the impact on the person who is giving the assistance—as I said, they are committing a serious act which would otherwise be a breach of the law which might well land them in prison; secondly, we are describing the impact on the person who is wishing to die. We are saying that this is not a normal death, even if it is a death which is assisted by what is sometimes called, very clearly, the doctrine of double effect. We are making it clear that that person is dying because they wish to do so.
I am surprised to hear so much opposition from supporters of the Bill to giving within it a clear description of what they intend. If they do not accept this kind of amendment, then others, including some journalists who have been commenting favourably on the narrow scope of the Bill, may well come to the conclusion that it is indeed just a stalking horse for euthanasia.
Lord Warner (Lab)
My Lords, I have been sitting through these debates for 12 years—
Lord Ashton of Hyde
We cannot have two people speaking at once. I am sure that the noble Lords can resolve it between them.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I have been sitting through these debates on assisted dying for some 12 years, sometimes on the Front Bench and sometimes on the Back Benches. I agree that I am getting older and my memory may be getting a little faulty, but I do not recollect in many of those debates people standing up with such skills of advocacy as we have heard this morning about this definitional issue in the wording of the Bill.
We have been talking about legislation which has been labelled assisted dying Bills over the 12 years from the first efforts in this area of my noble friend Lord Joffe. We have had commissions on it which have used the term “assisted dying”. The public have got used to the term “assisted dying”. If we really want to confuse the public at this point, changing the terminology of the Bill is a really good thing to do. We have sat through long public debates over this particular—
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but I just wanted to inquire: why does he think that it would cause confusion to introduce the term assisted suicide rather than assisted dying, when the actual fact is that it is assisted suicide? I just do not understand the logic. People understand suicide and dying as two separate acts.
Lord Warner
If we are really concerned with what the public understand, it is a bit presumptuous to assume that they have been following these debates for 10 to 12 years but have not understood what we have been talking about in terms of assisted dying. We get a lot of criticism in Westminster—
Lord Warner
I realise that I have annoyed the noble Lord, but if I could just finish my sentence, it would be helpful, and it would probably speed up the business of the House if I could at least deploy my arguments before people interrupted them.
We have lived with this terminology of assisted dying for some time. I believe that it is patronising to the public to assume that they do not understand it. We are often criticised in Westminster and Whitehall for living in a special bubble. This seems to me a classic example of doing that. I must say that I am a little sceptical about this sudden enthusiasm for precision when we have not had much of that before.
Lord Elton
Before the noble Lord sits down, I would pick up his phrase “the Westminster bubble”. That is precisely the problem: we do live in the Westminster bubble. We think that the intellectuals who lead the political papers are the whole public; they are a tiny minority of it. The general public know what suicide is, just as they know what death is. We need to choose what the Bill is about, and a great many of us believe that it is about suicide, not assisted death.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
Of course the Bill is about assisted suicide, but equally obviously, it is expressly confined to the suicide of those who are already terminally ill—those who are therefore already actually in the process of dying; that is, dying in an altogether more meaningful sense than when one says that everybody is born to die and we are all dying. That is perfectly plain already in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, but at the end of the day, for my part, I am entirely relaxed about this group of amendments. I urge that the House proceeds speedily to the critical issues on which the Bill should stand or fall, so that the public will in all this can be given effect. The public will not give a fig what Title is given to it.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I strongly agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, just said. We need to recognise that the amendments are not really about clarity but about conferring on the Bill the stigma which traditionally attaches to suicide. The use of the term suicide breaches the Samaritans’ guidance on language, which states that:
“Inappropriate or careless use of language can perpetuate stigma or sensationalise a death”.
The term suicide is inappropriate when discussing the rational choice of a mentally competent terminally ill patient who is seeking a peaceful and dignified death. The American Psychological Association has stated that:
“It is important to remember that the reasoning on which a terminally ill person [whose judgments are not impaired by mental disorders] bases a decision to end his or her life is fundamentally different from the reasoning a clinically depressed person uses to justify suicide”.
The amendments add nothing to what the debate should be about and distract us from discussing the mechanics of the process, which I think we should get on with.
The Bill would legalise the provision of assistance to a dying competent adult to control the time and manner of their death when that death is imminent and unavoidable. It would not legalise assistance with suicide for those who are not terminally ill, and I think that we should leave the Bill as it stands.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Low, but I do so for the following reason. I have previously declared my interest as chairman of Hospice UK, the umbrella organisation for hospices in this country. The hospice movement has no collective view on the Bill, so inevitably I speak for myself, not for the hospice movement, but I know that the point that I am about to make is widely shared within that movement. To put the matter at its lowest, if the Bill becomes law, the challenges which the hospice movement and the people who work in it will face will be much more complicated. It is therefore essential that clarity is achieved.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in his characteristically powerful speech, said to your Lordships that anyone who reads Clause 1 can be in no doubt about what it means, and he read out Clause 1. That would be a very persuasive argument in a court of law, but I fear that most people who will be faced with the terrible decision which the Bill will legalise will not have read Clause 1. That argument does not advance the issues before your Lordships on the amendments. I believe that clarity is essential, and can best be achieved by agreeing the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness.
Lord Mawhinney (Con)
My Lords, as one who has signed several amendments, I will say that I did so not because of conversations with other noble Lords but because I read the Bill. The more I read, the more I was puzzled by its title. I wish that I had thought of the simile that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, used when she talked about the similarity with truth in advertising. I came to the view that the Bill was about assisting suicide rather than assisted dying. I was stimulated along that thought process by two things. One was the speech of my noble friend Lord Howard at Second Reading when he talked about the work of the hospices. I have recently had some involvement with a hospice in Peterborough. The second was correspondence with doctors who work in the palliative medicine field. Both things created in my mind the vision that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, gave of assisted dying being a palliative feature of making the process more comfortable for the patient.
I am just smart enough never to want to tangle on legal matters with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I noted the points that he read to us from the Bill in support of his contention that the Bill is perfectly clear. The second thing that caused me to come to the conclusion that I should put my name to the amendments was Clause 4—so let me read just a little bit to your Lordships. It states:
“The assisting health professional must remain with the person until the person has … self-administered the medicine and died”.
Where I come from, I guess that they would call that suicide. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, introduced the word “euphemism”, which has been at the heart of a lot of the speeches that we have heard. It has taken the form of clarity in telling the truth. I have to say that in all honesty I do not like the euphemism attached to the wording of the Bill when it comes to this point, and I was happy to add my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, by convention I must apologise to the House: I was unable to attend Second Reading as I had had major surgery 10 days before. I have listened to the debates and the element of compassion is very clear in all the Members of your Lordships’ House—but compassion is not enough. The Bill is introducing a significant change that is secured by the terminology that it adopts. That is why it is so important that we support the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the other noble Lords who put their names to this amendment.
The BMA stated yesterday that skilled and compassionate palliative care with good communication and patient involvement can help many patients’ fears of death. By focusing on assisted dying as a solution to people’s anxieties about end of life care, society is having the wrong debate. If we pass the Bill, people will know that there will be circumstances in which we as a society have decided that we want people to be able to commit suicide with assistance from the medical profession. The Bill provides that people must be assisted to commit suicide in specified circumstances; it does not provide that they must be assisted to die.
I have seen close family members die of motor neurone disease and cancer. I know that they were helped as they came to death by the loving care of good doctors, professional and expert nurses and other medical professionals, and by the appropriate application of palliative care. The Bill is about people who want to take their lives being provided with the wherewithal and being enabled by the medical profession to do so, and it is right that the content of the Bill should reflect that reality. One of our duties as legislators is to try to ensure the greatest possible clarity as we make laws—and it is for that reason that I support the amendment.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)
I join the noble Baroness in arguing for greater clarity on this, and I am genuinely surprised at the level of opposition to what seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable, understated amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, pointed out earlier, this does not at all affect the principles behind the Bill. There are still powerful arguments for allowing assisted suicide—and, although I am opposed to it, I recognise them. However, let us call it what it is. It is close to misleading to have the title of the Bill as it is the moment, any more than the title of the Homicide Act should be “Assisted Dying (Involuntary)”. No one would seriously describe a terrorist attack as assisted dying—but they have helped people to die, so I suppose you could justify it on that basis.
We try to narrow down a definition. If it is taking someone’s life against their will, we call it homicide or murder. If it is someone taking their own life, we call it suicide, and we have the Suicide Act 1961. It is that Act, not any other, that is amended by the Bill. How anyone can argue that a Bill amending the Suicide Act should not be called the Assisted Suicide Bill genuinely escapes me.
I draw noble Lords’ attention, although I will not quote it at length, to the Second Reading speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hameed, at col. 834, where he drew the very vital distinction between the withdrawal of artificial impediments to death taking its natural course and active intervention. That is a Rubicon that I think the public do not want to cross. I do not want to accuse the promoters of the Bill of any ill faith, but the fact that they choose to position the Bill as though it is on one side of the Rubicon when everyone knows that it is on the other rather gives me cause to think that they recognise that it is a Rubicon that the public are not yet ready to cross.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
I wonder if I could briefly settle this matter. I have just taken the extraordinary step of going to the Library and consulting the Oxford English Dictionary. I take it that most of us would accept the definitions of the Oxford English Dictionary. No one seems to dissent from that, so I will tell the House what it says here:
“suicide, n. The … act of taking one’s own life, self-murder”.
Can we settle the matter now?
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, when I sit in front of my noble friend Lord Tebbit on these Benches, he has the habit of ruffling my hair. Of course, sitting behind him, I do not have that advantage. Instead, I will try to ruffle his argument. He is absolutely right that the definition of suicide, which he called self-murder, is killing oneself. I simply cannot believe that that is an accurate reflection of what is being proposed. To end one’s life with the assistance of others, including two doctors, perhaps a registered nurse, and a judge, surrounded, hopefully, by those you love, cannot under any circumstances be deemed to be killing oneself.
We have had 2,000 years of Judaeo-Christian culture that has treated suicide as a matter for condemnation, which is why we used to bury them in anonymous graves at crossroads. This is clearly different. To attempt to cast those who take this course of action as suicides is wrong; not only does it not fit into the definitions but it lacks compassion. To term it suicide would only add to the distress of those in this very difficult position.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Is my noble friend not arguing against himself in arguing that the responsibility has somehow shifted away from the individual concerned?
Lord Dobbs
Not at all. Of course it is for the individual to make the ultimate decision, but he is not on his own. It is not what is happening right now, when people with these conditions are killing themselves by suffocating themselves with plastic bags. That is suicide; it is not suicide when you are surrounded by all those who are there to give you help in that final matter. There is another point that I would like to make.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, is that not taken into account by the use of the word “assisted”? No one is trying to pretend that this is something without other people there, but the word “assisted” implies that there are other participants around. The noble Lord, in deliberately ignoring one of the words in “assisted suicide”, is in danger, as has been said, of being misleading in what he is saying.
Lord Dobbs
Far from deliberately ignoring the word, I would like to turn to another point that I think will answer the noble Baroness’s question precisely. If we insist on using the word “suicide”, as required by the amendment, we could end up with entirely unintended and counterproductive consequences. When the Bill becomes law—as I believe eventually it will—if it legalises suicide rather than assisted dying, might that not tend to make all forms of suicide more acceptable? It would become the thin end of the wedge, the slippery slope, by making suicide in general more acceptable. That is not what I want. “Suicide” is the wrong terminology because this is a different matter from the other types of death that come under the determination of suicide.
Lord Dobbs
May I just finish this sentence? It might help bring about the very outcome that the opponents of the Bill seek to avoid.
Lord Cormack
If I ask my noble friend to give me a cup of hemlock, telling him that I am going to drink it, and he gives it to me and I drink it, have I committed suicide or not?
Lord Dobbs
The Bill is nothing to do with going off into a corner and getting someone to assist you in a death like that. This is a totally different legal and medical environment. We will all die.
Lord Winston
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, who has been constantly interrupted, for giving way yet again. Very briefly, does he not accept that many noble Lords have had well written letters from numerous people who are very confused about the nature of what is being proposed? That is one of the problems. Many of them with confused elderly relatives are worried that they are at risk. It is very clear that there needs to be the kind of clarity that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has talked about.
Lord Dobbs
That is precisely the sort of clarity that the proponents of the Bill wish to bring about. We are trying to change the law and any change in the law involves in the short term a degree of confusion. But once the Bill has been passed, as I know it will be eventually, I believe that the country will clearly understand what this is about. If we look at the way that this is being operated in other parts of the world, such as Oregon, there is no confusion.
Lord Mawhinney
I am grateful to my noble friend but what does he make of the fact that it is the movers of the Bill who have insisted on having “self-administered” in Clause 4, which I read earlier? Does self-administered not mean suicide?
Lord Dobbs
Self-administered, when surrounded by one’s family and registered nurses, with the assistance of doctors and under the approval of a judge, is not the same situation as the noble Lord suggests. He mentioned earlier that he is usually smart enough not to tangle with other people. I am usually smart enough not to tangle with him on any matter, but on this I disagree with him profoundly.
Please allow me to finish, because I do not want to delay the House. We all know that we have to die. That we do know and, for many of us, it will be the most challenging point of our lives and a time in which we need assistance and support. The deaths covered by the Bill are not only inevitable but imminent. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, used the phrase “dying because they wish to do so”. It is not dying because they wish to do so but because they are going to die and imminently. To term those inevitable deaths as suicide would make them even more difficult and distressing. I beg the House not to do so.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, briefly, the debate is now running into the sand a little and I hope that we can move on. I have great sympathy here for the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs. The word “suicide” could be applied to a member of the French resistance who, knowing that he was going to be captured and thinking that he would not be able to resist the Gestapo, took own life—an action I would completely understand—but it could also be applied to a suicide bomber. The word is so multivalent that once we start discussing it, we get into this interminable process. I suggest that we have now heard the arguments and should move on.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief because I did hear what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester has just said. I understand that the House will want to move to a conclusion but I was very struck by the remarks made a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, about suicide. I would like to return to that point in a moment. However, I support my noble friend Lady O’Neill for three reasons: the first is because of language, the second because of law and the third because of practice.
On the question of language, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, being a well known and very accomplished writer, will be familiar with the influential dystopian novel 1984 by George Orwell, who said in it that,
“if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought … It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words”.
The words that we use to describe our actions are crucial. There are so many other examples in law of euphemism, the word used earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, where we have distorted language to disguise the realities of what we are doing. I do not accuse the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, of doing that in his Bill but it is quite clear on page 4, line 11, where Clause 6(2) states:
“In the Suicide Act 1961, after section 2B (course of conduct), insert—”.
So the law will be changed. It is not the Dying Act but the Suicide Act that we are seeking to change.
There is language and law, but there is practice as well. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, talked about suicide. At an earlier stage, I mentioned that my father was one of five brothers who served in the Second World War. His eldest brother lost his hearing and became deeply depressed. He was very ill at the end of the war and took his own life. I agree with what the noble Lord said about the stigmatisation, particularly of mental health, and the suicides which can follow from it. We must be acutely aware of that.
In 2000, the World Health Organization issued new guidelines about suicide. It said:
“Suicide is perhaps the most tragic way of ending one’s life ... Every effort should be made to avoid overstatement”.
Interestingly, given the media coverage of these events, it also said:
“Front page headlines are never the ideal location for suicide reports … Suicide should not be depicted as a method of coping with personal problems … Instead, the emphasis should be on mourning the person’s death”.
This House wisely published a Select Committee report on these questions. It stated:
“Dying is not only a personal or individual affair. The death of a person affects the lives of others, often in ways and to an extent which cannot be foreseen”.
The ending or taking of a life is not a trivial question. We must say what we mean. The language must be clear and we must be aware of what the practice will involve. As I have said in this House before, I wish that we placed as much emphasis on helping those who wish to live by providing assisted living as on assisted dying, especially those who are vulnerable and feel at risk as a result of this legislation.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, may we have the privilege of listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson?
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
Thank you, my Lords. I have two very small amendments in this group, Amendments 161 and 167, which refer to the Suicide Act 1961 (Amendment) Act 2015. They merely serve to strengthen the declaration in relation to commensurate capacity.
On the main subject of this grouping, if I supported the Bill I would use the word dying because it suggests compassion, caring and a peaceful death. If suicide was associated with the Bill it would perhaps trigger some suicide prevention measures, which would increase the safety of the Bill and give comfort to a number of people. If the final action is to be taken by the individual, not by the doctor, surely that is suicide. I offer a challenge to your Lordships’ House on terminology. For years, disabled people were called not normal— they still are. They were called deformed, spastic, cripples and handicapped. There are also nasty words around race and culture. That is not a reason not to change and move on, or not to improve the language that we use. If we are honest about what the Bill is and if we are talking about autonomy, the word to use is suicide.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am well aware that the Committee wishes to move on, so I appeal to its forbearance to allow me to make a couple of remarks. It is 10 years and two days since I lodged formally my proposal in the Scottish Parliament, a precursor to Margo MacDonald’s Bill. My proposal was the Right to Die for the Terminally Ill Bill, and I was well aware at that point of the criticisms of those who opposed it: that I was using emotionally charged language or euphemism, or softer language than it necessarily should be. The context in the proposal referred to physician-assisted suicide. Over the 10 years I have had an interest in this, having lodged a proposal in a legislature with a distinctly different background from the legislation on suicide in England and Wales, I have come to the conclusion that the terminology and definition in this Bill is absolutely correct.
Over the last 10 years, I have been struck that those people who would wish to use the protections under such a Bill—I believe that they are protections—are the least suicidal people you could find. They are people who love life and strive to live as long as they possibly can, but their life is being robbed from them because of a terminal illness. They come to the conclusion that they wish to have control in their remaining days, whereas control is being removed from them. I agree absolutely that language and terminology are important, and that truthfulness is vital. I am slightly upset when it is alleged that some of us who are on a different side in this debate are less truthful than others. Second Reading was a profoundly important moment, when we respected each side in the debate. Having used the different terms myself, over those 10 years I have come to these conclusions.
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
Has the noble Lord not detected in his correspondence, as I have, that being mealy-mouthed about language has been rumbled by the public? In this Bill, they are discovering there is an element of sophistry in the Title.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
To some extent, that illustrates the point I was making. The Bill cannot be described as sophistry or as trying to secretly or behind the scenes change the law in a subtle or slightly insidious way. It is being presented to Parliament in the clearest of terms. All the issues were aired during the extensive Second Reading debate, in which every Member was able to take part, where even the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary was presented. All these issues have been aired; the question is about the right balance of terminology that the public, the medical profession and the legal profession understand and the legislation will hold. That is why I hold that this is the correct term for the Bill.
Lord Tebbit
I wonder why the noble Lord cannot accept the definition of suicide written in the Oxford English Dictionary. We have all accepted it for a very long time. Why does he now not accept it?
Lord Purvis of Tweed
This Bill is not redefining suicide; nor are we seeking to redefine suicide; nor is someone who comes down from Scotland every week saying that the legislation in the past in England and Wales was superior or inferior to the approach in Scotland, where suicide has never been criminalised. This is not a debate about that; it is a debate about those coming to the end of a terminal illness and their ability to control their final days. It is limited legislation. Opening it up to this wider aspect and all the associated aspects of wider suicide is not necessary. That is why, over the past 10 years, I have come to this clear conclusion.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, we have spent enough time on terminology. As my noble friend Lord Tebbit said, the dictionary states that suicide is self-murder. I think it is more than that. It is a crime against the maker and nature, and we should abandon this terminology of suicide.
Lord Carey of Clifton (CB)
My Lords, I know we all feel very passionately about this matter. I do, intensely. There is a very clear distinction between the two terms, and it lies more in the area of psychology and meaning than anywhere else. In my ministry as a priest and as a bishop, I have dealt with suicidal people and in a number of cases they went on with the clear intention to end their life. I have sat with dying people who, if the law were available, would have ended their life by assisted suicide. There is a clear distinction between the two. I know the rational capacity of some of my friends who wanted to end their intense suffering. They were not suicidal at all; they were clearly determined to find a way for the sake of their loved ones as well as for themselves.
We have had a wonderful debate on this. I think it is time to end it by putting it to the test. I will reject the amendment.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, this has indeed been a passionate and well informed debate. Your Lordships have shown colossal restraint in the debates we have had so far and have shown great respect for the arguments of the opposing side. I hope that will continue to be the way we approach all the amendments in future. There were a few moments of strain during this debate, perhaps understandably.
At this stage, I should perhaps repeat the position of the Government, which is that we remain neutral. These Benches will have a free vote, should the Committee divide on this or any other amendment, and I shall, of course, endeavour to assist the Committee on any matters of law, without compromising that position.
I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, whether the Government have considered a rise in suicide rates as a result of this Bill. I should tell the Committee that we have collected no evidence about the effects this Bill could have on suicide rates, were it to be enacted, but nothing about the Bill in any way compromises the cross-department suicide prevention strategy.
We generally use “assisted dying” as a portmanteau term to cover both assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. Ultimately, as many noble Lords have said, it is a matter of tone and message. Your Lordships will decide whether it is appropriate that any of these amendments should be reflected. It is entirely a matter for the Committee.
Lord Faulks
In this context, it is for the Committee to consider the appropriate term. I decline to go any further.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this has been a very impressive debate. I completely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said about it being in the right tone.
I shall make three points. First, I acknowledge the speech by my noble friend Lord Cashman, which was of immense power and immense pain. He made the incredibly important point that in the circumstances in which he found himself, he was very clear about the distinction between assisted dying and suicide. I understand the difficulty and the pain that must have been involved in making that speech. All Members of Committee appreciate that.
Secondly, there are two separate groups in this group of amendments. One group is those amendments which wish to change various bits of the wording of the Bill to refer more often to the word “suicide”. Not one of those points has been pursued in detail except for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, as regards Clause 4, in which he sought to suggest that the use in the draft Bill of the word “self-administration” was in some way euphemistic. It was not. It was used because a vital brick in the Bill is that the person has to do the last act to himself or herself. They have to do it to make clear that it is not euthanasia. That is why that word is there; it is not in any way intended to be euphemistic.
As regards the other matter, the Title of the Bill—which is the key point in the debate—I have thought very carefully about what the Bill should be called. I am always wary when I think to myself, “What will other people think I mean?”. When I hear noble Lords speculating about what the public may think, I am always rather wary; all we can do is to go by the words.
I have used the phrase “assisted dying” for three reasons. First, it is accurate. The purpose of my Bill as drafted is to:
“Enable competent adults who are terminally ill to be provided at their request with specified assistance to end their own life”.
That is the wording of the Long Title. Nobody in this debate has questioned its accuracy. What is the right way to convey a Long Title in a short title? In my view the right and most accurate way is by using the words “assisted dying”. That is why, after very considerable thought and having discussed it with people—not just people in favour but also lawyers—I wished to convey accurately what the position was.
The second reason is that to call the Bill “the Assisted Suicide Bill” would, as a matter of law, give the wrong impression. The words “assisted suicide” would give the impression that assistance could be given in any category of suicide. The third reason was that touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who said that those engaged in helping people as regards suicide are very antipathetic to the words “committing suicide”. There is a moral opprobrium attached to it. For those three reasons I decided that the right wording was “assisted dying”. I urge the Committee to accept the Title as it is.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, my comments would have been most apposite when I tried to intervene earlier. At that point, the noble and learned Lord was quoting from the contribution from my noble friend Lord Mawhinney, who referred to Clause 4. I observe that that clause talks about prescribing,
“medicines for that person to enable that person to end their own life”.
Does he agree with me that the worst euphemism here is the use of the word “medicines”?
Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate on the first amendment in this group, which is very limited. I observe that the Bill does not alter the law on suicide. Suicide is not a crime. If your Lordships think about it, if suicide is successful, you cannot prosecute.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
It does alter the law on suicide because it gives a specified defence.
Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve
It alters the law on assisting suicide, and it will be for the Committee, during the discussion of the amendments that lie ahead, to determine whether it alters that law in an effective and secure way. That is not the issue here. The issue in the first amendment is simply: what is the Bill about? I hope that one of these days your Lordships’ House will consider a Bill on assisted suicide. As many noble Lords have said, that involves a much wider category of issues than this particular issue. We should not pre-empt a possible Bill in which we gave expression to compassion and care for the dying with this very specific Bill, which is about something rather different. I understand the reservations of the proponents of the Bill. They feel that this is an unpleasant word to have in the Bill more prominently, but it also represents the particular purpose of the legislation more accurately, and I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bichard) (CB)
In calling Amendment 13 I advise the House that, if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 15 for reasons of pre-emption.
Amendment 13
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. In relation to pre-emption, Amendment 13A is part of this group, and will be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. It has the effect of amending the term “registered medical practitioners” to “licensed medical practitioners”. I make it clear at the outset that I have no objection whatever to that amendment being made. Indeed, I regard it as a helpful amendment to my amendment, for a reason that I shall now give.
As I understand the situation, a registered medical practitioner could be any medical practitioner who is on the register. I suppose that that is stating the obvious, but that could include, for example, a medical practitioner who is retired but who has chosen for one reason or another to remain on the register. It could include a registered practitioner who has not laid hands on a patient for a very long time. A licensed medical practitioner is one who is shown in the General Medical Council’s relevant documents to hold a particular expertise or expertises that are current. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will explain that more expertly than me in a little time.
I regard this group of amendments as extremely important, because they come at the gateway to assistance with suicide and assistance with dying that is provided for in this Bill. The gateway is diagnosis; nobody can go through that gateway unless they have been diagnosed as terminally ill—and what terminally ill means is defined.
I cite table 1 on page 7 of the Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act Annual Report for 2013. Its figures show that the median patient-physician relationship prior to assisted suicide in Oregon in 2013 was 12 weeks. That means that for the 752 people in Oregon recorded as dying using the Death with Dignity Act, half knew their doctor for 12 weeks or less.
I make no complaint about these issues if we are to have this Bill as an Act, but what are the issues that the diagnosing doctor or doctors are to certify themselves as satisfied about? First, it is that the person concerned has an inevitably progressive condition. That is quite a serious medical diagnosis, as is plain, to be determined at the date of the diagnosis. Secondly, it is that it cannot be reversed by treatment. In Clause 2(2), it is stated:
“Treatment which only relieves the symptoms of an inevitably progressive condition temporarily is not to be regarded as treatment which can reverse that condition”.
That is a very complex provision. The medical determination of whether medication or other treatment “only relieves the symptoms” is far from simple. How is one to judge whether it “only relieves the symptoms” or whether it provides some form of remission which goes rather further than only relieving the symptoms?
Then there is the provision in Clause 2(1)(b) that the person,
“is reasonably expected to die within six months”.
There was a discussion on Radio 4 this morning about the meaning of an expectation that someone will die within six months. This to a great extent is not science in the sense that no doctor, save in the most extreme circumstances, can predict when a person will die. Whether a person is potentially on the cusp of being expected to die within or around six months is certainly not something that I understand has ever been scientifically researched in full. Indeed, I recall in a debate some years ago a most compelling and memorable speech given by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, in which she described exactly a circumstance in which it was predicted that someone extremely close to her would die within a very short time, and the person is still alive today. So this is very inexact medical science, and it is asking a great deal of doctors to make that kind of diagnosis.
What are the characteristics that might make that kind of diagnosis reliable and reasonable? I am sorry; I referred to my mother earlier and I am now going to refer to my father, who was a general practitioner in Burnley, Lancashire. One of my treasured possessions, which sits by my desk at home, is his last visiting book for the last year he was in medical practice. I spent much of my very happy childhood being given sweets by dear old ladies whom he visited on his rounds; it was one of the things that made me go on his rounds with him in his Austin A30. I reminded myself of what he used to do by looking at the book this morning. First, he used to visit his patients. I do not believe that anyone in my family has had a house call from their general practitioner in the 21st century, but it used to be very common. As I refreshed my memory this morning, I saw that he used to place his rounds in two columns: one was the calls that had been taken by the surgery—people who were ill and wanted the doctor to call—and the other was what he used to call, perhaps slightly unattractively, his “chronics”. His “chronics” were patients he visited on a periodic or regular basis. Some of them became friends to him and he knew all about their lives. He knew about the progress of their illness and about their domestic circumstances. He knew whether their children cared for them or took any interest in them. He knew whether they were poor or affluent and was able to ensure in the terms of those days that whatever statutory care was available was provided. In other words, he and doctors like him had a relatively intimate knowledge of their patients. When he met them in the streets of that great east Lancashire town, he could never remember who they were but he could always remember exactly what was wrong with them and members of their families. It is a bit like we lawyers remembering cases without necessarily being able to remember the names of those cases.
I know that it is dangerous to be nostalgic about medicine although, if we look at the state of the health service today, perhaps nostalgia is decent evidence, but when we look at the relationships that such doctors have with their patients, it is undoubtedly the case that they have, and had, a body of knowledge on which to base their diagnosis. We are not talking about diagnosing measles. We are not even talking about diagnosing some extremely unpleasant diseases; we are talking about diagnosing if and when someone is going to die.
My view, and that of the noble Lords who have also signed this amendment, and, I hope, of many others, is that nobody should go through the gateway of this Bill unless they have been seen by medical practitioners—I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that it should be no fewer than two—with at least one of them having had relevant care of that patient for at least six months, so that they have been able to build up a knowledge of that patient. It is difficult to imagine somebody with a terminal illness who has not had a relationship of six months with a doctor unless they have been involved in a trauma that has happened very recently.
Lord Avebury (LD)
Would my noble friend consider the case of patients with mesothelioma—perhaps we might hear also from my noble friend Lord Alton on that issue later—a disease that develops rapidly and which is normally fatal in a period of less than 12 months? Is it not probable that a patient who suddenly develops mesothelioma will not have been seen by a doctor for the period that the noble Lord requests?
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My noble friend, for whom I have the utmost admiration and with whom I have worked on many issues, I am afraid misses the point of what I am saying. I know the work that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who was referred to, has done on mesothelioma. I absolutely applaud that work and I will give way to him in just a second when I have finished this paragraph. What I have in mind is that in a situation like that there will be not only the specialist who may be treating an issue that has arisen recently but a general practitioner who has had that patient on their books for a considerable time, who will have records that they can look at which give them that knowledge, and who will have seen the patient in the past. What I am seeking is exactly the combination between a licensed medical practitioner—I accept that they should be licensed—who has had some experience of dealing with the patient and a specialist who may be treating the symptoms of the particular illness.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
The noble Lord has entirely answered the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about mesothelioma. It is indeed predicted that some 60,000 more British people will die of that terrible disease over the next 20 to 30 years. However, the point is that they have general practitioners who care for them, and of course they have specialists who they then go to see as well. In many ways, it reinforces the noble Lord’s point—that having two doctors to examine a patient and be with them—to go through the gateway, as he put it earlier—is the right thing to do, as expressed in the amendment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I see that I have spoken for 12 minutes and want to bring my remarks to a close.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Well, I would bring my remarks to a close, but my admiration for the noble Lord who has just stood up is almost unallayed, and I shall therefore give way.
Lord Pannick
I am grateful. I just want to ask for clarification. The noble Lord’s Amendment 13, as I understand it, would specify the identity of the doctors who may make the relevant declaration for Clause 2 purposes. However, what if those doctors, for whatever reason, are opposed to the Bill, or Act of Parliament, and do not wish to participate? Should the patient then be prevented from taking advantage of this legislation?
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Uncharacteristically, the noble Lord makes an entirely false point. The first response is that my amendment does not specify any doctor. The second response is that for those who are registered with general practitioners—I guess, the vast majority of the population—there are almost no single-handed practitioners left in this country. Therefore, within the group of general practitioners with whom the patient is registered—the right word is “registered”—for this purpose, there will be a choice of doctors. In any event, the noble Lord knows well that it is intended that there should be a conscience clause placed in this legislation, and there will be doctors who will simply, out of conscience, not certify that patients have the diagnosis required for the gateway.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
No, I am not going to give way to the noble Lord; he can speak in a moment. I do not mean to be discourteous, but I know that he is well able to make his own points, and he will be able to make them in as contentious a way as he wishes, and as is sometimes habitual.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I am not giving way to the noble Lord, I am afraid—not on this occasion. He has opportunity to speak and I have now been on my feet for 15 minutes. In closing, my suggestion to your Lordships is that if we are to have this legislation and if the system is to be safe, we must have one in which the gateway is a strong gateway and not merely a flimsy wicket. I beg to move.
Amendment 13A (to Amendment 13)
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to my Amendment 13A but I also have other amendments in this group. If I am procedurally correct, I should address only Amendment 13A at the moment and address the other amendments in the group afterwards. I am looking for confirmation from the Minister that that is correct.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
The noble Baroness may speak to all the amendments in the group.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Thank you. I apologise for requiring clarification on that. I did not want to make things difficult for the Committee.
I tabled Amendment 13A because, as has been alluded to, doctors can be registered with the General Medical Council but not licensed to practise. To be licensed to practise means that one has been revalidated after an annual appraisal, and may maintain one’s clinical professional competencies. However, that is not enough for a matter of this gravity. One does not want decisions to be taken by doctors who perhaps are still in training, or not in a specialty but doing sessions in it, or whatever. The additional requirement should be that they have completed their training and therefore be on the general practice register or the specialist register, which would mean that they are recognised as having completed their specialist training and would be able to apply for a consultant post.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
I apologise to the noble Baroness and realise that she will speak to the other amendments to which she has put her name. Would it not be much simpler to agree Amendment 15 to which she has also put her name but is primarily in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, who unfortunately cannot be here today? That amendment simply does what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has just described by inserting “registered” and “licensed” into the Bill.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention because it allows me to clarify that I think that such doctors should, in addition, be on the general practice or specialist register for the reasons I have just outlined. Indeed, I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, for having picked up a point that came in later amendments that I have tabled in relation to the doctors involved.
I shall proceed to speak to the other amendments, however. Clause 2 of the noble and learned Lord’s Bill caters for people who have been told that they have a terminal illness and are expected to die from it in the near future—within six months. Such situations exist; most of us will know of people who have been in this position. However, terminal illness is, I am afraid, a much more complex matter than that. There is a tendency to think that people who are terminally ill are somehow a group distinct from others who are not, but the reality is very different.
Yes, there are people who were apparently healthy but have discovered that they have a malignancy or other condition that seems likely to bring about their death in the not-too-distant future. However, many more people have conditions—for example, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease or heart disease—that are incurable and life-shortening and which, at some point in the future, can be expected to result in their death. All these conditions would fall easily within the definition of terminal illness, as described in the Bill, which is,
“an inevitably progressive condition which cannot be reversed by treatment”.
But that is not enough. Some conditions are progressive and cannot be reversed by treatment, but the underlying cause may be curable—hence the insertion of “direct”, so the provision would state that as a “direct consequence” of the disease the person is expected to die.
However, there is another aspect to treatment that matters. Some conditions can now be so significantly halted in their progress that the person’s life expectancy lengthens and their quality of life improves dramatically. These are people who at one time appeared to be terminally ill, or even actively dying, but have responded so well to treatment that they no longer fit the definition. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, when he responds, will clarify just how six months will be determined.
The noble and learned Lord will no doubt point out to us that the Bill contains another parameter of terminal illness—namely, that the person seeking assistance with suicide not only has a progressive condition but is reasonably expected to die within six months. It is true that not everyone with a progressive and incurable condition is expected to die in six months, but it is necessary to recognise that the Bill as it stands would bring within its ambit not only people who have been told that they are terminally ill but everyone with moderate-to-severe progressive and chronic illness. After all, how often have noble Lords said, “I would not be surprised if so and so died within the next six months”? Indeed, I regret to say that that has been said within this Chamber about noble Lords at times—and yet, fortunately, they have reappeared on these Benches a long time after those six months. Perhaps they might be described affectionately as a “creaking gate”. It is important to recognise that fact because it has a bearing on the question of prognosis.
Let me illustrate the point with a specific example. A colleague of mine in his late 60s had very brittle type 1 diabetes, episodes of heart failure—the prognosis for which is usually worse than for cancer—and other co-morbidities. All his colleagues thought that he would be dead soon. Over several years, I and others have reasonably expected him to die within a few months. Over 10 years or more, at any point in time, I or another doctor would have stated that he could reasonably be expected to die, but he has not. I have had many patients who I really thought were dying. I have sat the family down and told the patient that I really thought that their life expectancy was in months. However, by our going back and rigorously looking at things again with meticulous attention to detail, they have vastly outlived the prognosis, not only by months, but fortunately often by years, with a good quality of life.
I ask the noble and learned Lord to clarify whether the Bill is designed to include cases where the prognosis might be much longer. In his Second Reading speech, he suggested that the Bill purports not to do that. That is why I have proposed the insertion of the word “direct”: the patient must be expected to die not because he is very old or has multiple co-morbidities but directly from that terminal illness.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
Is it not right to remind the House that, if there is a misdiagnosis of that sort and survival continues, people are not obliged to take the final drug? It is just available to them. They can survive.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. If they have been misinformed—it is not the diagnosis of the disease that is wrong but the prognosis—and they then take the lethal drugs, they are not there to outlive the wrong prognosis.
Lord Winston
I might be able to assist the noble Baroness’s arguments slightly. Is not the whole House aware of one of the most famous cases, the person accused of the Lockerbie bombing? He was examined by numerous doctors, in particular Karol Sikora, who is probably the leading cancer expert in the country, who, after great consideration, considered that this man had only three months to live. He was therefore allowed to leave the United Kingdom. In fact, I think he survived for either three or four years.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that illustration, which is very clear and well known to all Members of the House. It is for that type of reason that I have proposed the removal of the word “reasonably” from Clause 2(1)(b) of the noble and learned Lord’s Bill.
A number of clinicians have tried to predict prognosis—for instance, whether to take the risk of a heart or lung transplant, and when to introduce palliative care in non-cancer services for the frail elderly. However, they have found that they just cannot determine time. Prognostication is reasonably accurate on the population level but, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has just illustrated, it is not accurate at an individual level at all. It is no better than tossing a coin. Indeed, different studies have shown that a prognostication expecting someone to live for more than a year is not too awfully wrong. Similarly, expecting somebody to die within a month is more likely to be accurate than inaccurate. However, in the interval in between you honestly could toss a coin on it. It is for that reason that I suggested that, if the prognosis in the Bill really is to deal with those people who are distressed during their dying phase, the prognosis section should be shortened to six weeks.
There are other aspects to prognostication that I will point out to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. The national clinical director for end-of-life care told the commission that he chaired that predicting the course of a terminal illness is “fraught with difficulty”. In 2004 the RCGP made the same point to the Select Committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay:
“It is possible to give reasonably accurate prognoses of death within minutes, hours or a few days. When this stretches to months then the scope for error can extend into years”.
The Royal College of Physicians, giving similar evidence, said that,
“prognosticating may be better when somebody is within the last two or three weeks of their life … when they are six or eight months away from it, it is actually pretty desperately hopeless as an accurate factor”.
More recently, we have seen in the report from the inquiry into the Liverpool care pathway, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, how prognoses of death within 48 hours have sometimes turned out to be wrong. The report called for further research into improving the accuracy of prognosis within the last weeks to days of life.
Yet, in the face of all this evidence, we are being asked to consider legalising assisted suicide or assisted dying for people with a prognosis of six months. The only conceivable explanation is that that is what Oregon’s assisted suicide law says. However, Oregon’s law has been shown to be fallible in the matter of prognosis. Oregon’s own data show that the time from the first request to death by whatever cause, whether through physician-assisted suicide or natural causes, ranges from 15 to 1,009 days, which is two years and nine months. Washington’s data show that, among those being given a prescription for lethal drugs and therefore expected to die within six months, the range was three to 150 weeks. I note that, in every year of that legislation since it has been passed, patients have lived well beyond 24 weeks or six months. The percentage ranges from 5% to 20% of a request for death.
The plain fact is that prognosis of “terminally ill” is highly unreliable over a range of six months. The DS 1500 has been used as a way to allow patients to access benefits rapidly, without having to go through assessment hoops. However, as those who have filled them out know only too often, it is only a guesstimate. Very often, patients vastly outlive the prognosis. We have had to have difficult conversations about how they should now go through the complete assessments. I tabled a Question to ask whether the Department for Work and Pensions collected data on the DS 1500. Unfortunately, it does not. It would be interesting to know for how many months that benefit had been drawn.
The plain fact is that this is unreliable. As a practitioner in the field, I can count the number of terminally ill people whom I have treated. I have not tallied them up among the thousands that I have looked after, but I could bore this House for weeks with the number of clinical stories of people who were expected to die within six months and who stayed alive for much longer. Those are the reasons behind these amendments. I hope that those who are arguing sincerely that the Bill aims to try to improve the dying process in those last days and weeks of life will seriously consider that they are asking people to make a prediction on which there really is not a scientifically accurate basis.
Baroness Meacher
The noble Baroness placed a great deal of emphasis on accuracy. Those points completely fail to take account of the fact that we all have a great will to live. Just because the individual finally has control and some autonomy does not mean that they will rush out to try to take some pills. I feel that this is a completely misguided set of arguments. The most important thing about the Oregon law, which has been in place for 17 years and works extremely effectively, is precisely that some people live for three years. They do not take their lives; they live for three years until life becomes unbearable. It is only at that point that they take the pills or whatever it is. We have to be very careful not to be misled, albeit one can come back with arguments that most doctors exaggerate the length of time that they expect people to live. Even that is not the point.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
When we legislate we need to know that there is accuracy attached to the terms. If we are asking doctors to make a declaration or statement of prognosis, they must at least know that there is some scientific basis behind it. In making a decision, there are three fundamental issues; first, the person must have accurate information; secondly, they must have the mental capacity to make that decision; and, thirdly, it should be voluntary and free of coercion. If you make the decision to end your life because you believe that what lies ahead in the next weeks and months is so terrible but, in reality, you might have improved dramatically and lived for years if you had had the care you needed, then I would say that you are not being supplied with accurate information and that it is therefore not a valid decision.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
My Lords, I have added my name in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but I also support the other amendments in this group. I do not intend to go over the reasons already stated so fluently by both noble Lords; I just want to emphasise the point of this whole range of amendments, which is quite simply to make this Bill much safer. If it is eventually passed, with these amendments people will have much more confidence in it than they have as it stands at present.
As we know, a great number of doctors—probably the majority—are opposed to any Bill such as this and therefore we are bound to get a situation where people who are sympathetic to what is proposed will look round for a doctor who shares their point of view. Clearly, we need to avoid that. Therefore, instead of just one doctor, we need two doctors, as the amendment says. One of the doctors needs to know the patient very well and needs to be not just registered if retired but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, currently licensed. These kinds of safeguards will ensure that the Bill, if eventually passed, has the confidence of the public.
There is also the very difficult question of diagnosis. I am a member of the review body of the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger—the Liverpool care pathway. It has certainly been brought home to us that diagnosing a person’s death is a very inexact science, and indeed we are calling for more research on this.
Perhaps, on this very subject, the Committee will allow a brief moment of levity in relation to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, on the Lockerbie bomber. He had three months to live but, as someone said, it was three months in Scotland—with due apologies to all Scottish noble Lords here. I apologise for levity on what is a very serious matter. However, I very much hope that the supporters of the Bill will accept the majority of the amendments in this group, as they will undoubtedly give the general public more confidence in it.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, if we are to have this Bill, it is very important, as the noble and right reverend Lord said, that there should be confidence in it. I just want to address a few brief remarks to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, to which the noble and right reverend Lord is also a signatory.
I remember as a young Member of Parliament in Staffordshire talking to a rural general practitioner who had been there for many years. He made the point to me—I have quoted it before—that a doctor can only truly know his patient if he knows him in his home as well as in the surgery. I know that things have changed a lot since then but I treasure my relationship with my general practitioner—it is one of the most important relationships that I have. I like to feel that I can talk uninhibitedly to him, and indeed I can.
It is very important that we avoid falling into a trap. Because of the widespread reluctance among the medical profession to support the Bill, we could fall into the trap of certain doctors being available for hire. That is the last thing that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, would want. I have never at any stage doubted for a single second his utter sincerity and his honourable motives. That should be taken as read throughout the House, and I believe that it is. However, where a large number of medical practitioners feel, for the best reasons of conscience, that they cannot sign up to this Bill, there will be a danger—I put it no higher than that but one has seen it in the field of abortion—that some doctors will in effect be for hire. That has to be guarded against and one of the best ways of doing so is to ensure that there is an amendment similar to that moved by my noble friend. I hope that, when he comes to respond, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will accept that.
I have grave reservations about this Bill. I do not want the Bill but I understand why many do. Therefore, if it, or a Bill like it in the next Parliament, is to go on to the statute book, the safeguards must be real, comprehensive and absolute. If a doctor is to sign a document, that should happen only after lengthy conversations with the patient concerned—after a real discussion. I would like to feel that during that discussion the doctor, whatever his or her personal views, can play devil’s advocate and point out all aspects of this ultimate decision that the patient is on the verge of making. However, that can happen only if there is a real knowledge of the patient and a proper relationship between the doctor and the patient. Six months is a short enough time. I have been registered with my general practitioner for over 30 years. Many noble Lords will have had similar long relationships and others will have had shorter ones. But before you talk to a doctor you feel the need to know him, and he or she needs to know you. The amendment moved by my noble friend is modest but it helps to provide a safeguard which, if a Bill such as this is to go on to the statute book, we would all like to feel is in place.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton, have been trying to speak for a while. I wonder if your Lordships would feel it appropriate if we heard from them now.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton
I thank the Minister. My Lords, there are many reasons why I strongly oppose the Bill and why I have spoken against it in the past. But one of the most important reasons why I oppose the Bill is the definition of terminal illness and how many months, weeks or years we have to live. The definition in the Bill gives rise to uncertainty and is therefore terribly open to misinterpretation and abuse. Proponents of the Bill claim that “disabled” and “terminally ill” are distinct from one another. We are told that disabled people can be assured that the Bill is not intended to apply to them. I am not reassured, and I beg the patience of the House while I explain my reasons.
I have personally worked for more than 20 years with very severely disabled people with life-threatening conditions, great numbers of them with the definition of terminal illness. I know about terminal illness—believe me, I know. I know personally and professionally. That is why I wanted to give noble Lords my reasons today, and to take my time to do this, because I feel that it is one of the most important parts of the Bill that we must make safe. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, would agree with me that we must make this safe for people who may die, who may not otherwise, because of this definition and because of the number of weeks that we are supposed to live or die. That is why I support the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on a reduction of the time limits.
I am fearful of the Bill not least because terminal illness is defined as an
“inevitably progressive condition which cannot be reversed by treatment”.
That definition could equally apply to many disabilities, my own included. It reinforces confusion between terminal illness and disability. The fear is that disabled people with progressive conditions will fall within the scope of the Bill. The clause on terminal illness does nothing to dispel that fear.
I remind your Lordships that not a single organisation of disabled or terminally ill people is actively campaigning for this legislation. We need to ask ourselves why. Why will they not campaign for a Bill that gives them autonomy to choose the time when they are to die? On the contrary, growing numbers of national charities are coming out to campaign against it. For example, Scope and Disability Rights UK, which have thousands of members who have progressive conditions, are also joining grass-roots networks of disabled people such as Not Dead Yet UK and the Disabled People’s Network. They all agree that it is impossible to create clear blue water between disability and terminal illness and as regards how many months until one might die. However, the Bill is before us now, and I have to accept that I need to do what I can to limit the harm that it would cause to terminally ill and disabled people were it to be enacted. That is why I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and any other amendment that would introduce a shorter time limit as a safeguard to the central part of the Bill.
The definition of terminal illness in the Bill starts from:
“an inevitably progressive condition which cannot be reversed by treatment (a ‘terminal illness’)”,
from which the person,
“is reasonably expected to die within six months”.
The Bill adds the caveat:
“Treatment which only relieves the symptoms of an inevitably progressive condition temporarily is not to be regarded as treatment which can reverse that condition”.
I therefore looked at who the Bill might encompass. The brain, eyes, lungs, kidneys, pancreas, joints and nerves can all be subject to “inevitably progressive” conditions deteriorating at widely differing rates. Various forms of cancer, heart disease and neurological conditions can fit the criteria for “inevitably progressive” at some stages.
Children and young people are born and are surviving with a variety of life-limiting conditions for which the prognosis is very uncertain. Overall, significant numbers of children and adults fall within categories to which the definition,
“an inevitably progressive condition which cannot be reversed by treatment”,
is applicable. I found that it is only the fact that most are not,
“reasonably expected to die within six months”,
that keeps them outside the scope of the Bill. That is no protection at all, and I will explain why.
It would take only a chest infection or a small change in my muscle capacity for me to be put at risk. Throughout these debates we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and from other noble Lords in the medical profession who are far more qualified than I, how prognosis is unreliable and that individual life expectancy is virtually impossible to predict with any accuracy. The catch-all of six months sends the invidious message that once you are down, you are on your way out, that once death is on the agenda of life, it outweighs every other consideration. For any newly diagnosed individual, it allows the early seeds of fear and doubt to be sown, perhaps by the individual, perhaps by family and friends, or perhaps by both. Words of hope and encouragement will have to compete against advice and expectation to shop around for a doctor willing to give a prognosis of six months or less. It invites everyone involved in the care and support of the individual to do less than their best. It is hard to believe in the value of life for a person who has been deprived of that belief themselves.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I wish to raise two brief points. The first is on the rate of diagnostic error, which has already been mentioned. The Royal College of Pathologists gave evidence to the Select Committee looking at the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, which heard that diagnostic errors are common. The report says:
“The Royal College of Pathologists drew attention to ‘a 30% error rate in the medically-certified cause of death’, with ‘significant errors (i.e. misdiagnosis of a terminal illness resulting in inappropriate treatment) in about 5% of cases’”.
Secondly, I wish to raise a point of clarification with my noble friend Lady Meacher. She does not appear to be in her place, but it is a question that applies probably equally to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. My noble friend talked about autonomy at the point that somebody chooses the right to end their own life. To me, that suggests that the drugs or medication would be in the person’s possession and in their home, as it is in Oregon. I should like some clarification on whether the Bill is suggesting that the person would have the drugs available to them in their home. For me, it is important to understand the timeline of how the decision-making process will take place and whether there would be a tiered approach. An awful lot of people who write to me assume that, if the Bill becomes law and they are able to choose the time that they end their life, it will be in their own home and with their friends and family around them, not in a medical facility, and that they will not have to go through a huge series of hoops in those final moments. It is really important for me to understand whether these drugs that will kill people will be in a person’s possession in their home.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has spoken movingly from her own experience and, indeed, her expertise. I am sure I am not alone in respecting her greatly for that and for ensuring that this House hears the views of people in the disabled community who are worried that this is a thin end of a wedge.
I suffer from a life-limiting illness. In most cases, it is not terminal but it is degenerative if it is not got under control. To answer one of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, I, too, have the risk of catching a very serious infection because my immune system is compromised by the medication I am on. I would not expect anything short-term such as that to be considered by my medical practitioners—or even by myself, as happened to me at Christmas—as being part of the longer-term degeneration of a terminal condition. It would be worrying if we believed that the Bill was giving that thought some traction. The timescale for approval reflection within the Bill means that in the case of a temporary or short-term illness, any medical practitioner would be likely to advise someone that they should not be making a decision at that time because it would not necessarily mean that the rapid progress of the disease itself was an issue.
I want to make some very specific points on some of the amendments in this group. First, I am concerned about the impracticality of Amendment 13. Often when someone discovers that they are in the terminal stages of an illness, they will move to be with family; they are therefore likely to move GP. My mother, who died just before Christmas, had three GPs in the last stage of her life. She was at home. She then moved into a nursing home. She then had to move to another nursing home for more supportive care. She might have had four GPs had she moved to a hospice. Should Amendment 13 go through, I am concerned that that would have ruled her out from being able to make a decision, should she have desired it. I understand the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in raising this, but the practicalities for many at the end of their lives mean that I think it is unworkable.
On Amendment 20, I hear everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, says but my counter to that is that a patient will listen to advice and a doctor will give them a wide range of advice on the likely progression of their disease and, indeed, any comorbidities. This is also moving into the area of Amendment 21. The evidence of where assisted dying happens, particularly in America, is that the time between somebody starting to get the initial advice and going through the process and, having concluded that, then deciding that the time is right to take their life is the exact reason why we need six months and not six weeks. A patient should reflect and make sure that what they are doing is right for them and at the right time. Often people who support the principle of assisted dying are worried about those last few weeks and want to have the safety net of the decision having been made by the professionals in their back pocket, so to speak, so that should their life become intolerable they do not have to start the process at that point. That is why either three months or six weeks will mean that a patient will not get the timescale they need to consider appropriately with their family, friends and medical practitioner whether this is the right thing for them.
I am perplexed by Amendments 22 and 45, which imply that treatment that delays the progression of a terminal condition would be considered an available treatment for a dying person and would therefore exclude them from having an assisted death if they rejected such a treatment. If I have read this right, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is arguing that it changes the fundamental right of a patient to refuse treatment because that treatment might increase the length of their life, even if the quality of that life were to be intolerable. For example, one reason that many people say that they would like assisted dying is that they do not want to go through another round of chemotherapy on a new drug, perhaps for the fourth or fifth time, and live with the very difficult consequences of that treatment. That is exactly what the Bill is about: patients coming to an informed decision about when they wish to end their life, even if another treatment is available, when medical practitioners have said that their condition is terminal.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Before the noble Baroness finishes, will she acknowledge that, quite often, when patients do not undergo further intervention and further treatments they dramatically improve? Indeed, a very good study from America showed that where people had early palliative care, not only was their quality of life better but they lived longer. They were having fewer interventions, not more. The difficulty with all this is that conditions fluctuate. Patients at one point in time cannot believe that they could improve. It is often stated by patients, when their symptoms and their distress are under control, “I never believed I could feel this well again”. When they are in that trough, they are of course inclined to believe that it will go on for ever and that they will go on going downhill and therefore want to curtail their lives.
Baroness Brinton
I accept the noble Baroness’s premise that it is vital for medical practitioners to set things out. As I have said, the counterargument to that is that data from Oregon and some other states in America show that people do not make the decision and implement it immediately. There is always a timescale, because I believe that, intrinsically, most people really hope that things will improve.
When the measure has been used in America, it has usually been because there has been such a downturn, when medical practitioners have said to the patient that they cannot help them further. I understand that there will be some people for whom they are seriously concerned and may want to turn to it, but I would also think that a medical practitioner would ask them whether they are depressed at that particular moment and whether it is the right time to make that decision. This Bill allows the practitioner to say, “I don’t think you’re ready for that decision at this particular time”.
I want to say why I believe that the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is a tripwire. I have been on a series of drugs for my particular condition. My local clinical commissioning group insisted that I went on a drug knowing that it would not work particularly well for me, but would not allow me to have treatment afterwards if I did not have that drug. For six months, I had the drug and it is one of the reasons why I am in a wheelchair, because my condition deteriorated. My worry about the amendment is that it is such a tripwire and could be used to cause real distress to people who are quite clear that they do not want further treatment. To use that to prevent them getting any other treatment or making their own decision seems intrinsically wrong.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I want to pursue the line of argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has started. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that this is an important group of amendments. The noble Baroness has raised the issues of practicality and, possibly, unexpected consequences of some of the amendments.
I want to reinforce the point about the impracticability of Amendment 13. It fails to reflect the fact that in many cases of terminal illness a person will move from the place where the illness was diagnosed and the care of their consultant and GP to somewhere else. We have a National Health Service. You still get treatment if you move from A to B; medical records pass from A to B most of the time, reasonably successfully. The care of that person will be transferred to another GP and another medical practitioner. They may well not have had care of that person for six months. It may simply be impossible to operate Amendment 13 in the case of people who are terminally ill. We need to reflect on the practicality of that argument. I do not believe that the noble Lord expected that consequence from his amendments. That was the point that I was going to ask him about if I had been able to intervene a little earlier. I am happy to give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Tebbit
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but does he understand the concern that exists among many of us who saw that there were doctors who would certify that a woman’s health was at risk should her pregnancy continue who had never seen the woman concerned, who were pre-signing packs of such certificates to be used by their friends in the abortion business? How do we deal with that matter?
Lord Warner
The amendments would not deal with that matter. They would in many cases make it impossible for a terminally ill person who wanted to explore the issue of assisted dying to meet the requirements to have those conversations—let alone anything else—with a medical practitioner who was responsible for their care when they had moved house. I am not trying to make a wider point. I am on the narrow issue of the words in the amendments. I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, all the way on the impracticability of Amendment 13.
I move on to Amendments 20, 21 and 22 in this group. No one who supports the Bill is arguing that we expect doctors to have the gift of foresight about the length of time that someone will live for. I point out that the Bill uses a period which is commonly used in many other areas of public policy, not least in the area of welfare. If noble Lords read Section 82 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, they will find a definition of terminal illness that is being applied by doctors day in and day out up and down the country—for those who are nerdy in these matters, it is on form DS 1500—to secure improvements in benefits because the person is terminally ill. Parliament, in the past couple of years, has passed legislation which sets out the terms of terminal illness, and doctors up and down the country are applying that legislation for the benefit of people with disabilities. The idea that the Bill is doing something different and novel in this area is, frankly, not true.
I also ask noble Lords to read the GMC guidance for doctors on issues such as end-of-life care and consent. In its admirable guidance, it is clear that there is a reasonable expectation that when a doctor thinks that someone may be terminally ill and may die before the end of 12 months, they may begin conversations with people. It is not unethical, it is not bad medical practice, where a doctor believes that someone may be terminally ill, not to do anything dramatic, but to begin to have a conversation with that person and their family. If you make it a shorter time for the person to have such conversations—six weeks, for example—all you are doing is putting enormous pressure on somebody who has had to come to terms with some catastrophic information about their life and circumstances. It would be inhumane, unfair and lacking in compassion to shorten the timescale within which doctors and their patients could have the conversations that they need to have.
I believe that the balance is struck right with the six-month term. In the United States, where assisted dying is legal, the bar has been set at six months and there is strong evidence to demonstrate that the model there works effectively and safely. Some very interesting work was done by a surgeon and public health researcher, Atul Gawande, who explains in his recent book Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End that survival statistics form a bell-shaped curve in which there are a small number of people who survive much longer than expected—the tail of the curve. He says:
“We have failed to prepare for the outcome that’s vastly more probable … we’ve built our medical system and culture around the long tail”,
of small numbers of cases. His view is supported by a number of pieces of research. I shall quote one that shows that fewer than one in four patients outlived the prognosis when their clinicians predicted survival for six months or less. In the great majority of cases, you could argue that the doctors have been optimistic about survivability rather than the other way around. Therefore, I think that my noble friend has struck the right balance in this area.
I shall mention one other bit of GMC advice, which relates to Amendment 20. The GMC is very clear to doctors, beyond doubt or peradventure, about the issue of patient consent. In my view, the amendment would be a breach of that advice. The advice is clear that even if the doctor disagrees with the patient’s decision their right to refuse a course of treatment is absolute and doctors are expected to respect that right. Following the GMC’s advice, I suggest that putting another impediment on doctors, as that amendment would, would be unfair to doctors.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I have always welcomed and embraced the Bill, or certainly one very like it. One of the great qualities of your Lordships’ House is that, especially on an occasion like this, we listen to the arguments and are prepared to mould what we are trying to achieve. When I listened to Amendment 13 from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and especially Amendment 13A from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I felt that they were reasonable. However, I have now heard the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, very eloquently saying why they are very worried about this issue so I am still slightly up in the air about it, although I think, with regard to Amendment 13A, that it is essential that these are “licensed” medical practitioners. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is trying as hard as he can to go with the House and to take on things like this.
My point, and I shall make it extremely briefly, is about the six months’ terminal illness. I think that this is right, and I shall tell the House why. I have had lots of letters, as have many noble Lords, and there is something that they nearly all say. I had one this morning from someone who is 80, saying, “I don’t have a terminal disease but I do want to feel that I would have the option, if I became really ill, to talk this over with my doctor and work out a way of assuaging great pain and causing distress through that pain to my family. It might just be that I would talk to my doctor about having opiates that might repress the respiratory system”. Is that assisted suicide? I do not know. I certainly think that it is an option; frankly, very few doctors that I know deny that it has happened in their lives. They have treated people, especially in country practices where, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has illustrated, they have known the patient for many years, even decades, and they ease them out of this life into the next one. It seems to me that this is the luxury that most human beings want to be afforded. I think that that is what the noble and learned Lord is trying to achieve, and on that basis I very strongly support him.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
Would the noble Lord like to clarify what he means by that very ambiguous phrase about doctors easing patients out of this life? Does he mean the administration of pain-killing drugs, which might have the side-effect of slightly shortening life, or does he mean doctors deliberately administering an overdose in order to kill a person? Perhaps he could clarify what he means because he is making quite a bald claim about doctors’ practice.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton
As in so many things, there is a line here which is difficult to draw. However, doctors in this House have privately told me of occasions when they have treated people with appalling pain in a way that they knew was likely to finish their life. It is very hard to put it more precisely. They would not guarantee that it did because, as we have heard from the medical profession, nobody can guarantee anything. No doctor here can tell us when we are going to die; they can say only, “This is the likelihood”, so I cannot give the noble and right reverend Lord a definitive answer. Everybody keeps saying that we must have clarity but there is no clarity about dying or pain relief. That is the whole point of this. What I can say, which is germane to the argument at the moment, is that we need at least six months to be able to discuss these things calmly and give people the feeling that they can plan ahead. In fact, that should rule out the bronchial infections we have been talking about because they would not be considered part of the terminal disease. It is a question of planning and so many people have said, “I want this option at the end of my life”. Who are we to deny it?
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I was a member of the Commission on Assisted Dying, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I want to respond to Amendments 17 and 21 by mentioning specifically that at the conclusion of the two years in which we heard evidence, our initial position was that this prognosis period should be 12 months. We based that on the GMC guidance to which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has just referred. It was based on the time at which a doctor could begin to discuss end-of-life care with his or her patient. We decided to reduce the period to six months because we thought that this decision was even more dramatic than the 12-month position of possibly dying. Now that we are into six months, we are much closer.
With all respect, it seems that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has made the right point in relation to these amendments. We are looking at this from the wrong end. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just said, there is no certainty but this is aimed at those individuals who themselves believe, with mental capacity, that what lies ahead of them in suffering and indignity is unbearable to them. It may not be unbearable to somebody else but, for them, it is unbearable and they want to have a discussion. We have been told about people who are going to recover because a new treatment will appear. These are people of mental capacity who are making clear judgments. Is it very likely that those people, if they start to feel better, will say, “No, I still want to die because I decided that I wanted to a little while ago although I now feel better”? That is a completely nonsensical position.
There is one provision of this Bill that people do not seem to notice. In Oregon, when the decision is made, the medicine is handed to the patient and he or she wanders off and puts it in the cupboard. That is not the case in the Bill. The medicine, such as it is, will be in a pharmacy. It will not be released to the patient until everybody is absolutely clear that all the processes have been gone through and that the person still has a settled determination to end their own life. It will then be released to a medical practitioner or nurse and if that patient does not take it within 24 hours, it is not left in the house. It goes back to the pharmacy and the discussion starts again. These are reasonable provisions. There is the idea that we should tie it to the uncertainty of a medical prognosis. We have to have some limits but, after two years of deliberation and knowing the GMC guidelines, six months struck those of us in the commission as a reasonable compromise. I recommend it to the House.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, very briefly, I support Amendment 13, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the other amendments in this group.
I note the detailed points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Like the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I am struggling a bit with them. However, it seems to me that these amendments are generally sensible and important. The arguments in favour have been very well and movingly advanced. They would make this proposed legislation safer, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, suggested.
I shall take this opportunity to point out that our support for these and other amendments does not in any sense signify the Church of England’s support for the overall intention of the Bill. I am sure this applies to other Members of your Lordships’ House. Some suggestion has been made, not least in the media, that our position lacks clarity. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have every sympathy with and respect for—I cannot emphasise this too much—the honourable and compassionate motives that inspire the Bill’s proponents, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, indicated.
The church’s stance on assisted dying was made abundantly clear by the General Synod in 2012. When this subject was debated then, not a single member of it opposed a motion to keep the current law. Of course, some individual church members may and clearly do disagree but, to avoid any misunderstanding as we debate these amendments, that remains our corporate stance for reasons of principle and pragmatism that have already been very well rehearsed in this House.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, reference has been made to the GMC, and therefore I should perhaps draw attention to my interest as a member of that body, although I, of course, speak today purely personally and not on behalf of the GMC.
I want to address two issues relating to doctors. First, I support Amendment 15 on changing from a registered to a licensed medical practitioner, which is an important safeguard and correction.
However, I have severe concerns about Amendment 13. The right reverend Prelate said that he thought it would make the Bill safer for patients. I have to disagree. I think it would make the Bill impractical and restrictive. The reasons for that are partly the reasons outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. People who are desperately ill who receive a diagnosis one or two years before their death very often think about moving. They sometimes move to be near relatives or into a care home, but moves even half a mile up the hill, as I learnt recently, can mean the severing of a long-term relationship with a GP practice. It is impractical and unfair to ask people who have moved in these circumstances to rule themselves out of access to the provisions of this legislation.
It is also impractical in terms of doctors themselves. We were taken back to the days of Dr Finlay in many ways by the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Cormack. Very few people these days have a decades-long relationship with a single general practitioner. I am very nervous, because my legal education ended in 1969, of taking on the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but he spoke about the realities of multiple partners in general practices in the National Health Service today. Certainly, my experience in my new practice is that you will be seen by any one of a number of partners there. However, the amendment says very specifically that the person must have been registered with one of the two doctors,
“for medical care for at least six months immediately prior”,
not at the practice but with that specific doctor. That is very difficult for people to comply with.
Equally, like patients, doctors also move. They move to different parts of the country, and they retire. You can imagine many circumstances in which reading and applying those specific provisions would simply rule out for patients the ability to access this legislation. For that reason I oppose this amendment.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
Would the noble Baroness be willing to accept a different kind of amendment which took into account the situations she mentioned? Of course, she is quite right that people might move from their general practice into a care home, but it seems that it would be very easy to devise an amendment which took account of that. There would have to be perhaps two or more general practitioners who agree over a period of time.
Baroness Hayman
I am grateful to my noble and right reverend friend. The difficulty is trying to put this in the Bill, to deal with all the different circumstances that will arise with individuals or with practitioners. I would be much more comfortable with that, because I think we are all on the same page with regard to not wanting someone who has had absolutely no contact with their doctor, because of all the issues which we know arise. However, I would much rather that those sorts of issues were dealt with in guidance, both from the GMC and the Secretary of State. It would then be much more possible to make sure that there would be equality of access for patients.
Lord Turnbull (CB)
I will add one point to my noble friend’s argument which is absolutely telling. One can be registered with a GP and never see them for 20 years. You might be a very fit 40 year-old, but you could suddenly get a devastating diagnosis of cancer and wish to talk to your GP. Although you are registered with them, that GP does not know anything about you at all.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Non-Afl)
I will add to that last point, for which I am grateful. I have been a supporter of the principles of the Bill for almost the whole of my adult life, and I have had the same GP for 26 years. Every year I insist that he looks at my living will form, and we then have a very robust argument, because he is against the principle of assisted dying, and I insist that he takes account of my wishes in that living will form on an annual basis. I know that were I to be in a situation where I would require and wish to take advantage of the Bill, were it to become an Act, I would not be in a position where I could expect him to give me that support. We have been very clear with each other over the past 25 years. I do not know what the position of his colleagues in the practice is, but I am abundantly clear that when that point is reached, I will want to have a GP or a specialist consultant who is able to take a good medical history and read my notes, to understand what medical practitioners over the last 25 years have said about me, and to reach a valid professional judgment about whether my wish—I make that point; it is not the GP’s wish or the family’s wish—to take advantage of this provision is based on a good medical prognosis. It is not beyond the wit of the medical profession to do that even if they do not intimately know me. I hope that we will see that in the Bill.
Baroness Hayman
I am grateful for both interruptions because they allow me to say what I omitted to say—that the other change as regards the doctor and the practicality occurs when you are registered with a doctor who has a conscientious objection. The other problem is with,
“at least one of whom has diagnosed the terminal illness and treated the person in relation to that terminal illness”.
The person who diagnoses and the person who is giving ongoing treatment are not necessarily the same person. Therefore this clause is dangerously worded at present.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I wish to make three brief points. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has told us that disabled people are worried that disability will be equated with terminal illness and that they will be made the subject of “do not resuscitate” notices—indeed, that this happens or, at least, has happened in particular cases. Like all of us, I hugely respect the sincerity of the noble Baroness and appreciate the strength and eloquence of her advocacy, but I genuinely believe that the fears that she has expressed, that this Bill will make the situation worse for disabled people, are misplaced.
I say this for two reasons. First, it is very important that we should be clear that the disabled person has to ask before they can be offered the facilities of this Bill to end their life. Secondly, they need to make an act of conscious choice before they avail themselves of these facilities. With all the safeguards in the Bill, it will actually make the situation of disabled people better.
Thirdly, it is further argued that, in consequence of these fears, disabled people are strongly opposed to this legislation. However, in actual fact, a recent YouGov poll found that 79% of registered disabled people—that is nearly four-fifths, very much in line with the rest of the population—support assisted dying for adults of sound mind with a terminal illness. So, for all these reasons, with the greatest respect, I believe that the arguments that have been advanced on behalf of disabled people are misconceived.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton
My Lords, I feel urged to come in here after the noble Lord, Lord Low, with whom I have worked and whom I have known for many years. We have discussed this subject on numerous occasions, and noble Lords will imagine that we have had some quite heated discussions. I shall add a little bit of information to add clarification. The disability community is made up of people with terminal illnesses. Outside the House today, as noble Lords will know if they have gone out to talk to them, are people sitting in their wheelchairs with terminal conditions saying, “No, this is not about choice—this is not about me asking”. They have often been in situations when they have felt so low that they felt that they had no options; their social care and healthcare was bad and they wanted to die. They could have taken advantage of the Bill proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, because they have a terminal illness. There are at least six people outside these walls today in the freezing cold who have a terminal illness.
There are many people with terminal illnesses in the disability community, and those people have come together to demand that on this Bill we should slow down and think again. They have campaigned for choice and autonomy all their lives, and now they are saying, no, this is not about choice—and we have to listen to them. So please do not tell me that this is not about disabled people. It is very much about us because we are the people with experience of these issues. With the greatest respect, many people who are campaigning for this measure have not experienced these issues. They are people in control of their lives. They are people who fear becoming what they see us as. So I ask, please, that disabled people should be very much a central part of this debate. We have to listen to what they say, even if we do not like what they have to say.
I wish also to make a point of clarification. There seems to be a misunderstanding among noble Lords that I think that terminal illness is about having a chest infection. If I thought that, I would think that I was dying at least three times a year. I am not talking about that. I am talking about life-threatening terminal situations, such as muscle deterioration in the throat, whereby you can no longer eat or drink. That is what I have. Part of the GMC’s guidance on terminal illness concerns that process. I refer also to muscle deterioration within the lungs so that you can no longer breathe. That is terminal. Muscle deterioration around the heart is terminal. COPD is terminal. People with these conditions are part of the disabled community. They are out there—go and talk to them. Answer the letters from disabled people who say that this is not about choice. Ask them why they are saying this. Do not make assumptions about them. This is why I felt that I had to intervene at this point.
Lord Low of Dalston
If people with terminal illnesses do not wish to take advantage of the provisions of this legislation, what is there about it that forces or requires them to do so?
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton
My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord’s question is that they fear that they will take advantage of this legislation when they are at their lowest with no choice. The noble Lord, Lord Low, will understand as much as I do about terminal situations where you do not have choices. These people have said that they do not want this Bill because they know that they might take advantage of it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Before my noble friend completes her remarks, has she had a chance to read the briefing that was sent to Members of your Lordships’ House only yesterday by the disabled people’s charity Scope, which says—this reinforces the point she has just made—that in the US state of Washington, where assisted dying is legal,
“61% of those requesting to end their lives did so because they felt a burden on friends, family or care-givers”?
Scope says in its briefing to your Lordships in support of the amendments we are considering:
“The definition in the Bill of ‘reasonably expected to die within six months’ would capture many disabled people”.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton
I think that was a question to me from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The answer is, yes, I did know about Scope’s role. In fact, Scope approached me to ask me to emphasise issues around prognosis in the debate today.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
I have been trying to intervene for some time. I strongly support the amendment on terminal illness tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, but noble Lords will be pleased to know that most of what I was going to say has already been said so I will not repeat it. It was said very ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, for whom I have the greatest admiration and with whom I have worked for many years.
There is an aspect of the definition of terminal illness that I should like to deal with. Under the benefit rules, an attendance allowance or a personal independence payment can be made under special rules if somebody has a terminal illness. The definition is therefore important. My understanding is that, for the purposes of receiving one of those benefits under the special rules, someone is defined as being terminally ill if they have,
“a progressive disease and his death in consequence of that disease can reasonably be expected within 6 months”.
This definition is set out in Section 66 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. Are we going to say that anyone who receives one of these benefits would be eligible for assisted suicide on the basis of their physical health? I raise this as a genuine question because the Personal Independence Payment Handbook, issued in August 2014, also states:
“Awards made under the special rules for terminal illness will be for 3 years”.
This seems to be rather at odds with the expectation that the person is reasonably expected to die within six months.
To get this benefit, individuals have to get a completed DS 1500 form from their doctor, as has been mentioned. In a forum discussion on the internet, many of the individuals who got the benefit as a result of this form were definitely of the view that they would be living for more than six months. I am concerned that in future they might be encouraged to consider assisted suicide because they would fall within the definition of the Bill. The form was also referred to in the House of Lords report on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. I quote one doctor, who said:
“A simple bit of practical evidence is one of the benefit forms that are filled in for patients assigned to the doctor thinking that the patient has six months to live. I would not like to count how many of those forms I have signed in my life for patients still living after a year, eighteen months or even longer”.
Another doctor giving evidence to that committee about decisions on who had a terminal illness said that,
“doctors make arbitrary decisions about when a patient has reached a terminal stage. This can be when the patient is discharged from specialist care, when the patient moves from a curative state to a palliative state; some just use the position when what is known as the DS 1500 Form is actually prescribed, or some just use the point where patients have become bed-ridden or immobile”.
Surely we need something far more rigorous than someone being “reasonably expected” to die within six months when the consequence is that their life is actually ended. I fully support Amendment 20 of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to remove the word “reasonably”.
Baroness Meacher
Perhaps I may pick up the point about a six-month prognosis. The point there is that one’s life is ended. The whole point of the Bill is that one’s life is not ended simply because one starts the process at the point when one receives the six-month prognosis. It is all about having autonomy and a sense of control over one’s own situation, so that when life becomes unbearable one can then take that control.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
I thank the noble Baroness for that clarification. I note that in August 2011, 13,400 individuals receiving attendance allowance in England and Wales were considered terminally ill under the benefits definition. That would be a substantial group of people who might reasonably be eligible to have their death hastened by assisted suicide. We need to be very clear what we are talking about in relation to a terminal illness and, at the moment, there is a lot of room for ambiguity. Ambiguity does not lead to safeguards.
Lord Warner
Can I seek clarification from the noble Lord? What he is trying to do is challenge the point that I was trying to make. I should like to make clear to the Committee the point that I was trying to make—which I do not think was the point he was trying to rebut.
My point about Section 82 of the Welfare Reform Act is that it bases public policy on the assertion that it is reasonable to ask doctors to make a judgment on whether someone is likely to be terminally ill and die within six months. It does not say that we expect 100% perfection from those forecasts. My point was that Parliament has decided in legislation that it is reasonable to have a definition of terminal illness that we can expect the generality of the medical profession to understand and apply on a reasonably consistent basis. In my judgment—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, may be able to correct me—it would be a breach of medical good practice and possibly an offence for doctors knowingly to sign those certifications if they did not clinically believe that the person was likely to die within six months.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
My Lords, I would not dream of trying to rebut anything that the noble Lord said.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said. He is one of the foremost medical authorities in your Lordships’ House. We know that many of the royal colleges and the British Medical Association, speaking for 153,000 doctors, say that it is not possible to legislate safely—which is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made.
However, I recall that when my late father was dying and I went to spend time with him during the last part of his life, the doctor told me that I should make long-term provision for long-term care. After he left the room it was the nurse, who was the wife of one of the policemen who worked in the Houses of Parliament at that time, when I was in another place, who said to me, “David, you don’t need to make long-term provision. In my view, your father will be dead before the end of this weekend”. Needless to say, it was the nurse rather than the doctor who got it right.
Many noble Lords will have read the briefing from the Royal College of Nursing, which arrived only today. It says:
“Terminal illnesses are often extremely unpredictable with periods of improvement and deterioration. This can make it extremely difficult to pinpoint when someone might die … we remain concerned that diagnosing that a patient is expected to die within six months could result in inaccurate judgements through no fault of the medical practitioner”.
That is the point that that noble Lord, Lord Warner, has just made. It could lead to litigation against doctors and nurses if we do not put in far better safeguards than the Bill provides at present.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I have been in practice for very many years and I still am. One of the things that always struck me was how wrong I was about trying to predict when a patient would die. I well remember a typical case of a lady who was only 28. She had inoperable cancer of her throat. She was in great distress, with pain and distressed breathing. I saw my job as a doctor to relieve all her symptoms, whatever the cost. I said to her, “If you like, I can put a needle into your vein and titrate you with heroin”. Heroin is a marvellous drug. You have to dilute it in a large volume and not use the small volumes in the ampoule, because if a gun goes off you might suddenly give them too much too quickly. I titrated her and asked her to tell me when all the symptoms had gone. Eventually she said, “Yes, that’s fine”. It was a huge dose of heroin. I had no problem about giving it. The strange thing was, not only did it not kill her, it gave her a new lease of life. It is unrelieved pain that is the killer.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton
The noble Lord said earlier that he gave his patient a huge dose of heroin. He used the words, “whatever the cost”. If it had killed her, would the noble Lord feel that he had assisted, maybe nobly, in her dying?
Lord McColl of Dulwich
The problem is that when you give these very powerful drugs, the symptoms are relieved but the patient is subject to the complications of being in bed for a long time, including clots in the veins of the legs. These may dislodge, go to the lungs and kill them, or they may develop pneumonia because their breathing is not quite as effective. Those are the complications but I resist the idea that I am deliberately killing them; I am deliberately relieving all their symptoms.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, the point has been made, as though this closes the need for a definition, that a definition in the form DS 1500, which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and many others have referred to, has already been passed by Parliament. I merely want to say that the need for precision when it is a question of providing social services benefits in cash or in kind is much less demanding than the need for precision when the question is pulling the plug on somebody’s life. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to return to this issue.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, one is reluctant to become involved in a debate when so many noble Lords with senior medical and legal experience have been putting forward their interpretations. However, I want to deal with a couple of matters. With this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is clearly adding that a medical practitioner will have to have significant knowledge of the patient.
I want to speak on this issue because I feel that the Achilles heel of the whole Bill is that it is built on sand. It works only on the assumption that the medical profession will deliver it, whereas it is obvious to most of us that the vast majority of the medical profession do not want to deliver it. That leads us to what may be the essential contradiction or conflict in the amendment. A number of noble Lords have said that specifying six months would be an overburdensome requirement. Therefore, we have the dilemma that either you have a medical practitioner who knows the patient, knows the condition and knows how that patient is likely to react to certain drugs, or you have a complete stranger who comes in and makes a judgment on the spot, having read a medical file. I fear that a rent-a-doctor procedure will develop and will distil down to those who are prepared to do it, and that, in my view, will create a whole series of new problems.
I want to raise another point regarding these amendments. We talk about having conversations, discussions and processes. I represented an inner-city constituency for more than 25 years and my question is: with whom and at what time are people going to have these discussions, conversations and processes? At the moment, nurses hardly have time to feed patients on their ward, let alone to involve themselves in very complicated and difficult conversations, discussions and processes.
Therefore, looking at the modern-day NHS and all the pressures that it is under, to some extent we are adding a further pressure without the active support and consent of the medical profession. Also—this is the one thing that I worry about more than anything else—we are changing for ever the potential relationship between a doctor and a patient. In an inner-city area, the ordinary person will say, “Oh, here comes Dr Death. How can that person help me on the one hand and put my lights out on another?”. I fear that that is how this will be distilled down to street level.
In the amendment, the noble Lord is clearly trying to put in place the safeguard that the patient will at least be dealt with by somebody who knows him or her. I understand that and accept the rationale for it. However, there are practicalities, which have been raised by others. With inner-city practices, it is hard enough to get the patient to go to a doctor in the first place, but if they think that that doctor could at some point in their lives, as they would say, sign them off, will the amendment achieve the worthy objective for which it is meant?
The word “control” has been used a number of times. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and others used it. One can see that people would want to have control over their lives. It could happen to any of us. But in the real world out there, many people who are seriously ill may not have the means. They do not have access to the courts, money or knowledge. Control may be all right for those of us in this House, but it is not always available to the ordinary person in the street. That is where I believe there is a fundamental weakness in this. Without the act of involvement of the medical profession who really want to do something, we are forcing them into a corner. It will inevitably boil down to a handful of doctors who will go around the country signing off people they do not know.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
The noble Lord made some cogent points in relation to this group of amendments. He made me wonder whether he thinks the solution may be that the discussions could happen earlier but the provision of the assistance to end life should be much later. The timeframe could change. Discussion of whether someone is terminally ill could start much earlier, and could therefore take more time, but the delivery of the lethal drugs could happen much later. For clarity, they are not morphine or heroin. The drugs are a massive overdose of barbiturates, which is completely different and would never be used therapeutically. That is the way that you end people’s lives under the Oregon and other legislation. That might be a solution. I also ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, whether he would consider that type of solution in looking again at the clause.
Lord Empey
Those are things that we have to probe in Committee. That is what Committee is for. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has many worthy objectives. If the proposal that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has just enunciated works, and if the professionals who know their business feel that it is more helpful, that is terrific. That is exactly what this Committee is for. I therefore commend what she said.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I wanted to make exactly the same point as that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I will not repeat it, but I ask my noble and learned friend to consider carefully the point that she just made about the actual timing of giving any drugs that would terminate life.
I wanted to make one other small point about something that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said earlier about thinking that doctors were overoptimistic about survival rates. My own experience of this, which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to at the beginning of this debate, was exactly the reverse of that. Right at the beginning of a very late diagnosis of leukaemia, my husband was told that there was only a 20% survival rate for that form of leukaemia and he was unlikely to be in that 20% because of the late diagnosis. Five years later, he received a letter, having gone through the dark hours of the night wanting to end his life in very much the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, alluded to in others but has obviously steadfastly and gallantly resisted herself. The letter said that, in fact, the survival rate had not been 20%, as he had been advised, but 47%—more than double what the survival rate was meant to be.
I simply make the point that terminal illness is hard to define, whatever we put into legislation. The fact is that medical science is moving fast, particularly in the treatment of cancer. These definitions are enormously difficult and I would ask noble Lords to reflect on the fact that survival rates can be very much higher after a relatively short period of time.
Lord Warner
My noble friend referenced me in saying that doctors were overoptimistic. What I said was that one review of evidence has found that fewer than one in four patients outlived the prognosis when their clinicians predicted survival of six months or less. I said that that research rather suggests that doctors have a tendency to be overly optimistic about how long people will live, because it shows that when people thought they had six months to live, actually a large number of them failed to get through the six-month period.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, like the Government, the Opposition are not expressing a view on the Bill, and we have a free vote on this side of the House. I ask the Minister to help me with an interpretation of the meaning of Amendment 13, particularly in relation to the meaning of the provision that one of the registered medical practitioners has to have had the person registered with them for at least six months. Does he take that to mean that a patient has to be registered with a general practitioner for the provisions of the Bill to apply? I am assuming that when patients are under the treatment of other doctors, such as hospital doctors, they are not registered with them. This is important. If I am right—and I am expressing no view on the merits of the amendment—it would be helpful to the Committee to know from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, what would happen in circumstances where, for reasons which have been set out by other noble Lords, a person is not registered or has been removed, sometimes forcibly removed, from the list by the GP under the arrangements that apply. It would be helpful if he could clear up that point.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I am happy to clear it up. My understanding—and I am happy to be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong—is that if I am nominally registered with Dr A, who is in a practice with Drs B, C and D, and I go for treatment and am seen and treated by Dr D, I am being treated by a doctor with whom I am registered. That is because my registration with a doctor in a practice includes registration and treatment by any other doctor in that practice.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That is a very helpful response. Can the noble Lord explain the circumstances in which a patient is not so registered? At any one time there are thousands of patients who are not registered.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
If a patient is not registered, they are not registered. If a patient goes as a temporary resident—as I think the term used to be; I am not sure if it still is—to see a particular doctor, a general practitioner, they are then registered for the period of the temporary residence, which from memory is, or at least used to be, one month, and which may be renewable for the purposes of that treatment.
To deal with the broader aspects of the noble Lord’s question it might be worth making the further point, while I am on my feet, that it is very difficult to imagine that a patient would be in the situation described in the Bill but had not been treated for at least six months by a practitioner, such as the practitioner who was treating their cancer. That is the general experience that people have.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I do not have anything to add on that particular point.
This has been an excellent debate which has gone to the heart of some of the most difficult parts of the Bill. Why is six months the right period? Of course, we have heard plenty of informed opinion about how difficult it is to make a prognosis of any accuracy. In Amendment 21, a period of six weeks is suggested as a better period. It may be that that enables a clearer prognosis to be given, but it seems extremely short for the various practicalities and safeguards to give the Bill any real meaning. Inevitably, six months is something of a compromise; the question is whether it is a satisfactory compromise. It will not, of course, suit everybody.
It is something of an irony that one of the spurs behind this Bill and our debates is the Supreme Court’s decision in Nicklinson, which was concerned with the desire of two men with locked-in syndrome—an almost totally paralysing but not terminal condition—to request assistance to die. The Committee might like to be reminded that the President, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, commenting in the judgment on the Falconer commission and the six-month period, said:
“That would not assist the applicants”.
I am sure that that is not in dispute. He went on:
“Further, I find it a somewhat unsatisfactory suggestion. Quite apart from the notorious difficulty in assessing life expectancy even for the terminally ill, there seems to me to be significantly more justification in assisting people to die if they have the prospect of living for many years a life that they regarded as valueless, miserable and often painful, than if they have only a few months left to live”.
These are very difficult questions and I look forward to hearing the answer from the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am again grateful for a very good debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, as ever, that this goes to important issues in the debate. I accept the definition given by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, of these issues, which go to the safeguards.
In looking at the safeguards, it is important to put into context the safeguards in the current draft of the Bill: two doctors, independent of each other, certifying that the patient has a terminal illness which they reasonably expect will end their life within the next six months; the two doctors, independent of each other, certifying that the person has made a voluntary decision, that they have the capacity to make that decision and that it is their firm and settled intention that they wish to take their own life in those circumstances; and that decision is not to be given effect without the consent of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice. Those are the safeguards.
Let us look at the proposals in the light of those existing safeguards. First, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, proposes, in effect, that a person must have as one of the doctors a general practitioner with whom he or she has been registered for the last six months—I understand that registration is a concept that only has relevance to a general practitioner. That proposal, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has pointed out, appears not to deal with people in the following circumstances: somebody who, for example, moves to live near their relatives, then gets ill and is not registered for six months; somebody whose general practice, for example one run by a sole practitioner, packs up; or somebody who, for example, has a general practitioner who has a conscientious objection to the use of the provisions of the Bill.
If Parliament were to pass a Bill giving people the right to an assisted death, I venture to suggest that it would be a very odd conclusion that your ability to access that right would depend on the adventitious circumstance of whether, for example, you had moved one month before to be near your son and daughter, as my own stepmother did. That does not seem a sensible basis. However, a very powerful thread in this—which has been mentioned in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Empey—is the idea of a doctor who does not, as it were, properly consider the merits of an individual case but is, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, available for hire. That is something that I would wish to avoid as much as possible. I venture to suggest that there may be three ways to deal with it.
First, I would expect the medical bodies to produce guidance. That can be given effect to, because a High Court judge would have to be satisfied that an appropriate process had been gone through. In addition to that, I note that, according to Clause 3(7), the independent doctor has to be “suitably qualified” in that he,
“holds such qualification or has such experience in respect of the diagnosis and management of terminal illness as the Secretary of State may specify in regulations”.
I would anticipate that the Secretary of State would be able to make in regulations provisions that make it clear that the independent doctor could not be the sort of doctor that the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Empey, and others referred to. If there are better ways of dealing with the doctor for hire situation, I am very willing to hear and discuss them and bring them forward at the next stage, but I am absolutely clear that the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is suggesting it be dealt with is unworkable and unfair and cuts at the heart of the Bill.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I have a serious question for the noble and learned Lord, which I am sure he will answer seriously. The thrust of what I am saying in my amendment, with my noble colleagues who have signed it, is that the gateway that is provided in Clause 2 should be subject to two doctors—doctors who can be shown to have some considerable knowledge of the person’s case. Is he willing to accept that principle?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I do not accept it in the way that the noble Lord has formulated it. I say that there should be two doctors who have properly, on good evidence, considered the case. It may well be that neither of those doctors has been engaged in the long-term or even short-term care of the person. But I would be satisfied with the gateway involving two doctors who have gone through a proper and rigorous process, and I disagree with the noble Lord when he says that they have to have known the person for six months. Indeed, I do not think he is even saying that because registration over a six-month period would not necessarily involve any contact whatever with the general practitioner.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, who has made a helpful response, up to a point. If the Bill were to go further, would he be prepared to enter into discussions on the clear basis that Clause 2 would have to be amended to ensure, first, that there were two doctors involved in that gateway—whatever the gateway is, because we are going to consider another group shortly that is relevant—and, secondly, that it should be shown that at least one of those doctors has had detailed past consideration of the patient’s case? It seems to me that that sort of measure is the only way of ensuring that we do not have a Shipman-type situation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The first point about the two doctors is dealt with in Clause 3, because the second doctor has to certify that he is content. The noble Lord is getting frightfully agitated. If he looks at Clause 3, he will see that it requires certification by a second, independent doctor.
Secondly, the noble Lord asked whether I would enter into discussions in relation to putting in the Bill that one of the doctors has had to be involved in the care of the patient. No, I would not because I think it is satisfactorily dealt with in the Bill as it stands, for the reasons I have indicated. I will answer the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, first, and then go to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis.
Lord Jopling (Con)
I am concerned very much about this problem of doctors for hire. Does the noble and learned Lord not agree that there is another way, on top of the ones he has described, of dealing with this problem? If he looks at my Amendment 36, he will see it suggests that no doctor should sign a declaration of this sort more than once every four years. I am intent on establishing the principle; whether it is four years or less, I am perfectly happy to have discussions and hear what other people say. But surely to deal with the problem of doctors for hire you could put a limit on the frequency with which a doctor could sign these declarations. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, who I believe is not here today, has put down another amendment, Amendment 37, which proposes a timescale of very much less—I think that, for one of the doctors, it is once every two months, which I think is far too frequent. I would be perfectly happy on Report to put down another amendment, if the noble and learned Lord would give it a fair wind, which would put a limit—let us say two or three years—on how often a doctor could sign such declarations, which, after all, will be pretty rare events.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am very happy to discuss with the noble Lord the idea of there being some limit. I have thought carefully about the limit issue. My inclination is against a limit for the following reason: that there might be doctors—for example, those engaged in the treatment of particular sorts of cancer, covering a particularly wide area of the country—for whom, if the Bill is passed, a limitation of the kind that the noble Lord has suggested, whereby somebody could not countersign a declaration if they had signed one in the previous four years, does not sound appropriate. However, I am completely engaged on how one seeks to deal with the issue of doctors for hire. I would be more than happy to discuss it, but I do not want to give a misleading impression. My current thinking is that it would not be a good idea to put a limit on it.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Ind UU)
I was to some extent motivated to intervene at this stage because the noble and learned Lord alluded to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, as being “agitated”. I thought, “That’s a word that perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, would consider”, because it appears that, as we have moved through this debate, he has moved more and more to provision for the exceptional case; for example, if somebody does not have a doctor, or they do not have a doctor for a certain length of time. No good legislation should be brought forward on the basis of extraordinary cases. If those matters arise, the legislation can be amended, but I am very worried that we are arguing a flawed case based on extraordinary circumstances that may arise.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I could not agree more with the approach that underlies what the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, has said. That is why, although I accept and admire the spirit in which it is offered, I do not think that it is a sensible amendment, because it would lead to so many situations that would then not have been covered by a Bill which, on this hypothesis, had been passed. It would therefore be a very bad idea to accept it. I acknowledge and accept the idea that you should not pass a Bill that then leads to problems, which is exactly what the amendment would do. However, I anticipate that the noble Lord would say that he had the precise reverse in mind.
Lord Cormack
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way, and particularly for the references that he has made to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, my noble friend Lord Jopling, and me. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, he understandably poured some cold water on the four-year limit, but would he accept that a limit of a reasonable time would help allay the fears that my noble friend Lord Jopling, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and I all have?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, I am more than happy to talk about it. The example of the cancer specialist or the motor neurone disease specialist makes me instinctively, having considered it quite carefully, against the idea of any limit, but I am more than happy to discuss it.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said. The noble and learned Lord has been very helpful in saying that he will negotiate with people and talk further about this. Could he not think a little more widely, because there is real concern about the medical profession as a whole being involved in this? I am also concerned about the nursing profession and other clinical specialists who could be involved. As I read the Bill, it makes room for that.
Professionalism is such an important element in the work of all those people who work in the NHS. Professionalism is indicated by the values, behaviour and relationships that underpin the trust that the public have in doctors, nurses and other clinicians. One reason why I am against the Bill is that I think it is so damaging to the medical and other professions. I have listened to my noble friend Lord McColl, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others. The commitment of the people in that service is outstanding. We know that doctors are the most trusted of all the professions. The trust is there because we know the intention of those people in treating us. We know that they come committed to cure, to treat, to alleviate pain and to be compassionate. The Bill goes against that.
Does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, not think that we could be a bit more imaginative? Building on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which was passed at the previous Committee sitting, could we not have a person appointed by the court to carry the drug, medicine, dose or poison—whatever you want to call it—and actually administer it? If a nurse or a doctor finds that the patient cannot quite administer it, because they are compassionate people, will they not help that person to do it? Are they not then in real danger of cutting across the whole tenet of the Bill?
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will talk to some of the rest of us. I have tabled amendments to enable that to happen, but we will probably not get to them today. Will he not widen his vision of the Bill to see whether he can protect the medical, nursing and other professions by building on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to have a person appointed by the court?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I could answer that, but the noble Baroness has tabled a later amendment. I am not at all unsympathetic to what she is saying—although I think that it is adequately dealt with by the Bill—but I do not think that it is appropriate to be taken into that debate when we are dealing with other amendments. I am sorry, but I do not think that that is an intervention to which I should appropriately respond, because other people have made contentions in the course of the debate. With respect, to hive off into the noble Baroness’s later amendment does not seem a sensible way to conduct our business. I am sorry.
Baroness O’Loan
I should like clarification from the noble and learned Lord. I think he said that Clause 2 required two practitioners, but on my reading it requires only one. If there is one practitioner and a person is diagnosed with a terminal illness, the terminal illness is, if you like, the gate into everything else in the Bill. That I have a terminal illness allows everything else to follow. If one doctor diagnoses a terminal illness, there is the possibility that that doctor may do so at the behest of relatives. The motives of those relatives may be benign or malign. If the person gets a diagnosis of that kind from a medical specialist, that may change their whole perspective on life. The mere fact that someone has said to them, “You are terminally ill. You are going to die in six months”, when that has not been said before, may lead them to think, “Perhaps I should seek assisted suicide”.
That may be quite an unintended consequence of limiting this, but at least if we have two doctors, in some form or another, as suggested by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, surely there would be some protection. As I read the Bill as it stands, there is very little protection for the vulnerable person who is lying in bed and seeking some way to find a way through this. Terminal illness and serious pain have a number of effects. One is to cloud judgment and another is to sap the zest for life. That zest, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others have said, may well be restored by palliative care, which relieves the pain, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has said. This is such an unsatisfactory provision that I should like the noble and learned Lord to confirm whether I am right.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I think the noble Baroness is wrong. I thought that I had said Clause 3 but maybe I did not. Clause 3(3) requires two doctors to sign the person’s declaration that the person,
“is terminally ill … has the capacity to make the decision to end their own life; and … has a clear and settled intention to end their life which has been reached voluntarily, on an informed basis and without coercion or duress”.
If I inadvertently said Clause 2, I meant Clause 3 and I apologise. It involves two doctors. We could go into the debate about vulnerability again, but with regard to clarification on whether two doctors are required, I think the Bill is utterly clear.
Baroness O’Loan
I just want to understand which clause we are debating. I thought we were debating Clause 2, which refers to a registered practitioner. As I said, I know that there are other safeguards that the noble and learned Lord is trying to write into the Bill, but the reality is that the realisation of this clause in a person’s life may have significant unintended consequences. I simply wanted to ask the noble and learned Lord whether there is one doctor in Clause 2 or two.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
It is obviously my fault for not properly explaining this. As I understand the noble Baroness’s point, she is asking whether only one doctor has to decide whether the person is terminally ill.
Baroness O’Loan
No, I am talking about the point at which we open the gate and make the Bill apply. I know that in subsequent situations the process develops. I think that one of the weaknesses of the Bill is that the processes are kind of confused. At this stage of the Bill, though, is there one doctor who will say to the person, “You are terminally ill, with six months to live”, so that all other discussions can then take place and you can move towards seeking the declarations and that sort of thing? I just thought it might be helpful to be clear in my mind what we are talking about.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
That is a fair point. The process is that one doctor says the person is terminally ill. The patient declares that they want to take their own life and then the second doctor has to confirm both the terminal illness and the firm and settled intention, voluntariness and capacity. I am not quite sure what further point the noble Baroness is making. She is right that Clause 2 refers to the initial doctor and Clause 3 refers to the second, but the process involves two doctors. I can take it no further than that, I am afraid.
The next point that was raised about the safeguard was the suggestion that we reduce the period from six months to six weeks. I completely accept that there are uncertainties from time to time about diagnosis. A judgment has to be made as to whether someone is terminally ill and may be reasonably expected to die within six months. I do not believe that that is an impossible task for a doctor to embark upon. As the Minister said, a judgment has to be made on what the right period is. I anticipate that the mood of the Committee is that six weeks is much too short. As a matter of judgment, six months feels right after hearing considerable evidence in the commission, and it also feels right having heard the debate just now.
The fact that diagnoses and predicting the length of time that you have to live are difficult—they are difficult whether the amount of time is six weeks or six months—does not lead me to believe that the Bill should not go forward, or that we should vacate the field in giving people that right. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, said, in this area we are not dealing with certainty. The question is whether, in the absence of certainty—and no provision can give certainty—we should be saying that because you cannot have certainty you cannot have the Bill. In my view, the right conclusion is that even though you cannot have certainty—everybody agrees with that—you should nevertheless have the Bill. Having listened very carefully to the choice between six weeks and six months, and obviously having considered something in between, six months appears to be right in relation to this.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having finally got on to the timeframe issue and for his acknowledgement that, on a balance of probabilities, things are more likely to be accurate within a shorter timeframe than at six months. Does he accept that it might be worth considering uncoupling the time in which the discussions can occur from the time within which the prognosis indicates that it is eligible for the lethal drugs to be taken to the patient? That was the question that I asked the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and on which the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, came in, but the noble and learned Lord has not answered that question at all.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I apologise to the House for taking so long to get on to the point about six months versus six weeks. I very carefully considered whether one should say that, once you have a diagnosis of six months to live, you should be able to have the discussions but only be able to take the drugs within six weeks. I am strongly against that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
If I may finish, the reason I am against it is that once the diagnosis is given by the doctors, there is a process that will take a considerable time, and that once the court has approved the process and said that somebody should do it, it should be for them to decide when they do it. It would be an unsatisfactory and, I suspect, an unenforceable process to have to go back and get a doctor to say that you have six weeks or less to live. I thought carefully about that point before it was raised. It is not referred to in any amendment and I assumed that nobody had properly considered it. I am against it.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
If I may come back on that, does the noble and learned Lord recognise that those discussions are currently being had with patients, day in and day out, up and down the country? It is not as if the Bill, as some noble Lords implied, would be the way in which people start talking about their dying because it should be a routine part of clinical practice, as laid out in the GMC guidance. However, I do not think that he has yet answered my question on whether there would be merit in uncoupling those discussions and that process from the time at which the drugs were delivered. If I hear him right, he is saying that when you are in that zone of complete uncertainty and could toss a coin on it—you might die within six months or, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said, within three years; indeed, in the case of some of my patients you might die within 10 years, as it happens—the fact that the doctor has mistakenly said that he believes you are terminally ill would suddenly give the message that you should be considering having an assisted suicide. That would probably start to trigger these discussions. That is the danger in not uncoupling them.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I thought that I had answered the question but I will answer it again. A doctor has concluded that he or she reasonably believes that you have six months or less to live; another doctor has confirmed the diagnosis; and the courts have concluded that it is an appropriate case for an assisted death. Thereafter, my view—I should be clear about this—is that you should be entitled to have an assisted death as prescribed by the Bill. I am therefore against the decoupling of the beginning of the process from the time at which the drug could be taken.
The noble Baroness says that these discussions are taking place at the moment. No, they are not; the discussions taking place are about how somebody wishes to die. It does not involve discussions about assisted dying in the context of my Bill because that is not permitted at the moment, so this is dealing with a new situation. My clear answer to her is that I am not in favour of the decoupling. My proposition is that if two doctors certify and the court says yes, once that process has been gone through, it is for the patient to decide the moment he or she takes the drug, and there should not be another process for a doctor to certify that the patient has six weeks or less to live.
I shall deal with the other points raised in this group. First, for reasons I just cannot understand, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, suggest that where the Bill states,
“reasonably expected to die within six months”,
or less, the word “reasonably” is deleted. That seems unwise. In my view, it is appropriate that a doctor giving such a diagnosis has a proper and reasonable basis for doing so. I am against that change.
In the context of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble Baroness suggests we refer to a “licensed” practitioner rather than a “registered” practitioner. Although I do not agree with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is making appears to me to be a good one. We should discuss, outside the Chamber, the precise language. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, has an amendment that puts the language in a slightly different way. We are all concerned to allow this to be done only by doctors who have the appropriate qualification and are in practice. I am happy to agree an amendment that reflects that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, made a number of powerful submissions in relation to how this affects disabled people. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, responded to them and made it clear that disabled people can have different views about the adequacy or otherwise of the Bill. I was very struck by the reference to “The Theory of Everything” and Stephen Hawking, who is, in fact, in favour of some process of assisted dying.
The underlying anxiety that has been expressed to me by disabled people is that if we pass an assisted dying Bill, we in some way devalue the lives of disabled people and put them more at risk. I do not believe that we devalue disabled people in any way by passing this Bill. I believe it is incredibly important that disabled people have exactly the same options as everybody else when they are terminally ill. I also believe that the safeguards in the Bill are much stronger than the existing safeguards in relation to decisions about treatment. I completely echo the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made: this will not be forced on anybody. It is an option to be asked for, and even when asked for, it can be given effect only when two doctors have certified that it is appropriate and the High Court of Justice has said that it is okay. Having spoken widely to disabled people, I do not believe that it puts them more at risk than the population as a whole. Although I, like everyone else in the Committee, am very moved by what the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, said, I do not accept the criticism that she makes in relation to the Bill.
I think I have dealt with all the main proposals. This has been a very worthwhile debate. The areas where I think further discussions would be of value are in relation to the “doctor for hire” proposition and how we properly identify the qualification required for a doctor. In relation to the other proposals, I am broadly against them.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
I shall just explain some of the worries that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
In a sentence, every time she goes into hospital, they say, “You don’t want to be resuscitated, do you?”. A lot of disabled people have that question put to them. Does the noble and learned Lord think the Bill is going to change that?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I will take that up. With regard to my Bill, if the situation were reached—the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, referred to this—that somebody had very low air and decided to take advantage of my Bill, they would have to get two doctors to approve it and the High Court of Justice would have to say yes. That is a very different situation from the one that the noble Lord describes. My Bill gives much greater protection as regards somebody who is asking for death than the situation that the noble Lord describes. It is for that reason that I cannot understand why he says that my Bill might make it worse.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
Can the noble and learned Lord say if he thinks that pressure might be put on some vulnerable people from family members who want to save money?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The Oregon experience is that that does not happen, but the safeguards—two doctors, and the High Court judge approving it—are in my view sufficient to prevent the sort of abuse to which the noble Baroness refers.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having responded to the question about the qualification of doctors, which is an amendment to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I will make just a couple of points in response. One is that I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord recognises that the way the Bill is currently drafted is a problem and that you need doctors with experience, but I wonder how he will achieve that. Clause 3(7) requires, rightly, that the doctor holds an appropriate qualification. However, yesterday the Association for Palliative Medicine published the results of its consultation with its members, which had a very high response rate and showed that only 4% of palliative medicine doctors who are licensed to practice are prepared to have any involvement in this process. Therefore if the conscience clause is to have any meaning, it is something to which we need to return, and I welcome the noble and learned Lord’s commitment to engage in discussions over it. We will come to other amendments later, which I have tabled, on how we might solve the problem, but I do not think that we will get to them today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, perhaps the Minister or the Chief Whip will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the position is that I should now wind up on my amendment after the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has dealt with her amendment to my amendment. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham; I simply did not see her trying to intervene. I did not intend to be discourteous.
This debate has taken—it just disappeared from the screen—something like two and three-quarter hours, which is a clear indication of the importance of the issues we have been discussing in this group of amendments. I express my gratitude to noble Lords who have taken part, including of course to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who has responded to this debate and intervened at various times in a helpful and constructive way. He suggested at one moment that I was agitated. Agitated—no; frustrated—yes. I will explain my frustration.
The noble and learned Lord, as far I can see throughout the latter half of this debate, has addressed Clause 3. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who is a distinguished and talented lawyer, saw straight through that and made it clear that we are dealing with Clause 2. That clause is about the gateway. Clause 3 is about the certification. There is a very serious point of principle about the standards that there should be at the gateway. I make no apology for re-emphasising that it is my view—otherwise I and others would not have tabled these amendments—that the gateway to this whole process must have medical, intellectual, empirical and objective integrity. None of those words are tautologies. It is the sum of them that we need for this gateway.
I do not know how many of your Lordships have read Dame Janet Smith’s three reports on the Shipman case. It was one of the biggest compendious inquiries that there has ever been. This issue was not really adequately addressed, in my respectful view, in this debate. In a quiet and beautiful valley in the same part of Lancashire and Yorkshire that I was dealing with earlier—in fact, in Todmorden, which is just over the border, in that county that Lancastrians rarely name—Dr Shipman probably killed a couple of hundred people. He was regarded as a kindly, gentle general practitioner to whom you gave a cup of tea and whom you could invite into your house with confidence. I want to be sure—and I know that others in this House want to be sure—that the gateway is safeguarded against people like Dr Shipman, for the reasons illustrated so well in her reports by Dame Janet Smith.
Furthermore, I reject the arguments that have been mentioned that there are real, practical difficulties with this amendment. There may be a few cases—and when we have dealt with the principle, we can look at the detail—in which people move away either from the general practitioner’s practice that has been dealing with them or from the specialist who has been treating the illness that has been determined as terminal. However, in my view those cases are going to be very few in number, far fewer than has been suggested by some of your Lordships, and that should not be an inhibition at this stage to the establishment of a clear safeguard and principle of safety.
The point was made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, that we are talking here about safety. We should hearken very carefully to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, in her first intervention. She happens to represent in an informal way in our House that very important constituency of disabled people. She has told your Lordships that many disabled people outside this House do not have reassurance that this Bill provides in its gateway sufficient safeguards. In itself, that seems to be a sufficient reason to determine whether we wish to have the principle in this amendment. Furthermore the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord McColl, highlighted the fact that the Royal College of Pathologists has shown in many cases that the cause of death given was just plain wrong. That shows how important it is to have robust safeguards.
We had some references to forms that I must admit I am fortunate enough never to have read, relating to benefit rules. To me, referring to those forms is a complete absurdity in the context of this debate. Those forms are about whether people are going to be paid sums of money by the state for their maintenance. That is no doubt an important issue, but it pales into insignificance on the issue of principle that relates to one person helping another person to commit suicide with a huge and lethal dose of barbiturates.
I could make many more comments, but I note that it is now 2.50 pm. In my judgment, there is a real principle and there are a lot of people waiting for your Lordships’ determination of that principle. To me it is as simple as this: do we want the gateway to be safe or are we prepared to take risks with people’s lives? With that in mind, I believe that the opinion of the House should be tested.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have to tell the House that in the first Division one noble Lord voted in both Lobbies. Accordingly, their vote has been discounted and the result of the Division was therefore: Contents, 106, Not-Contents, 179.