House of Commons
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(7 years, 8 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
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163), and negatived.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Wednesday morning, the Order Paper included four Bills whose remaining stages could take place today. However, the remaining stages of a fifth Bill—the Kew Gardens (Leases) Bill—appeared on the Order Paper on Thursday morning. That Bill only completed its Committee stage on Wednesday. I do not attach any blame to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) and I have no particular issue with the Bill in general. My particular issue is a point of principle, in that amendments to private Members’ Bills on Friday have to be tabled by the end of play on Tuesday, yet the Kew Gardens (Leases) Bill did not appear on the Order Paper until Thursday morning after finishing in Committee on Wednesday. Therefore, people were given no opportunity to table amendments if they so wished. What is your view, Mr Speaker, as to whether this should be the state of affairs?
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I noticed that the Kew Gardens (Leases) Bill had appeared on the Order Paper yesterday morning, and I tabled some amendments to it, but obviously those amendments are starred because, although I tabled them at the first opportunity, it will not be possible to debate them unless there is a ruling to the contrary. I inquired as to the practice relating to the issue and was told that the convention is that a Member of this House should not put forward their private Bill for Report and Third Reading if that Bill has only come out of Committee on the Wednesday, rather than the Tuesday of that week. That was certainly the practice adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) when he brought forward the Homelessness Reduction Bill, which I had the privilege of chairing in Committee. It was quite clear that that Bill would not be put forward for Report until there had been a clear period in which amendments could be tabled. Would you rule on that, Mr Speaker? If the Kew Gardens (Leases) Bill is heard today, will it be possible to discuss the amendments to it?
Mr Speaker
The short answer is that it will be possible. As is probably obvious to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), this is the first I had heard of their disquiet and of the timing of the Bill coming forward. I am advised that the rationale for that is that there are few sitting Fridays left, and that the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) is keen to make progress with his Bill. Whatever the rights or wrongs of that, there will be an opportunity for new clauses and amendments to be considered.
Moreover, beyond those that have been tabled, if there is concern that there was not a proper period in conformity with usual practice for the tabling of amendments, and the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Shipley feel disadvantaged by that, it is open to the Chair to allow manuscript amendments. I hope that, even if the hon. Gentlemen are not pleased about the sequence of events, they are reassured that such opportunities as they might seek to speak on these matters will be there for them. They will have an opportunity to deploy their vocal cords and their intellects.
Mr Nuttall
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On the point of manuscript amendments, if an hon. Member has noticed that there is a small typographical error on the amendments that have been tabled to a Bill to be debated today, is it in order to try to table manuscript amendments to those amendments? Would the Chair be prepared to consider that?
Mr Speaker
The Chair would certainly be happy to consider that. I make no commitment as it would depend on the merits of the case, but I am certainly open to that. I hope that the appetite for points of order has been satisfied, at least for now.
Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill
Friday 24th February 2017
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017 View all Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 February 2017 - (24 Feb 2017)
12:04 - The House divided: - Ayes: 137 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
12:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 135 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
12:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 132 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
13:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 135 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
13:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 138 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 10—Recommendations by GREVIO and the Committee of the Parties (No. 2)—
“Any recommendations or reports by GREVIO (that is the Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence) or the Committee of the Parties (that is the Committee of the Parties to the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention)) must be debated in Parliament before any Government response is given.”
New clause 11—Annual statistics—
“The Government must use its best endeavours to obtain statistics on the levels of violence against men, women and all domestic violence victims in each country who are ratified members of the Convention and to make them publicly available and published annually.”
New clause 12—Quarterly statistics—
“The Government must use its best endeavours to obtain statistics on the levels of violence against men, women and all domestic violence victims who are ratified members of the Convention and to make them publicly available and published quarterly.”
New clause 14—Limitation on reservations concerning Article 44—
“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any declaration as provided for under paragraph 2 of Article 78 of the Convention that it will not establish jurisdiction under Article 44 when the offence established with the Convention is committed by a person who has her or his habitual residence in the United Kingdom.”
New clause 15—Territorial application—
“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any restriction on territorial application under Article 77 of the Convention.”
New clause 16—Victims of forced marriage—
“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any restriction on its right to take the necessary legislation or other measures referred to in Article 59.4.”
New clause 17—Compensation awarded to those who have sustained serious bodily injury or impairment of health—
“No ratification of the Convention shall be made by the United Kingdom unless at the time of depositing its instrument of ratification it declares that it reserves the right not to apply the provisions of Article 30 paragraph 2.”
New clause 18—Limitation on reservations concerning psychological violence and stalking—
“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any declaration as provided for under paragraph 3 of Article 78 that it reserves the right to provide for non-criminal sanctions for the behaviours referred to in Article 33 and Article 34.”
New clause 19—Reservations—
“Nothing in this Bill shall prevent the United Kingdom ratifying the Istanbul Convention with reservations as provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 78.”
New clause 20—Requirement to denounce of the Convention after five years—
“The United Kingdom Government shall denounce the Istanbul Convention no later than five years after it has ratified the Convention.”
Government amendment 1, leave out clause 1.
This amendment leaves out clause 1.
Amendment 56, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“without making any reservations under Article 78 of the Convention.”
Amendment 57, in clause 2, page 1, line 11, after “Convention” insert “without reservations”.
Government amendment 2, page 1, line 12, leave out “date by” and insert “timescale within”.
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to report on the timescale within which she expects the Istanbul Convention to be ratified, rather than the date.
Amendment 58, page 1, line 13, at end insert “without reservations.”
Amendment 24, page 1, line 14, leave out from “laid” to end of the subsection and insert “when reasonably practicable”.
Government amendment 3, page 1, line 14, leave out
“within four weeks of this Act receiving Royal Assent”
and insert
“as soon as reasonably practicable after this Act comes into force”.
This amendment changes the deadline for a report under clause 2 from four weeks from Royal Assent to as soon as reasonably practicable after commencement.
Amendment 22, page 1, line 14, leave out “four weeks” and insert “three years”.
Government amendment 4, page 1, line 16, leave out “Her Majesty’s Government” and insert “the Secretary of State”.
This amendment means the obligation to make a statement to Parliament will fall on the Secretary of State, rather than Her Majesty’s Government generally.
Amendment 59, page 1, line 17, after “Convention” insert “without reservations”.
Government amendment 5, page 1, line 17, leave out “it” and insert “the Secretary of State”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 4.
Government amendment 6, page 1, line 19, leave out “its” and insert “the”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 4.
Government amendment 7, page 1, line 20, leave out “the Convention will be” and insert—
“the Secretary of State would expect the Convention to be”.
This amendment means the Secretary of State will be required to make a statement detailing when she would expect the Istanbul Convention to be ratified, rather than when it will be so ratified.
Amendment 25, in clause 3, page 2, line 2, leave out “each year” and insert “biennially”.
Government amendment 8, page 2, line 2, after “each year” insert “until ratification”.
This amendment makes clear that the government will only have to report on progress towards ratification until ratification has taken place (see amendment 14).
Government amendment 9, page 2, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) if a report has been laid under section 2(1), any alteration in the timescale specified in that report in accordance with subsection (1)(b) and the reasons for its alteration;”.
This amendment is designed to avoid the implication that a report under clause 2 will necessarily have been issued before a report is required under clause 3.
Amendment 26, page 2, line 4, leave out paragraph (a).
Amendment 27, page 2, line 7, leave out paragraph (b).
Government amendment 10, page 2, line 7, leave out “(before ratification)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.
Amendment 28, page 2, line 10, leave out paragraph (c).
Government amendment 11, page 2, line 10, leave out “(before ratification)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.
Government amendment 12, page 2, line 11, leave out “to” and insert “in”.
This amendment changes a reference to legislative proposals being brought forward “to” the devolved legislatures to legislative proposals being brought forward “in” the devolved legislatures - which is the usual formulation.
Amendment 29, page 2, line 14, leave out paragraph (d).
Government amendment 13, page 2, line 14, leave out “(before ratification)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.
Government amendment 14, page 2, line 16, leave out paragraph (e).
This amendment removes the ongoing reporting obligation in clause 3(1)(e).
Amendment 49, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“and produce a breakdown of government spending on victims of violence and domestic violence for both men and women.”
Amendment 50, page 2, line 27, after “violence” insert—
“and provide statistics showing international comparison on levels of violence against women and men”.
Amendment 51, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“and to include the names of these organisations”.
Amendment 60, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“(f) the costs to the Exchequer of the measures set out in subsection (1)(e).”
Amendment 52, page 2, line 32, leave out “annual” and insert “biennial”.
Amendment 53, page 2, line 32, leave out “1 November 2017” and insert “1 January 2020”.
Amendment 54, page 2, line 33, leave out “1 November each year” and insert—
“1 January every 2 years”.
Amendment 55, in clause 4, page 2, line 37, leave out from “Act” to end of subsection and insert—
“will not come into force until 90% of the signatories to the Convention have ratified it and there has been a proven reduction in violence against women in 75% of the countries who have ratified the Convention.”
Government amendment 15, page 2, line 37, leave out
“on the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent”
and insert—
“at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.
This amendment means the Act will be brought into force two months following Royal Assent, rather than immediately on Royal Assent.
Government amendment 16, in title, line 1, leave out
“Require the United Kingdom to ratify”
and insert—
“Make provision in connection with the ratification by the United Kingdom of”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 7.
Government amendment 17, in title, line 3, leave out “; and for connected purposes”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to try your patience, but could you advise the House about the status of explanatory statements associated with amendments, and particularly Government amendments? The Member’s explanatory statement to amendment 4 on page 8 of the amendment paper says:
“This amendment means the obligation to make a statement to Parliament will fall on the Secretary of State, rather than Her Majesty’s Government generally.”
In fact, the amendment goes much further, because it would change the Government’s role in ratification and substitute the Secretary of State for the Government, so the explanatory statement is not a full and accurate statement of the effect of the amendment.
Mr Speaker
What I would say to the hon. Gentleman in response to that further point of order is that I am not responsible for the content of Government explanatory statements.
Mr Speaker
Well, the Government Whip says from a sedentary position, “Shame.” I have a sufficient burden, which I am very happy to seek to discharge to the best of my ability, but responsibility for Government explanatory statements is not part of that burden. Moreover—if I can bring a glint to the eye and a spring to the step of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope)—it might be my observation that he, too, is not responsible for the content of Government explanatory statements. They are intended to try to help the House and to facilitate debate, but they enjoy no formal status whatever, so I do not think the hon. Gentleman should be troubled by the matter, although it may be something on which he will wish to expatiate at a later stage. We shall see.
Mr Speaker
Well, we shall see.
We begin with new clause 6—and I hope we can now begin with new clause 6—with which it will be convenient to consider the new clauses and amendments listed on the selection paper.
Philip Davies
I want to speak to new clause 6 and the other new clauses and amendments that stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). We have quite a large group of amendments and new clauses to go through this morning. There are 11 new clauses—seven tabled by me, and four by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). On top of those, we have 36 amendments, most of which have actually been tabled by the Government, in cahoots, it is fair to say, with the Scottish National party and the promoter of the Bill. I will come to their amendments in a bit, because they seem to be trying to con the campaigners behind the Bill by pretending to support the Istanbul convention, at the same time as filleting the Bill to make sure it does not come into effect at all—but more of that later.
I have tabled 14 amendments, and my hon. Friend for Christchurch has tabled five, so we have 47 new clauses and amendments to consider this morning. I will try to do justice to them, and I will try to do that as quickly as I can, because I appreciate that other people will want to speak to them. However, a quick bit of arithmetic will tell hon. Members that if I spend only two minutes on each new clause and amendment, we will soon rattle past an hour and a half, so it is going to take some time to go through such a large group.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would—and I hope he will—support the Prime Minister’s commitment to ratify the Istanbul convention. Will he clarify that for me?
Philip Davies
It is fair to say that I have never been considered the Prime Minister’s official spokesman, and I am very grateful that the hon. Gentleman is elevating me to that lofty position. I suspect it is one I will never take up, so I might milk the opportunity for all it is worth now. The Prime Minister made it clear that she supports the Bill as it will be amended by the Government amendments, and I will explain why that is a long way from agreeing to the Istanbul convention. It strikes me that the Government amendments are all about trying not to ratify the convention.
Philip Davies
I hope they will.
Let me go through the group in order. New clause 6 refers to the recommendations by GREVIO—the Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence—and the Committee of the Parties to the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention), and would mean that those recommendations were not binding on the UK Government. The convention has a two-pillar monitoring system to ensure that all members live up to their commitments. [Interruption.]
It is interesting to note that nobody—particularly on the SNP Benches—wants to listen to the debate, which is surprising because it was exposed on Second Reading that they did not actually know what was in the Istanbul convention. You would think that they would have learned their lesson and would actually want, this time around, to learn what was in the convention—but apparently not. I am not entirely sure whether the position of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is on his knees and facing the wrong way, is in order during a speech, but it is certainly not normal behaviour from him. [Interruption.] He may not be listening, but he could at least give the impression that he is interested in knowing what is going on in the debate.
Philip Davies
He is not. We are very grateful to him for clarifying that he is not interested in the debate. There is no wonder the SNP is so authoritarian.
The Istanbul convention has a two-pillar monitoring system to ensure that all members live up to their commitments. The aim is
“to assess and improve the implementation of the Convention by Parties.”
We therefore have two groups: GREVIO, which is initially composed of 10 members and which will subsequently be enlarged to 15 members when the 25th country has ratified the convention, and a political body—the Committee of the Parties—which is composed of representatives of the parties to the Istanbul convention.
The last thing we need is another group from a supranational body that is set up to make it look as if that body is doing something on issues but that just becomes a talking shop. It is not the implementation of the Istanbul convention that will make any real difference to levels of violence generally—and certainly not to levels of violence against women—but harsher sentencing of perpetrators. The idea that having a group of experts pontificating about how well or badly something has been implemented will make any material difference to the levels of violence in the UK is for the birds.
GREVIO’s task is to monitor implementation, and it may adopt general recommendations on themes and concepts of the convention. The Committee of the Parties follows up on GREVIO reports and conclusions, and adopts recommendations to the parties concerned.
There are different procedures that these two bodies can use to monitor each country’s implementation, such as a country-by-country evaluation procedure whereby GREVIO considers evidence submitted by the relevant countries. Should it find the evidence insufficient, it has the power to organise country visits and fact-finding missions.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Is the UK represented on either or both of those bodies, and if so, who is our representative? Did my hon. Friend consult with such person or persons concerning the terms of his new clause before he tabled it?
Philip Davies
My right hon. Friend is usually much more up on these matters than I am, so I always bow to his superior knowledge, but my understanding is that we would get members on these bodies only once we had ratified the convention. If he knows differently, I am happy to allow him to correct me because, as I say, he is usually more right than I am on most matters.
Another procedure that GREVIO can adopt is a special inquiry procedure that can be implemented when there is reliable information indicating that action is required to prevent a serious, massive or persistent pattern of any acts of violence covered by the convention. In this instance, GREVIO can request urgent submission of a special report by the concerned country.
Obviously I do not believe that the Government should ratify the convention at all, but should we do so, I do not want these foreign supranational bodies to come over and start lecturing us about things when in fact we are usually doing an awful lot better than any other country in the world on such matters. We often see this with the United Nations. By ratifying the convention on the terms of this Bill, we will open ourselves up to visits, fact-finding missions and interference by a foreign body lecturing us about what we should be doing, and perhaps even instructing us that we should be doing this, that and the other.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we already have sufficient procedures and Committees within our own House of Commons to be able to monitor the actions of the Government on the Istanbul convention?
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is rather sad if the House of Commons, and Parliament generally, thinks it is so poor at holding the Government to account on these things that it cannot do it itself and has to farm out the job to a foreign body. That would be a rather strange approach and from a Parliament that was lacking in self-confidence. The Women and Equalities Committee—I will not go into the issue of its name today—would be more than capable of holding the Government to account on the work they are doing on combating violence against women, and violence against men for that matter. We do not really need foreign politicians and foreign bureaucrats sticking their noses into what we are doing .
Sir Greg Knight
Is not my hon. Friend rather contradicting himself, because if we were to adopt the convention, it would not be a foreign body lecturing us, would it? It would be a body on which we had representation and were able to make our views known.
Philip Davies
I do not accept that. Having said that my right hon. Friend is virtually always right, I fear that this is one of the rare occasions when he is not. These things all sound wonderful when one signs up to them, but one does not necessarily understand the full implications of doing so. As an illustration of that, we might focus on the European convention on human rights. It would be very difficult for anybody to disagree with anything in that convention, but we did not realise at the time how it would grow and start to get ahead of itself, interpreting things in a way that could never have been envisaged and getting above its station. That creates all sorts of problems further down the line. In this context, my fear is not necessarily all about what is in the Istanbul convention, although I do have concerns about that—I am more concerned about the way in which a foreign body will interpret its role and start growing to a level that was never envisaged either in the convention or in the Bill. The votes for prisoners issue in relation to the European convention on human rights perfectly illustrates how these things can grow in a way that we never envisaged. I therefore do not accept the premise of my right hon. Friend’s intervention.
New clause 6 is absolutely essential to maintaining our sovereignty in the United Kingdom and to making sure that that is set out clearly in the Bill so that there is absolutely no doubt that we retain all sovereignty in these matters and in what we are implementing.
New clause 10 follows on from that. I would have hoped that the SNP and the campaigners for this Bill would very much welcome it, because it says:
“Any recommendations…by GREVIO…or the Committee of the Parties…must be debated in Parliament before any Government response is given.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North argued that Parliament should be in charge of these matters. If we sign up to this Bill as currently drafted, Parliament will be excluded from anything that goes on. Once we have ratified the convention and the Bill is passed, Parliament will suddenly become redundant. If a foreign organisation is producing reports saying that the Government are not meeting what they signed up to—if that is the view of GREVIO and the Committee of the Parties and they produce a report along those lines—then surely it is only right that the matter is debated in Parliament so that Parliament can have its say on whether it agrees before the Government respond to GREVIO and the Committee of the Parties.
I cannot see why anybody who is in favour of this Bill and is campaigning for it could possibly object to giving Parliament more scrutiny over the process and more power to hold the Government to account. If anybody who supports the Bill would like to intervene and tell me what objection they have to new clause 10, I would be very happy to hear it and try to deal with it. If people do not have any objections to it, they will obviously remain quiet and we can proceed on that basis—we can press it to a vote and hopefully get people’s endorsement. I will give people the opportunity again: if anybody has any objection to new clause 10, perhaps they could speak now. If they do not, we will press it to a Division and hopefully get full support for it. It looks as though we have that.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come on to the Government amendments in due course. The Government, in cahoots with the SNP in the cosy little deal that they have put together, have removed any post-ratification scrutiny of how the Government are doing. That is quite extraordinary, but no doubt the Government and the SNP will be able to answer for themselves in due course.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend says that the Government have removed it, but so far the Bill has not been amended at all. He will obviously ensure that any Government amendments are tested in this House, because it may well be that quite a lot of the people who were originally supporters of this Bill would not want to see it watered down in the way that the Government wish.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Far from watering down the Bill, he is seeking to strengthen it; I will come to his amendments and new clauses in due course. We have an important role to play in Parliament in making sure that any legislation is fit for purpose. We ought to test the will of the House on any attempts to hoodwink the public. People should know where each MP stands on watering down the convention and on whether Parliament should have any role post-ratification—or whether we should just ratify the convention and leave it at that.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way with regard to his new clause 10, but I wonder whether he has thought through the constitutional implications of allowing a vote in this House to have any formal standing when it is neither a statutory instrument nor primary legislation. Would that not risk bringing the courts into the proceedings in Parliament?
Philip Davies
I always bow to my hon. Friend’s superior knowledge of constitutional issues. I would never enter into a competition with him on that, because I would certainly lose. However, I do not think there is anything to fear from new clause 10. All it asks for is a debate on the report in Parliament before the Government give a response. It would not even necessarily make the Government beholden to the outcome of that debate, but it would at least ensure the Government were aware of the views of MPs before they responded.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. How would that be tested? If the Government decided not to have a debate in Parliament, it could not be taken to a judicial review, because the courts could not consider a proceeding in Parliament.
Philip Davies
There is plenty of evidence of Governments ignoring what Parliament has to say to them on a number of occasions, whether on appointments, Select Committees or whatever. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns and I always take them seriously. I will reflect on what others have to say in the debate; they may be able to persuade me that new clause 10 is not worth pursuing. However, I do not envisage the problems my hon. Friend envisages. I suppose we ought just to leave it at that and perhaps move on from there. My hon. Friend may well have the opportunity to have his say and explain in greater detail why new clause 10 should be resisted. I am sure the House will listen carefully to what he says, as will I. It would be a sad—and rare—state of affairs if I found myself voting in a different Lobby from my hon. Friend. New clause 10 should find favour with campaigners in favour of the Bill and the convention, because it gives Parliament more say over what happens post-ratification.
New clause 11 relates to annual statistics. This is very important. I have heard many assertions from campaigners that we must pass the Istanbul convention to eliminate violence against women, and that if we do not ratify it we will not have any reduction in violence against women. Campaigners say that if we pass the convention there will miraculously be no violence against women. New clause 11 requires the Government to use their
“best endeavours to obtain statistics on the levels of violence against men, women and all domestic violence victims in each country who are ratified members of the Convention and to make them publicly available and published annually.”
The point of that is to allow us all to see for ourselves whether ratifying the Istanbul convention actually makes any difference at all to levels of violence against women and levels of domestic violence. At the moment, we do not really know too much about it.
In preparation for this debate, I tried to get figures on countries that have ratified the convention to ask them if they had seen a reduction in violence since ratification. We should want to test whether it will actually make any difference at all. Unfortunately, the House of Commons Library told me that it did not have any such figures and that these figures did not exist. So anybody who stands up today and says that passing the Istanbul convention will reduce levels of violence against women is doing so in the full knowledge that they have no evidence at all to support that claim—unless, of course, they have done what I did. In the absence of any House of Commons Library figures, I wrote to the ambassadors of all the countries who ratified the convention to ask whether they could supply me with any of the information.
I do not know whether anybody else in the House has actually bothered to find out whether ratifying the convention makes any difference to levels of violence against women. Perhaps anybody who has done so could intervene now and share that information with me. No, I did not think anybody would intervene. I did not think that anyone would actually have any idea of what they were talking about before they came here today, but of course someone coming in on a Friday and knowing what they were talking about before pontificating would be breaking a great tradition. I have done the work for them—again. I contacted the ambassadors of the countries that have ratified the convention and asked for their figures. I am sure everyone will be interested to know what has happened in those countries since ratification. I am sure the Minister will be delighted to know. Maybe the Minister does not know this either. It is quite extraordinary, really.
Sweden signed the convention in May 2011 and ratified it in July 2014. It came into force in November 2014, with reservations. I will come on to reservations later, because I know that is a subject my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch feels very strongly about. From the figures given to me by the Swedish ambassador, the total number of reported offences in 2013, before the convention was ratified in Sweden, was 39,580. When the convention came into force it was 42,217. In 2015, after ratification, it went up to 42,252. The preliminary figures for 2016 show another increase in violence, with reported offences at 43,179. The offences included in this category—I am very grateful to the Swedish ambassador for sending this very detailed information—are all forms of assault, murder and rape, including attempted rape, regardless of the victim’s age. In Sweden, therefore, ratification of the Istanbul convention has not made a blind bit of difference to levels of violence against women. In fact, all that has happened is that levels of violence have continued to increase. What do all those who claim that the convention is essential to reducing violence have to say about that? Absolutely nothing—that is what they have got to say about it.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I wonder whether there might be other factors involved. My hon. Friend will no doubt have heard the President of the United States expressing considerable concern about the dangers now arising in Sweden.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I do not intend to deviate too much from the matter in hand, but he raises an interesting point about what might be the driving force behind that. I think the point he is getting at is that he thinks the levels and nature of immigration into Sweden might have been a contributory factor—a point made by President Trump last week. There may well be truth in that. I do not know; I did not ask the ambassador for any assessment on that. All we do know is that ratifying the Istanbul convention has not led to a decrease in violence against women in Sweden, and so all the people claiming that that is what is going to happen might want to think again.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Is it possible that in a country that cares about a particular form of violence people might be more willing to report that violence, and so figures might go up rather than down?
Philip Davies
It is a no-fail measure, isn’t it? If the level of violence goes down, it is because of the Istanbul convention; if it goes up, it is because the Istanbul convention has helped levels of reporting. It cannot fail: whatever the figures it is a winner. I commend my hon. and learned Friend greatly for that line. She will almost certainly be made a Government Minister very soon. With such aplomb at the Dispatch Box with which to explain away any difficult figures in her Department, I suspect she will make a very fine Minister in short order.
My hon. and learned Friend may well be right. Unfortunately, the situation in Portugal is not quite the same as that in Sweden, so her thesis slightly falls down. Portugal ratified the convention a bit earlier than Sweden, since when the numbers have been like a rollercoaster: they have gone down, then up, then down again. I am not entirely sure how that can be explained away on the basis of increased awareness.
It is fair to say that, to any independent observer, the figures indicate that ratification does not make a blind bit of difference to levels of violence against women. I am very happy for other hon. Members to put their own gloss or spin on why the figures have gone up and down; I am just looking at them as someone who is interested in the statistics.
Nusrat Ghani
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is referring to reported figures. Surely the point is that if women are aware that their voices will be heard and that support is available, they will come forward and report incidents of this hidden crime. Surely he can see that that is a positive thing.
Philip Davies
Of course I am in favour of people reporting crimes, but I am not entirely sure that we need to ratify the Istanbul convention for them to do so. We already encourage people to report crimes. If my hon. Friend wants to send a message today to every victim of violence that it is essential that they report that crime to the police, she is welcome to do so and I will endorse that message wholeheartedly. Any victim of any kind of violence, in any shape or form, irrespective of their gender, should report it to the police. It should be fully investigated and the perpetrator brought to justice and much more harshly punished than they currently are. Let that message ring out from the Chamber today, but we do not need to ratify the Istanbul convention for people to report that they have been the victim of a violent crime—we already have measures in place to deal with that.
The rollercoaster effect in Portugal that I described has also happened in Poland, which ratified the convention on 27 April 2015. It seems that the figures went up after it signed the convention, but that lately they have gone down.
There is no pattern to the figures in the countries whose ambassadors kindly sent me them, but it is important to put it on the record that they show that Sweden, Portugal and Poland clearly take the issue very seriously. I commend those countries for doing so and for laying bare their figures to me. In some cases the figures are good and in others they are not, but those countries have been open and transparent enough to share them with me so that I can share them with the House.
I worry about the countries that did not share their figures. I appreciate that I have no evidence to support this and that I am making an assertion that can be countered, but I fear and suspect that some countries did not supply me with the information because they are slightly embarrassed that the figures have gone in the wrong way since they ratified the convention. I could be wrong, but people can draw their own conclusions.
I have also seen figures from Albania and Austria. In Albania, they show an increase since ratification from 4,599 to 5,281. In Austria, the trend is the same. Its first annual report, which came out last September after the convention came into force in 2014, showed that the number of female victims of violent offences had increased from 37,546 to 37,677—so I think it is fair to say that we are not going to make a massive difference to levels of violence against women by ratifying the treaty.
After Austria ratified the Istanbul convention, the number of women murdered there went from 118 in 2014 to 165 in 2015. That seems quite a significant increase in murders against women a year after the country ratified the convention.
Philip Davies
I suspect that it is harder for a murder victim to report that crime—so clearly not. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that statistic cannot be explained away by increased reporting of crime. I think it is fair to say that murders are known to the public authorities.
Mr Chope
I commend my hon. Friend for tabling new clause 17. It is effectively a probing new clause trying to find out the Government’s policy on the issue. They say they wish to ratify the convention, but they have made no statement about whether, in ratifying, they wish to have reservations under the powers in the convention.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I hope that the Minister will make that clear. I have given up the hope that SNP Members know anything about what is in the Istanbul convention. They clearly have no idea. If they bothered to read it, they would know that it contains powers for Governments to reserve some areas—not sign up to them—but still ratify the convention. We have no idea, however, whether we are going to sign up to these things. Before Parliament agrees to something, we should at least know what we are signing up to. At the moment, we have no idea. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to tell us, before Third Reading, what the Government envisage us signing up to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is right in one sense about the new clause being a probing measure to tease out from the Government which bits of the convention we will sign up to as part of ratification, but he does it a slight disservice. I am not entirely sure I agree that it is just a probing new clause. To describe it as such suggests that I do not particularly agree with it and am just seeking information, whereas I do agree with it, so I cannot agree with him.
If my hon. Friend was to make the same accusation about new clause 19, however, he might have a point. It states:
“Nothing in the Bill shall prevent the United Kingdom ratifying the Istanbul Convention with reservations as provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 78.”
In effect, that would allow the Government to ratify the convention with the maximum number of reservations allowed. It is important to highlight what reservations are allowed and therefore what would be covered by the new clause. The reservations apply to the following outline areas: compensation, which I have just covered on new clause 17, jurisdiction, statute of limitation, residence status and the right to provide for non-criminal sanctions for psychological violence and stalking.
I have talked about article 30 and compensation already. The new clause 19 would also allow the Government in effect to opt out of paragraphs (1)(e), (3) and (4) of article 44, on jurisdiction; article 55(1), as it relates to article 35, on minor offences and ex parte and ex officio proceedings; article 58, as it relates to articles 37 to 39, on the statute of limitation; and article 59, on residence status, especially in relation to spouses. Finally, article 78(3) declares that a state
“reserves the right to provide for non-criminal sanctions, instead of criminal sanctions, for the behaviours referred to in Articles 33 and 34”—
on psychological violence and stalking respectively.
There is a good case for saying that the UK Government and Parliament should be sovereign in all these areas and that where we can leave matters to the UK Government, Parliament and the UK courts, we should take that opportunity, mainly for the reason I outlined in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight): we have no idea necessarily how these things will develop over the years, so it is best to reserve as many rights as possible. That would be the most sensible strategy for the Government to adopt, because it would allow them to retain as much control as possible.
Mr Nuttall
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is plenty of precedent from around Europe for going down precisely this route in respect of what other countries have done as part of their ratification process?
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, I was just about to come on to that. Of the 22 countries that have already signed and ratified the convention, 11 have done so with reservations attached, and a further four have signed it stating they want reservations too. It is clearly a reasonable approach for Governments to take—it is in the convention that countries can do it, so it must be an accepted approach. It is clearly a reasonable approach, as all countries, Governments and legal systems are different, and it is important that that be recognised as much as possible so that provisions can be to the taste of particular countries. I hope, therefore, that the Government will make it clear where we are with these reservations and what implications there might be. If they are seeking the maximum number of reservations, as I would advise them to do, perhaps the Minister can confirm that she has no objection to new clause 19, which would simply make that clear in the Bill and put the matter beyond any doubt and further debate.
Philip Davies
No, I do not. I was going to come to that later, but as my hon. Friend has raised it now, I should make it clear that I absolutely do not think that. In fact, colleagues will remember my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) waging a fantastic campaign trying to double the maximum sentence courts could impose on people convicted of stalking. I was a strong supporter of his 10-minute rule Bill that sought to do that, and I was pleased that the Government agreed to adopt that measure. That was fantastic.
I differ with my hon. Friend, however, in that I do not accept the premise that providing for reservations from the convention means that we necessarily always have to disagree with what is in those articles. It just means that we are free to do what we think is right, rather than having another body telling us its view of the matter. We can be trusted to do the right thing by victims of stalking, as the Government have already done. Not signing up to an article does not mean disagreeing with what is in it; it just means we want to retain sovereignty for our own country.
Mr Chope
Does my hon. Friend understand why, when the last Labour Government were negotiating the convention, they were prepared to allow other countries to have non-criminal sanctions in respect of stalking? Why were they prepared to allow a reservation of that nature, given that only a very limited number of reservations are allowed?
Philip Davies
That is a very good point. No doubt the Labour spokesman will be able to explain why Labour thinks it is absolutely fine for other countries to have non-criminal sanctions for stalking, and for psychological violence against women. The Labour Government obviously agreed to that being part of the convention, and people are happy for us to sign up to it on the basis that it is a gold standard for protecting women. Well, I hope people realise what is in this “gold standard for protecting women”. Those who campaign most vociferously seem to be the ones who have read the smallest amount of it. There is a direct correlation: the people who seem to be the most wound up about it are the ones who have read it the least. If some of them take the time to read it, they may be shocked to find what is in this “gold standard”.
I actually think that the UK can do a damn sight better than the Istanbul convention. I think that by signing up to it we will be levelling things downwards rather than levelling them upwards, which is what we should be seeking to do. If the Government want to do something useful around the world, they should be encouraging other countries to adopt the practices in which we engage in this country, rather than our agreeing to adopt their practices, which are much weaker when it comes to dealing with violent crime and, in particular, violence against women.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: Labour Members have a great deal to answer for in this debate. Perhaps they will be able to explain why they think that stalking and psychological violence against women should be subject to non-criminal sanctions in other countries, and perhaps the Bill’s promoter will be able to explain why she would adopt that policy as well. I suspect that it is not something that she tells people about very often when talking about the Istanbul convention.
New clause 20 provides for a requirement to denounce the convention after five years. In effect, it is a sunset clause—I think that more Bills should contain sunset clauses—enabling us to review whether or not the Istanbul convention has been a force for good in the United Kingdom. If everyone is so confident that ratification will indeed be a force for good, they have nothing to fear from a sunset clause, because it will become apparent that the ratification has been a great triumph, and we can all agree to put the provision back on to the statute book in time for it to continue. If, of course, the ratification proves to be a turkey, the Bill will fall, and we shall be able to start from scratch. We shall be able to introduce legislation that is much more sensible and effective. I have no idea why anyone might not support a sunset clause. It seems a very good safeguard, because it requires us to continue to focus on what a Bill is designed to achieve, and to ensure that that is what it is achieving.
Those are my new clauses. I shall now deal with the amendments—14 of the 36—that are tabled in my name. Amendment 22 relates to the report that subsection (1) requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament on the timetable for ratification of the convention. The subsection states that the report
“must be laid within four weeks of this Act receiving Royal Assent.”
What is required within four weeks is for the Secretary of State to set out
“the steps required to be taken to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Istanbul Convention; and…the date by which the Secretary of State would expect the United Kingdom to be able to ratify the Convention.”
I think that is a rather unrealistic timetable. No doubt the Secretary of State could rustle something up to hit that arbitrary four-week target, but I think it would be much more sensible for the report to be meaningful and accurate. Surely we should be aiming for that, rather than sticking to an artificial timetable.
I should love to know why the Bill specifies four weeks. Perhaps its promoter will be able to tell us. Why four weeks? Why not six weeks, or two weeks? What is so special about four weeks? I suspect that there is nothing special about it at all. I suspect that someone said, “We shall have to put in a figure. What shall we put in? Let’s go for four weeks, shall we?” I do not think that that is a sensible way of drafting legislation.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend is effectively supporting one of the Government amendments, but may I present an alternative point of view? The Government have had since 2014 to draw up a list of the legislative requirements that will enable the convention to be ratified. The Bill was published on 29 June last year, and we still have not heard from them any indication of what they believe must be done in order to enable the United Kingdom to ratify it.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend seems to have made my point for me. I understand what he is saying: that the Government have had ample time in which to do this, and we should therefore be able to put to them a fixed time in the near future. My contrary point would be that, if after such a long time they still have not been able to do it, how on earth are we to expect them to do it all of a sudden within four weeks? That seems unrealistic to me. Surely the fact that the Government have not managed to do it in all those months suggests that they will not be able to do it in four weeks. My point is that the timetable is unrealistic.
Mr Chope
But it is not just four weeks, is it? One of the Government amendments says that the Act should not come into force until two months after Royal Assent, which means, effectively, that after Royal Assent the Government would have three months on top of all the time that they have had up until now.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is clearly right. I cannot disagree with anything that he has said. The points that he has made about Royal Assent are factual. However, I am not entirely sure that that timetable is achievable either, given the delay that we have already seen. My point is that, rather than rushing to meet an artificial target that they are clearly finding it difficult to meet, the Government should be left to set out those steps at a reasonable time.
My amendment 22 would extend the timetable from four weeks to three years, and I should like to think that everyone would agree that it allows the Government ample time to get their ducks in a row and their house in order. I should like to think that the Government would have no excuse for not sticking to that particular timetable. However, my hon. Friend thinks that that would let the Government off the hook too much. My amendment 24 replaces the four weeks with “when reasonably practicable”.
Mr Nuttall
As my hon. Friend will know, I support his “three years” amendment. Would not the other option leave the position open-ended? “Reasonably practicable” may mean “never”.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is right, and I shall go into that in a bit more detail later. The Government really are selling people a pup. They, and the Scottish National party, are trying to get all the plaudits for putting their shoulders to the wheel to ensure that the Istanbul convention is ratified, but the “filleting” amendments are designed to do the exact opposite. My three-year amendment, as my hon. Friend puts it, may mean a long time in the waiting, but at least it will mean that there is a fixed deadline for the Government to meet. Amendment 24, which says that the report must be laid “when reasonably practicable”, mirrors the Government amendment. It is very similar. Obviously, great minds—mine and the Minister’s—think alike on the matter. However, I concede that the amendment allows for a never-ending timescale. Perhaps that is what the Government, and the SNP, have in mind. I do not know. I am perfectly relaxed about either measure—I will take soundings from colleagues as to which they think is the best. My general point is that the four-week target is never going to be achievable, particularly given all the other things that are going on for the Government at the moment.
Philip Davies
It seems to me that it is what it says on the tin:
“as soon as reasonably practicable”.
It is when the Government are in a position to be able to do so. I know my hon. Friend has extensive experience of government, as a former Minister. That is a privilege that I do not have, and never will have, so it is not for me to say what it takes for the machinery of government to get itself into a position to do something, but I am sure that he trusts the Government to move as speedily as possible on these matters, given the Minister’s stated commitment to these things. I am sure he has nothing to worry about on that provision. The Minister tabled a similar amendment to mine, which is a rare thing in itself. Presumably, she may be able to answer his question. She may be able to explain what she had in mind when she tabled her amendment to satisfy him.
Amendment 25 is about the annual report that is required in clause 3. The clause says that the Secretary of State shall lay a report “each year”. I propose to change that to “biennially”. Every two years is perfectly adequate for that report; we do not need an annual one. If my hon. Friend gets his way, it will not need to be laid annually or biennially because the Government will have this done and dusted in no time anyway. Therefore, I am not sure why we need an annual report, to be honest. However, Members can explain why, if these things have to be done quickly, we need an annual report saying what steps need to be taken and when we are expected to ratify the convention. Presumably, the whole point was to have it done and dusted in no time at all, so I am not sure I understand the need for that provision.
Amendment 26 would delete
“any alteration in the date by which the United Kingdom expects to be able to ratify the Convention and the reasons for the alteration”.
I do not see any point in that provision. It seems to be superfluous to requirements.
I propose in amendments 27 and 28 to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) of clause 3, which are about pre-ratification reports. I cannot see the point of those provisions, including that on
“the administrative measures taken…to ratify the Istanbul Convention”,
and those on what has been done in the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am sure, Mr Davies, you are not going to go down that route.
Philip Davies
My word, Mr Deputy Speaker! If we were to abolish Bills that were just about gesture politics, that would abolish private Member’s Bill Fridays altogether. However, that is a debate for another day. I do not want to be sidetracked down that line today.
Amendment 29 would delete paragraph (d). The provision says that the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report on
“the measures to be taken and legislation required to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Istanbul Convention”.
Surely it is clear what legislation is required to enable the UK to ratify the convention. Why on earth do we need an annual report for the Government to tell us what legislation is required to ratify the convention?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I am a bit worried. Time is going by and I know that you, Mr Davies, will want to hear some of the other speeches. I am sure that you will want to get towards the end of your speech. Mr Chope is trying to distract you permanently. We have to worry about that.
Philip Davies
I will try not to be distracted by my hon. Friend too many times. As I think you will appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been trying to crack on through my amendments, but there are 47 new clauses and amendments in this group and they take some wading through. However, I have been racing through them. I will leave the Minister to answer my hon. Friend’s point when she speaks.
Amendment 49 is about a report—we are still laying a report—about the measures taken by the Government to comply with the Istanbul convention to
“protect and assist victims of violence against women and domestic violence”.
At the end of that, my amendment would insert
“and produce a breakdown of government spending on victims of violence and domestic violence for both men and women.”
I do not see why anyone would want to oppose the Government having to produce a breakdown of how much they are spending on victims of violence and domestic violence, broken down by men and women. Men are nearly twice as likely as women to be the victim of a violent crime—1.3% of women interviewed for the crime survey reported being victims of violence in 2014-15, compared with 2.4% of men. When it comes to the most serious cases, according to the crime survey for England and Wales, women accounted for 36% of recorded homicide victims in 2015-16, whereas men accounted for 64%, yet so far the provisions we have here apply only to women. Therefore, it is important that the Government make clear what provisions they have for the victims of violent crime, whether they be men or women. I hope that the Government will agree to publish that information, and, if not, explain why they object to it so much.
Amendment 50 addresses the next bit of clause 3, which is about the report showing what the Government are doing to
“promote international co-operation against these forms of violence”.
At the end of all that, I have inserted that they should also
“provide statistics showing international comparison on levels of violence against women and men”.
I do not intend to repeat myself, but I spoke earlier about the information I have managed to acquire from different ambassadors. If we ask the Government to show what they are doing and then to show what other countries who have ratified the convention are doing, that will give us a good idea of how we are doing compared with other countries. Surely that is a meaningful comparison that we would want to look at. At the moment, the Government can offer us no meaningful comparisons to show how we are doing in comparison with other countries. I do not know why they would be afraid of doing that; surely they would want to make sure they were doing better than other countries. My amendment would give them the opportunity to do that and to highlight their record against that of other countries. Perhaps that would level everybody’s standards upwards, rather than them just being at the lowest possible common denominator.
Amendment 51 relates to the report on the measures the Government are taking in providing
“support and assistance to organisations and law enforcement agencies to co-operate in order to adopt an integrated approach to eliminating violence against women and domestic violence.”
At the end of that, I have added
“and to include the names of these organisations”.
It is important that the Government should make it clear, as part of this reporting strategy, what support and assistance they are giving and to which organisations they are giving that support. Then we can scrutinise whether or not they are the right organisations.
It might well be that there are other organisations out there—perhaps small organisations in local communities that the Government have not come across—that we can champion and say, “You don’t seem to be giving any money to these organisations. How about giving them a cut of the funding available?” I do not know what would be lost by the transparency of knowing which organisations the Government were funding.
Mr Nuttall
Does my hon. Friend see any irony in the fact that while he and I have proposed, in separate amendments, deleting clause 3(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d), the Government have proposed deleting paragraph (e), which is the most substantive of all the paragraphs to this clause?
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is right, and what is happening here—if anybody bothers to notice—is that I am strengthening paragraph (e); I am trying to give the Government more requirements for reporting what they are doing post-ratification.
I will come to the Government amendment a bit later, but my hon. Friend is right to say that while I am, through these amendments, strengthening paragraph (e) and making sure that the Government have to give more information, the Government, with the SNP’s connivance, are making sure that there will be no reporting on any of these issues post-ratification of the Istanbul convention. Again, they will have to explain themselves on that, but I think that if we are going to ratify this convention, we should at least have some post-ratification knowledge of what on earth is happening and how well we are doing.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. If the hon. Gentleman does want to hear that, it might be helpful if he gets on and ends his speech, as I can then get some answers for him—and I would not want to distract him from hearing the answers.
Philip Davies
I am very grateful for that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will certainly be leaving plenty of time for the answers, but, as I have said, there are 47 new clauses and amendments here and I am going through them as quickly as possible.
Philip Davies
As ever, you are absolutely right, Mr Deputy Speaker. There have been lots of interventions and I will try to resist the temptation to be as generous in taking them as I normally am—for a bit, at least.
Amendment 54 again addresses clause 3 and the reports on progress. The amendment says that the first annual report should be laid no later than 1 November 2017. That is interesting in itself, because what the Government are leaving in the Bill is all about before ratification, but I want to keep in post-ratification reports, and my amendments say that the first one should be from 2020 onwards—they should be done from 2020 and then every two years. That would be the effect of amendments 53 and 54.
Amendment 55 is my final amendment and it relates to when this Bill, when it becomes an Act, should come into force. The Bill says it should
“come into force on the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent”,
and the Government have amended that, but I suggest it should
“not come into force until 90% of the signatories to the Convention have ratified it and there has been a proven reduction in violence against women in 75% of the countries who have ratified the Convention.”
It seems to me to be perfectly clear that we would want to ratify the convention only if it is actually shown to work. As I made clear earlier, we do not have the evidence at the moment to support that.
Those are my amendments, and I will now touch briefly on the other ones in the group, which I can race through fairly quickly, I hope. All of the new clauses in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch are about making sure that the Government do not apply any of the reservations. I have explained why I think the Government should apply some reservations, however, and that is why I would reject new clauses 14, 15 and 16. If I might be so bold as to say so, I think my hon. Friend’s best attempt here is new clause 18 on psychological violence and stalking. It is inconceivable that those things would not come with a criminal sanction in the UK, so in that sense we have nothing to fear from signing up to that. It might be my hon. Friend’s argument that if we were to make it clear that we would sign up to that—that we would be happy to make sure they would always have a criminal sanction—it might encourage others to do the same. I do not know whether that would work, but I would not be averse to that, and if my hon. Friend were to push new clause 18 to a vote, I would be more sympathetic to that than I would be to his other new clauses, if that is helpful to him.
The Government amendments—which the SNP has endorsed, let us not forget that—are extraordinary. I have made it clear that I am opposed to this convention, but this cosy deal shows that they do not care too much about it either. They pretend—
Philip Davies
I am going to resist the temptation to give way to my hon. Friend for now, Mr Deputy Speaker, just to show that I always take notice of the Chair.
They are attempting to fillet this Bill without anybody noticing, claiming to be champions of the Istanbul convention while getting the Government off the hook of ever having to actually implement it. These amendments are all about making sure either that the Istanbul convention is never ratified or that its ratification is delayed as much as possible. Only SNP Members will know why on earth they have agreed to this. Only they will be able to explain that, or perhaps they are so embarrassed about it that they will not be willing to explain it at all. I hope they will have the guts to admit to what they have done.
Government new clause 1 would remove clause 1 and therefore would remove the ratification of the convention on violence against women, because clause 1 imposes a “duty” on the Government
“to take all reasonable steps as soon as reasonably practicable to enable the United Kingdom to become compliant with”
the Istanbul convention. The Government want to delete that. They want to leave out clause 1, yet clause 1 is the whole point of the Bill, in that it imposes a duty on the Government
“to take all reasonable steps as soon as reasonably practicable to enable the United Kingdom to become compliant”
with the convention. The Government want to remove that provision from the Bill, and the SNP is quite happy for them to do so. This is absolutely extraordinary stuff, Mr Deputy Speaker! You literally could not make it up.
Philip Davies
Do not worry, the House will hear it in all its glory. Government amendment 16—and, with it, Government amendment 17—is an absolute pearler. The Bill is so bad that not only are the Government taking out clause 1, which is the whole point of the Bill, but they are even changing the title because it is no longer applicable to what they are prepared to sign themselves up to—with SNP support.
The title says that this is:
“A Bill to require the United Kingdom to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (the Istanbul Convention); and for connected purposes.”
Everyone outside this place thinks that that is what we are debating today. They think this is a Bill to require the United Kingdom to ratify the Istanbul convention. Well, not any more. The Government and the SNP have caved in on what the Bill was supposed to be about, because now they are changing the title. The requirement on the United Kingdom to ratify the convention will no longer be in the Bill’s title if the Government and the SNP get their way. The Bill will just:
“Make provision in connection with the ratification by the United Kingdom of”.
In other words, “Let’s kick this one into the long grass. We’ll just have a few things that need to be done before we actually ratify the convention.” The Bill will no longer require the Government to ratify the Istanbul convention, and even “and for connected purposes” will be removed. Nothing that might actually help to ratify the Istanbul convention will be included in the Bill.
There we have it: a whole range of amendments. Some of my amendments are about transparency, and some would strengthen the measures expected of the Bill—people would certainly know what has to be reported on so that we can see what is happening in other countries. On the other hand, we have the Government amendments, supported by the SNP, that water down the Bill and even remove the requirement to ratify the Istanbul convention. The public outside need to know that they are being conned by people who claim to support ratification and who claim to be on the campaign group. The public have been sold a pup. At least some of us are honest about not liking this convention, which has to be a better way to operate than this rather shabby deal between the Government and the SNP.
I hope that we can test the will of the House on the weakening of the Bill, and we will see how we get on.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
In considering this group of amendments it is useful to consider the related document, the sixth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, session 2014-15, on violence against women and girls, which was published in February 2015 and called on the Government to ratify the Istanbul convention.
I am delighted that my Bill is back before the House on Report. I am extremely grateful to colleagues on both sides of the House—from nine parties—who support the Bill, and especially to those who have given up a valuable constituency Friday. I am particularly grateful to those who have been up all night with the by-elections. I can see quite a few folk who are a bit bleary eyed this morning. I thank everyone for being here.
Preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence is extremely relevant to people in every single constituency. We have a chance today to make a real difference to their lives and the lives of future generations. On Second Reading the Government intimated their intention to amend the Bill while supporting its intent and principles. Although the amendments were not forthcoming in Committee, they are before the House this morning, and I thank the Minister and her officials for working constructively with me and my staff to table amendments that meet the Government’s need for unambiguous and watertight legislation without watering down the substance of the Bill.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Some seven women a month are killed in England and Wales alone. Does my hon. Friend agree that that deserves to be treated with the utmost urgency, as we would any other major cause of death?
Dr Whiteford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We also need to understand the dynamic of control and abuse that feeds those shocking statistics.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on making such progress with this important and very necessary Bill. Does she agree that it is important that people have faith in parliamentarians to carry out their monitoring role once the convention is implemented and that the actions of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) do not help?
Dr Whiteford
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I will address scrutiny in a bit.
There are few issues that unite this House, but there is a compelling degree of unanimity on the need to ratify the Istanbul convention and the need to do more to prevent and combat gender-based violence, which is reflected in the cross-party support for the Bill and the willingness of Members from all parties to work together to achieve the progressive change that people in our communities want to see.
However, the hon. Member for Shipley has done me one favour with his amendments by giving me an opportunity that I might not otherwise have had on Report to clear up some fairly basic misunderstandings about the Istanbul convention—not least what it actually says and does—and some fundamental misconceptions about the gendered dynamics of sexual violence and domestic abuse.
First, clause 3 of article 4 of the Istanbul convention explicitly states that
“the provisions of this Convention by the Parties, in particular measures to protect the rights of victims, shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, gender, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, state of health, disability, marital status, migrant or refugee status, or other status.”
It is unambiguous: the Istanbul convention provisions apply to women, men, trans and non-binary people alike, and regardless of any other characteristic. It is comprehensive and clear.
Interestingly, an organisation such as Stay Brave, which advocates specifically for male, trans and non-binary victims of sexual and domestic violence, and which would not have in the past claimed adherence to any feminist agenda, supports the Istanbul convention and wants to see it ratified, because it recognises that the convention will help all victims. As its chief executive said in a blog published yesterday, it recognises that:
“The focus on ending violence against women is important, because it recognises the global pandemic of injustice. Gender inequality…creates a world where power, money and strength become motivators for systemic violence.”
The chief executive officer of another men’s organisation, David Bartlett of the White Ribbon Campaign, yesterday also urged all MPs who care about ending violence and promoting gender equality to vote in favour of the Bill today.
That is why the hon. Member for Shipley is simply wrong to suggest that this can ever be understood as a gender-neutral issue, and why the points he has made in the past about men being left out and this not being about them cannot be taken seriously. All of us are agreed that all sexual violence and all domestic violence is serious, regardless of the gender of the victim or of the perpetrator, and regardless of any other characteristic —end of.
Dr Whiteford
No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has more than enough air time. Everybody recognises that some men will experience gender violence and domestic violence, and that sometimes the perpetrator will be female, but in the real world in which we live the people who experience sexual and domestic violence are overwhelmingly female; women are disproportionately subjected to these forms of violence and abuses on a colossal scale—we cannot ignore that reality. The large majority of perpetrators, although by no means all, happen to be men; no credible, documented source of evidence anywhere in the world suggests otherwise. We do ourselves a huge disservice if we pretend that this is just another case of “the boys against the girls”—we are not in primary 4. It is a grave distortion of a terrible, systemic abuse of human rights to ignore the profound gender inequalities that drive and compound sexual violence and domestic abuse.
It is also important to say that some types of sexual violence are becoming more prevalent. Crime in Scotland is at a 40-year low, yet sexual offences are rising. That could be due to more people reporting what has happened to them, and in the wake of the exposure of the Savile review we know that there has certainly been a spike in the reporting of historic incidents. But I fear that this is also to do with a genuine increase in new types of gender-based violence, which are partly facilitated by this saturated world we live in of violent sexual imagery: the emergence of so-called “revenge porn”, which was not possible until the advent of smartphones; and things such as so-called “date rape” drugs being available. Those things were not problems 20 or 30 years ago but they have become prevalent problems now, and they are driving an increase in sexual assaults in particular. However, women’s inequality is still a key feature of every society in the world, and that is what is really underpinning gender-based violence.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and an important point. I congratulate her on her ongoing work on this issue and I hope everyone will vote in support of the Bill today. We came into this Chamber with the horror of the Helen Bailey story in today’s papers, her partner having been jailed for 34 years for her murder. Does the hon. Lady agree that this highlights how the crime of domestic violence and violence against women hits? Age and background are not relevant, as this is a universal crime. Finding a way of raising awareness among young people will be the best gift we can give them in terms of prevention, and supporting the Bill today will be global Britain in action.
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Lady makes a series of salient points in her concise intervention, and of course our condolences go to the friends and family of Helen Bailey, whose dreadful murder made us all pause for thought and for breath. It was a truly horrific crime and I am glad her killer has been brought to justice.
The hon. Lady also anticipated the points I was just about to make on the universality of gender-based violence. I talked a lot on Second Reading about the differential experiences of gender-based violence, and in explaining why I will be opposing amendments that have been tabled, I will reiterate the points I made then. Although this is a universal crime that affects women right across the spectrum, we know that low-income women, disabled women and women under 30 are more likely to experience gender-based violence than others. We know that women from some ethnic and cultural minorities are exposed to greater risk of specific manifestations of violence, such as female genital mutilation or forced marriage. Sexual violence can happen to any of us—it affects people of all economic and social backgrounds and ages—but there are deep structural social inequalities reflected in our likelihood of experiencing sexual and domestic violence, and gender inequality is the cross-cutting factor that underpins and compounds them all.
If we are serious about ending these forms of abuse, we need to understand their manifestations and end the denial—the blind spot—about the far-reaching effects of wider gender inequality. Women may have secured equality before the law—de jure equality—but we are nowhere near achieving de facto equality, or equality in practice. We need just to look around Parliament or to listen to the amount of air time that people get in Parliament, including today, to see that. Until we get that equality in practice, women will continue to face life-threatening, life-changing abuse over the course of their lives.
I now want to turn to the amendments tabled by the Minister, all of which I am happy to accept. I am grateful for the way in which the Government, in proposing some significant changes, have worked to retain the principles, intention, integrity and spirit of the Bill. We are at our best as legislators when we use those areas where there is already a large degree of common ground and consensus to find compromises and push forward together where we are able to do so. Although these Government amendments were not tabled in time for the Committee, the Government were able in Committee to outline their intentions in some detail and to indicate the areas in which they planned to amend the Bill on Report.
Government amendment 1, which removes clause 1, is undoubtedly the amendment over which I still have some reservations, but I am prepared to take in good faith the Government’s commitment that they will move forward with all due haste to make the legislative changes they need to make to bring the UK into compliance with the Istanbul convention. I reject absolutely the assertion from those on the Tory Back Benches that the Government do not care about these issues. I urge anyone who takes that view to speak to some of the women on the Tory Benches, including those who have so courageously spoken about their own experiences of domestic abuse. Tory women are no more immune from gender-based violence than anyone else; all of us are affected. I believe genuinely that there is a shared commitment on this, including a personal commitment from the Prime Minister.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
I greatly appreciate how the hon. Lady has acknowledged the cross-support on this issue and everything she has done in the Chamber and outside it. She has the full backing of female Conservative Back Benchers, but I also applaud my male colleagues, who are also behind her.
Dr Whiteford
I am grateful for that intervention. As I said on Second Reading, actions speak louder than words. We have heard a lot of warm words and verbal commitments in principle about the Istanbul convention for nearly five years now, but the process had clearly stalled. So I am delighted that a few days ago, ahead of this debate, the Prime Minister announced new legislation on domestic abuse and expressed her support for this Bill. I hope the Minister will be able to say more about that proposed legislation and will confirm whether the Government intend to use it to address the outstanding issues, particularly those relating to extra-territorial jurisdiction, which have been the last main barrier to the ratification of the convention. Will the Minister also say whether there are plans to strengthen compliance with the convention in areas in which we all know there is massive room for improvement, such as on coercive control and the way the family courts, and their equivalents, work in all our jurisdictions? Will she also set out how discussions are progressing with the devolved Administrations, which support the Istanbul convention but also have competencies and steps to take towards ratification in such areas?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)
I thought I might assist the House by rising at this stage of the debate to explain Government amendments 1 to 17 and to address the valid concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).
I very much welcome the opportunity to discuss the Bill on Report and to continue to work with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on this important issue. As the Prime Minister made absolutely clear at Prime Minister questions on Wednesday, the Government share the hon. Lady’s commitment to ensuring that the UK ratifies the Istanbul convention.
We signed the convention in 2012 to signal our aim that everyone, men and women, should live a life free from violence. The convention’s key priorities already align with those of the UK. They are to continue to increase reporting, prosecutions and convictions, and, ultimately, to prevent these crimes from happening in the first place. The UK already complies with or goes further than the convention requires, including by delivering against its practical requirements such as ensuring the provision of helplines, referral centres and appropriate shelters for victims, as well as by meeting its requirement to ensure we have robust legislation in place. However, before we are fully compliant with the convention, there remains one outstanding issue in relation to extraterritorial jurisdiction that we need to address.
The UK already exercises ETJ over a number of serious offences, including forced marriage, female genital mutilation and sexual offences against children. However, there are some violence against women and girls offences over which we do not yet have ETJ, and primary legislation is required to introduce it. I am working closely with my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to progress this issue and, as the Prime Minister has signalled, we will explore all options for bringing the necessary legislation forward.
I made it clear in Committee that the Government fully support the principles that underpin the Bill. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is seeking to ensure that we deliver on our commitment to ratify the convention, and I thoroughly commend that aim. However, as I indicated in Committee, some amendments are necessary to ensure that the Bill achieves that aim. I shall set out the rationale behind the Government amendments.
Government amendment 1 would remove clause 1, but I should make it absolutely clear that we fully support the motivation behind the clause, which would require the Government to take all reasonable steps required to ratify the convention as soon as reasonably practicable. As I have set out, though, both we and the devolved Administrations need to legislate to introduce ETJ before we can ratify the convention. Members will appreciate that that this means there is a danger the clause could be interpreted as imposing a duty on the Government to legislate; indeed, it could be interpreted as pre-empting the will of Parliament. I assure Members that we support the intention behind the clause, and the requirements in the remainder of the Bill will ensure that we deliver on its aims. I am absolutely clear that seeking to remove the clause in no way changes our absolute commitment to ratifying the convention.
Clause 2 would require the Government to lay a report setting out next steps to be taken to enable the UK to ratify, and the expected date for that, within four weeks of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. As I outlined in Committee, we fully support the motivation behind the clause but, as we need to legislate on ETJ before ratification, we need to ensure appropriate flexibility for the timing within which we need to lay the report. Such flexibility is also necessary because Northern Ireland and Scotland will need to legislate on ETJ. Amendment 2 would therefore replace the words “date by” with “timescale within”, and amendment 3 would replace the four-week timeframe with
“as soon as reasonably practicable after this Act comes into force”.
Clause 3(1 )(e) would require the Government to lay annual reports on the measures taken to ensure that the UK remains compliant with the convention post-ratification. As with other Council of Europe treaties, once the UK has ratified the convention we will be required to submit regular compliance reports to the Council of Europe. Those reports will include detail on the policy and strategies in place to tackle VAWG and on the role of civil society organisations, particularly women’s non-governmental organisations, as well as data on prosecutions and convictions. The reports will be scrutinised by GREVIO, the independent expert body responsible for monitoring the implementation of the convention. Based on the information received, GREVIO will prepare a final public report with recommendations. In addition, a selected panel of GREVIO members may visit the UK to carry out further assessment of the arrangements in place. I wish to confirm that, once we have ratified the convention, additional members of GREVIO will be appointed, and it will be possible for the UK to have representatives on GREVIO.
As Members will appreciate, we want to avoid duplicating our existing reporting requirements. Amendment 14 therefore removes paragraph (e) of clause 3(1). However, I hope that Members are reassured to hear that, after we ratify, there will be rigorous oversight to ensure that we continue to remain compliant with all the measures in the convention. Clause 4(2) would ensure that the provisions in the Bill come into force a day after Royal Assent. Amendment 15 reflects the usual two-month convention for any Bill receiving Royal Assent. I wish to reassure Members that this will not affect the timescale for any of the measures proposed in the Bill.
The remaining amendments 4 to 7, 9 to 13 and 16 and 17 are consequential on the Government amendments, and are technical to ensure that the Bill reflects usual drafting conventions.
Mr Nuttall
In respect of amendment 16, the explanatory notes say:
“This amendment is consequential on amendment 7.”
Will the Minister please explain exactly how the amendment is consequential on amendment 7?
Sarah Newton
It is related to the fact that we have already accepted everything that is within the convention, and that it is just a matter of verification. The details of what this House has agreed to have been set out very clearly. There is cross-party and cross-country support for every aspect of the convention.
Sarah Newton
I have made my point very clearly. I really want to respect the wishes of Mr Speaker, who has made it very clear to everyone that he is very keen to ensure that today, as on all days, Back Benchers have as much time as necessary to make their cases. I have very thoroughly addressed the issues raised in the amendments by my colleagues. I will now press on in the time that I have available.
I really want to emphasise that ending violence against women and girls is a top priority of this Government. Since publishing the original “A Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls” strategy in 2010, we have made great strides. In the past four years, we have strengthened the legislative framework and introduced a range of new measures including new offences on domestic abuse, forced marriage and stalking; tools such as domestic violence and FGM protection orders; and a range of guidance and support for professionals. Of course we know that there is more to do. I assure the House that we remain committed to driving forward at pace work to tackle violence against women and girls. That is why we recently announced the “Tackling child sexual exploitation: progress report” supported by a £40 million package of measures to protect children and young people from sexual abuse, exploitation and trafficking, and to crack down on offenders.
Last week, the Prime Minister announced plans for a major new programme of work to transform the way we think about and tackle domestic abuse. That is being led by the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary and it will look at all legislative and non-legislative options for improving support for victims, especially in terms of how the law and legal procedures currently work. It will work towards bringing forward a domestic violence and abuse Act, and the measures that come out of the work will raise public awareness of the problem as well as encouraging victims to report their abusers and see them brought to justice. The £15 million Home Office VAWG transformation fund is currently open for bids further to support local areas in promoting and embedding best practice.
I wish to turn my attention to the issues raised by the other amendments in this group. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley has spoken about the importance of recognising that men and boys can also be victims of these crimes—he has spoken about that both on Second Reading and in many other parliamentary debates on VAWG and related issues.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I will be incredibly brief because we have taken years to get to this point, and I do not want to slow this down any further. I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and her team on their hard work in ensuring that this private Member’s Bill made it this far. I know that she has gone to great lengths to ensure that we can be here today, and I congratulate her on that.
The convention provides a step change in the way in which we all—central Government, local authorities, charities, women’s services and even individuals—work to prevent violence against women and girls.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work she has done to support the Bill. Does she agree that it is important that we get the multi-agency and co-ordinated approach to tackling violence against women and girls that the Istanbul convention demands? Will she work with MPs across the House to check that this integrated approach and the support services are available throughout the country, as they are absent in some areas?
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The good thing about the Bill is that it encourages everyone to work collaboratively to prevent the crime and tackle the perpetrators, and then to provide support. She is absolutely right that there is a patchwork of provision across the country. This legislation will only go so far. We need scrutiny on the ground to ensure that everybody gets the service they deserve.
The successful passage of this Bill is hugely significant. The Government have given a commitment to ratify the convention but, with due respect, a commitment on the statute book will always count for more. I am grateful to the Minister for her endorsement of the Bill and for the truly collaborative way in which she has worked for the benefit of all women. I heard her speech and understand the reasons for tabling the amendments. I am also grateful that she has again made the commitment that the Government are fully intent on ratifying the convention. As such, we support all her amendments. However, I want to push her on two issues.
First, the Government last week announced plans for a programme of work that will lead to a domestic violence and abuse Act, which I fully welcome. Pushing the Minister a little on the detail, will she confirm whether such a Bill will contain the primary legislative measures necessary to extend the extraterritorial jurisdiction to the remaining offences of violence against women and girls? If so, what is the Government’s timetable for that Bill?
Secondly, I have repeatedly asked the Government to make assurances about continuing the grant funding for the revenge porn helpline, which ends shortly. Since the helpline opened in 2015, it has received more than 5,000 calls relating to more than 1,200 individual cases. The only answer I have received so far from the Government is that a decision on funding will be made “later in the year.” Will the Minister tell us exactly when that will be?
I have worked closely with too many survivors of domestic violence over the time that I have served as the MP for Rotherham. These brave women show so much courage just by sharing their stories. We owe it to them, at the very least, to give clear and committed action to prevent violence against women and girls, and this Bill goes a long way towards achieving that.
Mr Chope
This is an extraordinary occasion. We are discussing a Bill, the long title of which—as put down on 29 June last year—was:
“To require the United Kingdom to ratify the…Istanbul Convention.”
We have just heard the promoter of the Bill explaining why she now wishes that long title effectively not to require the United Kingdom to ratify the Istanbul convention. I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on the charming way in which she has been able to explain a complete volte-face in her approach to this important subject.
The Minister has spelt out all the wonderfully effective and good measures that the Government have introduced to address the really serious issues of violence against women and domestic violence. I commend her and the Government for the work they have already done and the work they will do. However, she has not addressed the questions implicit in the amendments I have tabled as to whether, when the Government ratify the convention, they will do so with any reservations. We have not had an answer to that. I would be grateful if the Minister would intervene to assure me that when the ratification occurs, it will be without any reservations.
Sarah Newton
I have made the position very clear: we have already signed the convention, so all we are looking to do now is to ratify it.
Sarah Newton
I appreciate the opportunity for further clarification. We have signed the convention without any reservations.
Philip Davies
The Minister asked whether I would be minded to withdraw my amendment. For the benefit of the House, I would like to make it clear, through my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), that I will be very happy to withdraw my amendment and will not push any of my amendments to a vote.
Mr Chope
I am glad that my hon. Friend has been satisfied by the Minister’s response.
One reason that I have been interested in the subject for a long time is that I was present at the Standing Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe when this convention was first discussed. I remember vividly the representations that were made to me and my hon. Friend, the then Member for North Dorset, explaining that the United Kingdom Government really wanted the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to pass an amendment to the draft convention—as it then was—to enable a signatory party to the convention to have a reservation in respect of extraterritorial jurisdiction.
The Foreign Office representative who lobbied us in Paris on that occasion— unfortunately, only half an hour before the decisions were to be taken—expected us to persuade everybody to accept an amendment from the United Kingdom Government at very short notice. The Government, through their Foreign Office representative, were very concerned then about the extraterritorial application of the convention, which is why they wanted to allow a participant party to have a reservation. In the end, the convention went through without that power being granted. Everybody who is suspicious about the length of time it is taking for the Government to get their act together on the issue needs to bear in mind that background—that in 2011, on the basis of a convention that had been negotiated by the previous Labour Government, the Government were concerned about the issue of extraterritorial application. We have not heard, even at this very late stage, anything from the Government precisely about what measures need to be brought in to satisfy those requirements before the convention can be ratified. It seems to me that we are owed something from the Government on that because the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and others have been pressing them to come up with a list of what is required.
Even the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), in her short contribution from the Opposition Front Bench, asked the Minister whether the forthcoming legislation on domestic violence, to which the Minister referred, would incorporate the necessary legislative requirements to enable the ratification of the Istanbul convention, but my hon. Friend—I do not think she is listening, which is a pity—was not even able to respond. That must surely cast doubt on how long it will be before the convention is actually ratified.
One of the Government amendments says that the Government do not want clause 2 implemented before clause 3. Therefore, no report may well have been made under clause 2 by the time we reach 1 November 2017 and the report on progress under clause 3. That seems to show an acceptance by the Government that they will not be in a position to ratify the convention for some considerable time. The strong feeling on both sides of the House is that people want the convention ratified, but the Government seem to be wriggling about when and how they will achieve that.
I have tabled a number of amendments and new clauses. I think I have a commitment from the Minister, in so far as one can tell, that when the convention is ratified, it will not be ratified with any reservations, and I am grateful to her for that. However, I still fear that the impression being given to the world outside is that we are passing today a Bill that will require the United Kingdom to ratify the Council of Europe convention, when, in fact, it does no such thing, and that needs to be made absolutely clear.
Sarah Newton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene to address amendment 4—he is quite right that I did not address it in my few words. The replacement of “Her Majesty’s Government” with “the Secretary of State” is to ensure that the Bill reflects the usual drafting conventions. In no way does it alter the overall responsibilities of the Government.
Mr Chope
I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I am grateful to her for that intervention. I am sure that others will be able to check out the issue to see whether it will need further discussion when the Bill gets to the other place. However, having said that, and in light of her intervention, I am not going to speak to the new clauses and amendments that I have tabled, because I get the feeling that the House would like to move on to debate other issues.
Philip Davies
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I beg to move that the Question be now put.
Mr Speaker
There is not a Question before us to be put, because new clause 6 has been withdrawn, and therefore the correct procedure now is for me to move on to Government amendment 1.
Clause 1
Ratification of the Istanbul Convention on violence against women
Amendment proposed: 1, page 1, line 1, leave out clause 1.—(Sarah Newton.)
This amendment leaves out clause 1.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill now before us sets us on a clear path towards ratification of the Istanbul convention, and I want to thank all Members who have attended and participated in the debates today and at other stages of its progress. In particular, I want to thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), both of whom have shown real leadership from their respective Front Benches, today and throughout the passage of the Bill, in working towards a shared objective, even when we have not always agreed on the detail. I am sure that our gender is entirely coincidental to this outcome. Should the Bill pass today and progress to the Lords, it will be presented there by Baroness Gale, to whom I am also extremely grateful. I hope that it will have a smoother passage there than it has had here, but I guess time will tell.
The real credit for the progress that this Bill represents must go to the women across civil society who insisted on change and compelled Parliament to act. The women of the IC Change campaign, Women’s Aid in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales, and a host of other individuals and organisations—including the men who have stood with us in solidarity—have advised, supported and worked so hard over such a long time to make this happen.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr Whiteford
Of course I will give way to the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the white ribbon campaign UK.
Gavin Newlands
I share in my hon. Friend’s praise of Becca, Rachel, Robyn and all at IC Change, and it has been a pleasure to work with them over the past year-and-a-half. It would be remiss of me if I did not take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend herself on behalf of SNP Members for her professional and fantastic stewardship of the Bill.
Dr Whiteford
I am flattered by my hon. Friend’s remarks, but the real thanks go to the people, some of whom are here today, who led the way and made us listen. I know that the campaign will not end here. In many ways this is a beginning for substantive change.
I also thank Emma Watson, who took time out of her busy film promotion schedule to speak out in support of the Bill to an audience that politicians find hard to reach. These issues lie close to her heart.
On reflection, it strikes me powerfully that Parliament has frequently been left playing catch-up on progress for women: from those who campaigned for women’s suffrage for more than a century before it was achieved to those trade unionists who fought for equal pay for women years before the Equal Pay Act 1970 came into force and the women who, in the 1970s, set up refuges for women fleeing domestic abuse at a time when there was absolutely no support from the state or the authorities for women experiencing violence or coercive control from an intimate partner—a time when rape within marriage was not even a crime. Every step of the way, it is citizens who have driven progressive change. Sisters have had to do it for themselves.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I offer my huge congratulations to my hon. Friend and all those involved. Does she agree with me and Emmeline Pankhurst, who famously said:
“We are here, not because we are law-breakers; we are here in our efforts to become law-makers”?
My hon. Friend is the absolute embodiment of those words.
Dr Whiteford
It is important that we remember our history and understand the historical process of change within which we live. I have been asked so many times over the past few months: why the Istanbul convention? Why these difficult, painful, controversial issues? Why this convoluted, complex multilateral process? The long answer is that it has the potential to make concrete improvements—at local, national and international level—to the lives of people affected by sexual and domestic violence.
In light of the Istanbul convention, and in direct response to the debates we have had in this place, I am pleased to say that my local authority, Aberdeenshire Council, is already considering how local provision might be strengthened and improved. That could and should be replicated by local authorities across the UK.
We have already seen at UK level and in the devolved Administrations a raft of new legislation, driven by the Istanbul convention, on issues such as stalking, forced marriage, human trafficking and modern slavery, all of which has taken us closer to compliance. Internationally, we can make the world a safer place for our own citizens and for others, but we now need to finish the job.
The short answer to my question—why the Istanbul convention?—is that change needs to come and change will come. Ultimately, this is about real people and real lives. I have been moved beyond measure by the truly inspirational courage of my constituent Sarah Scott, a woman from the small coastal community where I grew up. She was subjected to an exceptionally brutal rape, and she waived her right to anonymity in an attempt to prevent what happened to her from happening to anyone else.
Sarah is one of the desperately small minority of rape victims who has seen her attacker brought to justice and convicted, but during the course of the trial her medical history was used by the defence in an attempt to discredit her as a witness to her own experience. She has spoken publicly about that profound violation of her privacy and the re-traumatisation that those experiences invoked, and I can only begin to imagine the inner strength and bravery it took for her to speak out.
We have travelled some distance in this struggle, but we still have such a long way to go. We need to recognise that ratification of the Istanbul convention is a milestone in the journey to equality and justice for women, and not an end point.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr Whiteford
I will not give way.
So, Sarah, this Bill is for you and for every person who knows at first hand the brutal, life-shattering reality of sexual violence and has had the courage to claim justice and fight for it. Thank you for helping us all be a bit braver and stronger in the fight for equality and human rights, and more determined than ever to end this abuse, once and for all.
Mr Nuttall
Unfortunately, I was not able to contribute on Second Reading, as the debate was terminated before I had the opportunity to try to persuade the House of the merits of my case against the Bill, but I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for at least putting several of the points that I wanted to make on the record then.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on the polite and efficient way she has brought the Bill before the House and steered it through to this Third Reading debate. No private Member’s Bill is an easy thing to deal with and she has demonstrated great skill in being able to get this Bill to this stage. It is no secret that I oppose it. I am open about that, but I wish to start by putting on the record the fact that those of us who oppose it do so on the basis that the Istanbul convention will do nothing to achieve the aims that its supporters think it will. It will certainly do nothing to stop violence against men and boys, and I am just as concerned about that as I am about violence against women and girls, leaving aside for a moment the position of transgender individuals, which we have not considered at great length so far.
It is important to note that the views that my hon. Friend and I have espoused—we have yet to hear in depth from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope)—are supported by a larger section of society than some in this House might think. After the Second Reading debate, even though I had not been able to contribute to it, I received emails from people from all over who were saying, “Good for standing up for our rights as men, because sometimes we feel that we are not getting a fair crack of the whip.”
This morning, we have seen something remarkable happen to this Bill, and I am grateful that we have had the opportunity to put certain matters to a vote. Anybody watching the proceedings may have wondered what was going on, but we have demonstrated this morning that those who support this Bill have actually gone through the Lobby to vote to weaken it. We have been given a bit of a clue; if ever a Bill has to have its title amended, the chances are that it has been seriously filleted. On this occasion, the fact that the whole of clause 1 has disappeared and the whole of clause 3(e) has disappeared demonstrates the extent to which this Bill has been chopped and changed, not in Committee, but on Report.
Incidentally, the Minister on Second Reading was my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), rather than my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who is here today. He said that amendments would be tabled in Committee, but we now know that none was, even though they must have been ready, because they were tabled on 1 February, when the Bill had its Committee stage, and they were online the next day. That was the first indication that something was amiss.
The series of Government amendments that have been accepted have had the effect of making the Bill very different from when it was introduced. The requirement for the UK to ratify the Istanbul convention has gone. Now, as reflected in the Bill’s new long title, it only makes
“provision in connection with the ratification by the United Kingdom of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (the Istanbul Convention)”.
Even the words “and for connected purposes” have been removed.
The whole of clause 1 has been removed, and that was the crucial point of the Bill. We were told that the whole object of the exercise was to impose a duty on Her Majesty’s Government
“to take all reasonable steps”—
so the Government were not expected to do everything in their power—
“as soon as reasonably practicable”.
It was a very modest clause to enable this country to become compliant with the convention, but that is all gone now.
For those who support the Bill and the campaign behind it, it is worth putting on record exactly what it now looks like and will do. Essentially, it now requires no more than that the Secretary of State lays a report before each House of Parliament to set out
“the steps required to be taken to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Istanbul Convention”.
We all know what those steps are anyway, so there is going to be nothing new in it. It has been said many times that the only thing the Government still need to do is sort out how we are going to deal with extraterritorial jurisdiction. I accept that that is not an easy thing to do, but it has been done in respect of other offences, which leads me to think it would not have been that difficult, given how many years it has been since the convention was signed, to have worked out by now why primary legislation is not ready. We have still not heard whether primary legislation is going to be included in the next Queen’s Speech, for example.
The timescale is crucial. As originally drafted, the Bill would have required the Government to set a specific date
“by which the Secretary of State would expect the United Kingdom to be able to ratify the Convention.”
That requirement is now gone, as we are talking only about a “timescale”, which could of course be anything: a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade—all are timescales.
Philip Boswell
The number of stories my staff shared about violence against women and the severity of the violence in them was staggering. The vast majority of them ended with the victim deciding not to report the incident to the police due to social stigma, fear of retribution, concern that the authorities would not believe them and shame. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time that we changed that by ratifying the Istanbul convention as soon as possible?
Mr Nuttall
To be quite honest, I entirely agree that anyone who has been the victim of domestic violence, or of violence outside the domestic setting, should be reporting that violence, and that applies to both men and women. Incidentally, the incidence of men reporting such violence because of fears that people might laugh at them is much lower than it is among women, particularly where domestic violence is concerned. How on earth anyone can think that just because the Government have ratified a convention, which most members of the public have never even heard of, will make one iota of difference to whether or not someone reports a crime is beyond me.
If the issue is whether I think that people should report domestic violence, then of course the answer is yes, but on whether I think that the figure will be changed as a result of the ratification of the convention, the answer is no, I do not. In countries where ratification has already taken place, the figures that have been provided by their ambassadors to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley show that there is a very mixed picture—and that is putting it very modestly—of the effect that this convention has had in reducing the incidence of domestic violence. We all want to see violence against women, violence against men and domestic violence reduced—there is no issue about that—but this Bill is not about that.
Let me now return to the issue of the timescale, which is the main thrust of this Bill. The purpose is to try to tie down the Government to doing something and to stop this matter from drifting on. What do we have now? The words “the date by” have been replaced by “the timescale”. Previously, the report, which was to set out the date, had to be laid
“within four weeks of this Act receiving Royal Assent.”
That has been changed to
“as soon as reasonably practicable after this Act comes into force.”
There is a subtle change there. It is no longer after
“this Act receiving Royal Assent”.
Another Government amendment changes the date on which the Act comes into force from being the date on which the Act receives Royal Assent to a period of two months beginning on the day on which the Act is passed. So, we have a two-month delay, and then an unlimited amount of time before the report has to be laid. Even when the report is laid, all it has to do is set out a “timescale”—there is no specific date. Frankly, we might as well say it is the 12th of never, because that is essentially what this Bill is saying. No specific date is given and there are no provisions in the Bill to tie down the Government. If Members want proof of that assertion, they should simply ask this question: on what date would it be possible for anyone to turn around and look at this Act—if it passes through this place and the House of Lords—and say, “Ah, the Government have not complied with the Act.” I venture that it would be difficult to pick any day. The Bill is now so widely drafted that there would never be a date when it would not be possible for the Government to say, “We’re not quite there yet. We are dealing with things. It is not reasonably practicable at this stage to deliver the report.” Even if a report were delivered, we would still have to get over the hurdle of the timescale, which could be very vague indeed.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Much progress has been made under this Government, particularly when the Prime Minister was Home Secretary, with criminalising acts such as forced marriage, dealing with stalking, tackling female genital mutilation, and the domestic violence protection orders. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for women in Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that this global commitment is constructive in leading the way to continue the fight?
Mr Nuttall
My hon. Friend highlights some of the valuable work that the Government have already been doing without ratifying the convention. Other countries may well want to look at the work of this country to see whether they could improve their procedures and adopt some of the things we have been doing. It is interesting that my hon. Friend highlights those points because, of course, all that has happened without ratifying the Istanbul convention.
Philip Davies
Is there anything that the Government could not do to help victims of domestic violence or to deal with violence against women until they have waited to ratify the Istanbul convention?
Mr Nuttall
The short answer is no; I cannot think of anything. I would be very interested if anyone else present could come up with any measure that we are prevented from introducing because we have not yet ratified the convention. In fact, as the previous intervention demonstrated, the Government have quite happily brought forward lots of proposals to tackle these matters already, and quite rightly. I have my own ideas about what we could do to try to tackle domestic violence, and I am interested in whether Opposition Members would support me. For example, we could start by saying that those who are convicted of domestic violence and sent to prison are required to serve the full length of their sentence, rather than being let out halfway through. If we are talking about sending signals, let us send the good signal that if someone commits an act of domestic violence and is sent to prison, they would have to serve the full length of their sentence. There are things we could do that I would be very much willing to support.
It is not even the final step when the report is finally tabled by the Secretary of State—
“as soon as reasonably practicable”—
and sets out the timetable. The final step comes afterwards. Even when the Secretary of State has finally determined that the United Kingdom is compliant with the Istanbul convention, a date by which the convention will be ratified does not have to be set. Following the amendments made, the Bill simply states that
“the Secretary of State would expect the Convention to be ratified”,
so another small delay is built in there. But then what happens? What is the purpose of the Bill then?
Previously, the purpose of the Bill would have been to report on progress every year until ratification and then, after ratification, to report on how the Government were doing. All the reporting after ratification has now been removed, and reports will be prepared only until ratification. There is no mechanism under this Bill—I stress under this Bill—to measure the various things set out in it, which the promoter must have thought were important at the time it was drafted. Those include measures to
“protect women against violence, and prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence against women and domestic violence”—
there is a long list.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I have come along today to support the Bill, but it has been watered down so much that I am not entirely sure which way to vote on Third Reading. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say before I make my mind up, but what would by hon. Friend’s advice be?
Mr Nuttall
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he raises an interesting point. Many supporters of the Bill will, like him, look at what has happened this morning and at the changes that have been made and think, “What is the purpose of this Bill?” Even people who, like him, were sympathetic towards it could now look at it and think, “Actually, there’s no real purpose to the Bill anymore.” I hope my hon. Friend has been persuaded that any measures he may have in mind to reduce domestic violence against women and men could be taken regardless of whether the Bill goes through; it is merely virtue signalling—we are merely sending a message. The Bill does nothing of itself to reduce violence against women and girls or men and boys.
Understandably, the Government say they cannot ratify the treaty until they know they are compliant in every respect, although, of course, lots of other countries have managed to ratify it, and as we heard earlier, a lot of them have done so by making reservations.
I have worked through the text of the Bill, but I want now to touch on another reason why the Bill is not necessary. A procedure already exists in law to govern the way this House ratifies international treaties. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 was passed by the coalition Government in 2010 and came into force on 11 November 2010. It gave this House and Parliament a new statutory role in the ratification of treaties. It did not go as far as giving Parliament the power to amend a treaty, and nor does this Bill give it the power to change anything about the Istanbul convention. However, part 2 of the Act did set out a very clear procedure, and I submit that that is one we now need to follow.
There is a general statutory requirement to publish a treaty that is subject to ratification or its equivalent. The Government must lay the treaty before Parliament for 21 sitting days. That provision put into statute what was previously known as the Ponsonby rule, which was named after Arthur Ponsonby, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1924, during the debate on the treaty of Lausanne, a peace treaty with Turkey. The 2010 Act allows both Houses the opportunity to pass a resolution that a treaty should not be ratified during the 21 sitting days. If neither House does so, the Government are then able to proceed and ratify the treaty. If either this House or the other place votes against ratification, the Government cannot immediately ratify the treaty. Instead, the Government must lay a statement to explain why they wish to proceed with the ratification process.
Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill
Friday 24th February 2017
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill 2016-17 View all Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 February 2017 - (24 Feb 2017)
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Wearing an award in a public house—
“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are wearing the ‘award’ in a public house.”
New clause 3—Wearing an award in a place that is not public—
“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are not wearing the ‘award’ in a public place.”
New clause 4—Wearing an award listed in the Schedule—
“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are entitled to wear any of the other awards listed in the Schedule.”
New clause 5—Person serving in the Armed forces for more than 2 years—
“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they have served in the Armed Forces for more than 2 years.”
New clause 6—Person serving in the Armed forces diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder—
“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they have served in the Armed Forces and as a result of front line service have been medically diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.”
New clause 7—Family member of the person awarded the medal—
“(1) A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are a family member of the person given the award.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), someone is a family member of the person if—
(a) he is the spouse or civil partner of that person, or he and that person live together as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners, or
(b) he is that person’s parent, grandparent, child, grand-child, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.
(3) For the purpose of subsection (2)(b)—
(a) a relationship by marriage or civil partnership shall be treated as a relationship by blood,
(b) a relationship of the half-blood shall be treated as a relationship of the whole blood,
(c) the stepchild or adopted child of a person shall be treated as his child, and
(d) an illegitimate child shall be treated as the legitimate child of his mother and reputed father.”
New clause 8—Report on number of convictions—
“The Government is required to place before each House of Parliament figures showing—
(a) the number of convictions and
(b) the sentences imposed
for the offence of wearing medals with intent to deceive each year following this Act coming into force on, or as near as possible, to the 12 month anniversary of that date.”
New clause 9—Expiry of the Act—
“(1) This Act shall expire at the end of 2022 unless an order is made under this section.
(2) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument; but no order shall be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).
Amendment 2, page 1, line 6, leave out “anything representing an award,”.
Amendment 3, page 1, line 6, leave out from second “award,” to end of the subsection.
Amendment 4, page 1, line 15, leave out
“imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or”.
Amendment 6, page 1, line 15, leave out “3 months” and insert “1 day”.
Amendment 8, page 1, line 15, leave out “3 months” and insert “7 days”.
Amendment 10, page 1, line 15, leave out “3 months” and insert “14 days”.
Amendment 12, page 1, line 15, leave out “3 months” and insert “21 days”.
Amendment 14, page 1, line 15, leave out “3 months” and insert “28 days”.
Amendment 16, page 1, line 16, after “fine” insert
“not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale”.
Amendment 18, page 1, line 16, after “fine” insert
“not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale”.
Amendment 20, page 1, line 16, after “fine” insert
“not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”.
Amendment 22, page 1, line 16, after “fine” insert
“not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale”.
Amendment 5, page 1, line 17, leave out
“imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or”.
Amendment 7, page 1, line 18, leave out “3 months” and insert “1 day”.
Amendment 9, page 1, line 18, leave out “3 months” and insert “7 days”.
Amendment 11, page 1, line 18, leave out “3 months” and insert “14 days”.
Amendment 13, page 1, line 18, leave out “3 months” and insert “21 days”.
Amendment 15, page 1, line 18, leave out “3 months” and insert “28 days”.
Amendment 17, page 1, line 18, leave out “5” and insert “1”.
Amendment 19, page 1, line 18, leave out “5” and insert “2”.
Amendment 21, page 1, line 18, leave out “5” and insert “3”.
Amendment 23, page 1, line 18, leave out “5” and insert “4”.
Amendment 24, page 1, line 20, after “may” insert ” not”.
Amendment 25, page 1, line 21, leave out paragraph (a).
Amendment 26, page 2, line 1, leave out paragraph (c).
Amendment 27, page 2, line 2, leave out subsection 5.
Amendment 28, page 2, line 6, leave out subparagraph (i).
Amendment 29, page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (7).
Amendment 31, page 2, line 17, in clause 2, leave out “two” and insert “four”.
Amendment 32, page 2, line 17, leave out “two” and insert “six”.
Amendment 33, page 2, line 17, leave out “two months” and insert “one year”.
Amendment 34, page 2, line 17, leave out “two months” and insert “two years”.
Philip Davies
As I said on Second Reading, I do not support the Bill. In fact, as I went through it with a view to amending it, what struck me was that, in many respects, I was trying to amend the unamendable. I cannot emphasise enough, however, how much I understand the sincere intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) in introducing the Bill, the effort he has put into it and his efforts to find a compromise that suits everyone. I commend him for his sincerity and for his attempt to find a way forward with which everyone agrees. I just cannot agree with him on this occasion. Should the Bill proceed, I hope that my amendments will be accepted, as I believe they will save it from having some unintended consequences and reduce the chances of criminalising people who may be unintentionally caught by it as it stands.
The Bill is considerably different from the one that appeared on Second Reading. That is very much to my hon. Friend’s credit and shows how much effort he has made to find a workable solution. I am grateful to him for taking on board many of the points that I made in the Second Reading debate. However, I still feel that the Bill is deficient, so I will go through the amendments I have tabled. I hope that they may find favour.
New clause 1 would ensure that
“The offence of wearing awards with intent to deceive is triable only summarily.”
It implies that the offence must be dealt with in a magistrates court only. Some may think that the new clause is unnecessary, but it would mean that people had to think twice before amending the legislation to increase the sentence. That is the purpose of new clause 1: it is a safeguard in that respect. That was specifically mentioned by the Select Committee on Defence in its report on the Bill.
New clause 2 would ensure that
“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are wearing the ‘award’ in a public house.”
The “intention to deceive” element of the offence could be committed in a variety of circumstances. Seeking to deceive for financial gain would already be covered by fraud legislation. This Bill is clearly supposed to include other types of deception. That could be the intention to deceive to gain respect or to impress a potential future partner. The new clause deals with people in a pub.
We all know that pubs are places where all kinds of rubbish are talked at times by people—not just in pubs, I hasten to add, but particularly in pubs. To think that someone could have a few too many, boast about something to which they have no right with a cheap replica medal bought off eBay or wherever and end up with a criminal conviction is rather over the top. The new clause would remove that possibility. When my hon. Friend conceived the Bill—again, I applaud his sincerity—it was about people who turn up at Remembrance Day parades and events such as that purporting to be someone they are not. Therefore, ensuring that the provision does not apply to people in a public house would help to get us back to the Bill’s original intention.
New clause 3 would ensure that
“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are not wearing the ‘award’ in a public place.”
Therefore, it would provide the defence of the offence taking place in private. It is important, given the Bill’s intention, to limit the offence to a public place. If someone gets a medal out and uses it to impress someone in their own home or in private property—a private club or somewhere like that—I do not see why that should be an offence. I cannot believe that that is what people think of when they think of people with criminal convictions. If someone wants to argue that some private places should be covered, I would ask, what about the unintended consequences? Is it not time that we stopped ignoring the foreseeable consequences of legislation? Someone who boasts to a woman he has met in a pub that he has a medal, which turns out not to be his, is a copy or is something that looks like an award, could find himself in court with a criminal record for the first time. Some people might not care about that—they might think, “Well, they had that coming”—but I do care. I think we have enough people committing serious offences that we do not deal with properly, and to create offences for those who are likely to have issues anyway, probably including mental health ones, to be committed in the privacy of their home strikes me as being rather over the top.
New clause 4 would insert:
“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are entitled to wear any of the other awards listed in the Schedule.”
The defence would be that they are entitled to wear a medal named in the long list at the end of the schedule, but they just happen to be wearing the wrong one. If someone is allowed to wear one medal but wears a different one—not an additional one, but just a different one—even if it is a case of enhanced valour, why should they be criminalised if they were entitled to wear a medal on the list? I do not think that that should be a criminal offence. It might not happen often, but it is certainly not impossible, and, assuming it did happen, would we really want to criminalise that person? Would it not be better to make it clear in the Bill that that person would not be criminalised?
New clause 5 would insert:
“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they have served in the Armed Forces for more than 2 years.”
As with the amendment on existing entitlement, I do not think people really had it in mind to criminalise former or current members of our armed forces for this offence. I return to the point about an intent to deceive to gain respect—added respect, I guess. Do we really want to go down that route? We should not want to risk criminalising someone who has risked their life serving our country just because they might have tried to embellish their record in some way. This amendment would remove that possibility for those who have served for two years or more in the armed forces.
New clause 6 would insert:
“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they have served in the Armed Forces and as a result of front line service have been medically diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.”
In a similar vein to the amendments about serving or former members of the armed forces, this amendment would protect, in many respects, many of the most vulnerable people—those with diagnosed PTSD. Those who have been seriously affected by frontline service and who have this condition as a result could be more susceptible than those without to fall foul of this proposed legislation, and I would not want to see that person either intentionally or unintentionally caught out. I would rather make it abundantly clear in the Bill that they could not be caught by the legislation.
New clause 7 would insert:
“(1) A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are a family member of the person given the award.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), someone is a family member of the person if—
(a) he is the spouse or civil partner of that person, or he and that person live together as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners, or
(b) he is that person’s parent, grandparent, child, grand-child, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.
(3) For the purpose of subsection (2)(b)—
(a) a relationship by marriage or civil partnership shall be treated as a relationship by blood,
(b) a relationship of the half-blood shall be treated as a relationship of the whole blood,
(c) the stepchild or adopted child of a person shall be treated as his child, and
(d) an illegitimate child shall be treated as the legitimate child of his mother and reputed father.”
Again, this amendment deals with family members of those given an award. My concern is that they might well have a medal, especially if the person in question has sadly died. Their chances of becoming susceptible to the provisions of the Bill must therefore be greater than for the average person, by definition.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend think that this new clause would deal adequately with the points raised by the Royal Air Force Families Federation in its written evidence to the Defence Committee?
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. I will come to that in a moment.
I know that it is not the intention of the Bill to create the outcome I have just described, but it remains a possibility. As my hon. Friend says, the Royal Air Force Families Federation said in its written evidence to the Defence Committee:
“Yes, there should most certainly be safeguards for family members. The key question is who ‘qualifies’! The definition we use is ‘anyone who is a blood relation’ but this may not be ?appropriate in these circumstances and can be difficult to prove on occasions. Interestingly, the MoD is struggling with its own definition of a family member but it may be sensible to align any definition for these circumstances with the MoD definition if and when they decide what it should be. Otherwise, it’s probably a matter for common sense.”
I know that the issue is dealt with differently now, but I believe that it is worth having a definition of “family” in the Bill, in its new sense.
As I mentioned on Second Reading, the Defence Committee’s report states:
“A number of our witnesses emphasised the importance of ensuring that relatives of deceased or incapacitated medal recipients can continue to wear their relations’ medals at commemoration events without risk of prosecution.”
The report also states:
“Mr Johnson indicated that family members would be doubly protected as they would lack the necessary intention to deceive, as well as being able to avail themselves of a specific defence that will be placed in the Bill.”
I agree that a specific defence should be included in the Bill, and that is the reason for this new clause. How we define “family” is an issue. Crucially, the report goes on:
“The term ‘family member’ must however be defined in terms of the proximity of the relations that it is seeking to include in the defence. It is not a legal term of art with a single definition. Acts of Parliament which use the term commonly carry a definition of ‘family’ within them to be used for the purposes of that Act. Mr Johnson suggested in oral evidence that he was minded that this defence should be quite narrow, so that for example a nephew deceitfully wearing medals could not rely on the defence by claiming that they were his uncle’s awards.”
It also states:
“The inclusion of a defence to ensure that family members representing deceased or incapacitated relations who are recipients of medals is vital, but ‘family member’ must be properly defined to ensure that there is no room for uncertainty or abuse. We suggest that the Bill include a definition of ‘family member’ in order to provide certainty over who will be covered by this category.”
That is what I am trying to do in the new clause. I have taken it as read that spouses should be included, as should blood relatives and step relatives. I have also included provision for those who are adopted into families, which slightly extends the basic definition of “family” according to section 113 of the Housing Act 1985. In reality, there will be only one actual award, so we can assume that the closest family member might have it, or that it would be shared by close family members, in which case it is unlikely that a distant relative would use the award.
The new clause would also prevent the situation from arising in which, for example, a son pinches his father’s medal for a bit of fun and goes around bragging that it is his. However unlikely or unbelievable that claim might be, the act of intending to deceive does not take account of the perception of others. They might well laugh out loud at the absurdity of a 17-year-old wearing a medal when everyone knows he has never been in the armed forces, but as the Bill stands that does not prevent the offence from being committed. I hope that the new clause will help with that.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
My hon. Friend has obviously done a lot of work on defining what he means by a family member for these purposes. Did I hear him correctly when he said that this was based on housing legislation?
Philip Davies
I took the basic definition of a family member from section 113 of the Housing Act 1985, although I am conscious that my definition is wider. The 1985 Act’s definition was a starting point, but I would like to think that I have brought it a bit more up to date.
Philip Davies
From someone as esteemed as my hon. Friend, that is high praise indeed.
New clause 8 would require the Government on, or as near as possible to, the 12-month anniversary of the Bill’s enactment to place before each House of Parliament figures showing the number of convictions, and the sentences handed down, for the offence of wearing medals with the intent to deceive. That would ensure that we monitor the effect of the legislation, both in terms of the number of convictions and the sentences handed down for those convictions. As we have no figures now, we do not know the extent of the problem. When I asked my local police force and the Metropolitan police, they could not tell me of any incidents relating to the existing offences in relation to military uniforms, and so on.
The Defence Committee heard evidence from various sources, and no one could quantify the problem, although people gave anecdotal examples. The problem seems to be very small, from what I can glean from the evidence that the Committee heard, so the idea that we need a law seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If the Bill came into effect, new clause 8 would give us a clearer idea of the extent of the problem and the sentences being handed down.
Philip Davies
I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being well enough prepared to answer his question, but I do not have that information. I do not even know whether anyone has that information. Someone might have it, but I do not.
New clause 9 states:
“(1) This Act shall expire at the end of 2022 unless an order is made under this section.
(2) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument; but no order shall be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Basically, this is a sunset clause. If it became apparent that the Bill was not doing as intended, new clause 9 would be a nice way for the Bill to fall without any fanfare. Of course if the Bill were enacted and doing particularly well, someone would be able to rehash it.
Mr Nuttall
Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 9 strengthens the case for accepting new clause 8? New clause 8 would make things far easier for those wanting to assess the success, or otherwise, of the Bill.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. New clauses 8 and 9, in many respects, go together. If we had a sunset clause, we would need to be able to measure the success, or otherwise, of the legislation, and the reporting set out in new clause 8 would help with that task. He is right to draw attention to the fact that, in many respects, new clauses 8 and 9, though not reliant on each other, flow nicely from each other.
I appreciate that that was a quick canter around the course of new clauses.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I listened closely to the hon. Gentleman as he set out his new clauses, but I wonder whether he actually read the Official Report of the Public Bill Committee, where the Bill enjoyed strong support from Members on both sides of the Committee, including from former members of the armed forces. Many of the issues he raises have already been addressed, particularly those on mental health and family members wearing medals. Why is he continuing to frustrate this process?
Philip Davies
If the points had already been covered, my amendments and new clauses would not have been selected. They were selected because those points are not covered by the Bill. That is the whole point. I cannot table an amendment to do something that is already in the Bill, because it would not be an amendment. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not grasped that basic point during his time in the House.
Let me now deal with my amendments. Amendment 1 seeks to remove clause 1(b). The Bill refers to
“something which has the appearance of being an award”.
It is one thing to have an offence relating to people wearing actual medals, but it is quite another to extend this to something with the “appearance” of a medal. The whole Bill is rather over the top, but this takes it one stage further. If someone can be guilty of a criminal offence by wearing, in an attempt to deceive, something that looks like something else but is not that thing, I worry where we are going with our legislation.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend suggesting that if someone goes around wearing a fake Victoria Cross, they should not be covered by this legislation, and that they should be covered by it only if they have a genuine one that they have stolen?
Philip Davies
The Bill does not say, “If someone goes around with a fake Victoria Cross”; it refers to
“something which has the appearance of being an award”.
That is all-encompassing, and somebody would be committing a criminal offence by wearing something that somebody else perhaps thinks has the appearance of something. Who decides whether it had the appearance of something else? Presumably a court would have to decide whether it had such an appearance. Does the distance from which it was seen make a difference? If someone sees something from a long distance it may well have the appearance of a certain thing, but up close it may be obvious that it is not that thing. From what distance are we judging that something “has the appearance of”? We are introducing the law of the land here, and this is airy-fairy at best. It is certainly not precise enough to be tested in a court of law. Who is to decide this? Does someone go along and say, “It gave me the appearance of being an award”? Is that good enough? I really do not know where we are with that.
Mr Chope
The policy background to the Bill was set out in the explanatory notes, which state:
“Since 2009 it has not been an offence for an individual to wear medals or decorations that they were never awarded.”
It does not seem as though the law before 2009 covered the wearing of false medals. I cannot understand—I wonder whether my hon. Friend can—why we are seeking to extend the law beyond even what applied prior to 2009.
Philip Davies
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill goes over the top in making these things a criminal offence, potentially with a custodial sentence attached. That is bad enough in terms of going over the top, but when we are dealing with things that have “the appearance of being an award”, we are going way beyond what anybody has ever envisaged before, and we are going too far.
My amendment 3 proposes to delete the words “including in particular” from clause 2. That seems a strange phrase to have in legislation, as it is general and does not strike me as being a particularly helpful legal phrase. How do we define “including in particular”? Does that mean something else is included that we do not know about? I do not really know what definition we have in mind for “including in particular”. How on earth is anyone to know whether they are committing an offence if they are wearing something which is not mentioned “in particular”? It could be interpreted that they did break the law without having any idea that they were doing so because the provision just includes things “in particular”, but not exclusively those things. That is a strange phrase.
We can take amendments 4 and 6 to 15 together, as they all deal with the fact of this being an imprisonable offence. They would remove the custodial sentence for the offence in England and Wales.
As I have said, I do not think we should have this legislation. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the Defence Committee called its report on the Bill “Exposing Walter Mitty: The Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill”, but it would not expose Walter Mitty; it would criminalise him and potentially send him to prison for three months. If it was just about exposing Walter Mitty, probably none of us would have a problem with the Bill, but that is not what it would do.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I have deliberately not intervened on my hon. Friend until now because it is quite clear that he is trying to talk the Bill out, and it is absolutely clear that his amendments are wrecking amendments that are not based on logic. Does he accept that it is a great shame that there is support on both sides of the House—from Her Majesty’s Opposition, the Government, the Scottish National party—yet he seems hellbent on preventing it from becoming law?
Philip Davies
I am sorry that my hon. Friend takes that attitude. I have tabled some amendments that have been found to be in order by the Speaker. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is questioning the Speaker’s selection of amendments, but they are all in order, which is why they have been selected for debate. If they were not, they would not have been selected. I am going rather rapidly through each of them, which is what we are supposed to do on Report—we table amendments and go through them to explain the purpose behind them, and then people can explain why they disagree. That takes as long as it takes. I do not think I have been dwelling unnecessarily on any particular amendment, so I am sorry that my hon. Friend takes that view. I do not set the timings for debates; if the debate could last longer, I would be happy for it to do so, but I do not set the rules. I am going to go through the amendments and explain why I have tabled them. I am sorry that he does not like people doing that with legislation in the House of Commons, but that is what the House is for.
James Cartlidge
On a point of principle, does my hon. Friend think that people who deface war cemeteries should be subject to criminal sanction?
Philip Davies
As it happens, yes I do, but I think we are straying from the point. I do not want to test your patience by going off on a tangent, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am trying to stick to my amendments. As it happens, I agree with my hon. Friend, but unfortunately that is not what the Bill is about, and it certainly is not what my amendments are about.
The amendments would remove the custodial sentence for the offence in England and Wales. It is bizarre: as a member of the Justice Committee, I regularly listen to Justice questions, and I hear everyone—apart from me and a few other notable exceptions—seemingly agreeing that fewer people should be sent to prison. In fact, the Labour party recently proposed that we should let half the people out of prison—not too long ago, the shadow Attorney General in the Lords recommended that the prison population should be halved, although the Commons Front-Bench team distanced themselves from that suggestion. How on earth can we be desperately trying to get people out of prison who have been convicted of burglary, robbery, arson and all these things—
Philip Davies
Indeed. People are desperate to get those people out of prison as quickly as possible, but at the same time they are supporting a Bill that would send somebody to prison for this offence. You literally could not make it up! How could anybody put those two things together? They think there are too many people in prison and that we should be letting them out, but that the people covered by the Bill should be sent to prison. How on earth can anyone make that argument?
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman takes prison and custodial sentences seriously. Will he therefore try to make a bit more progress so that we can discuss some of the other Bills—for example, mine, which would increase the maximum sentence for animal cruelty from the current paltry six months to five years?
Philip Davies
As it happens, I very much agree with the hon. Lady’s Bill, but it is seventh on the list, so she was a bit optimistic ever to have thought we would reach it. I cannot remember the last time we got to debate the seventh Bill on a Friday. She well knows that her Bill was never going to be reached for debate. I absolutely agree with her Bill, though, and she will get my wholehearted support if she persuades the Government to take up her proposal. Nevertheless, unfortunately the luck of the draw meant that we were never going to reach it today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. We are starting to stray quite a lot now. We are now not only not talking about the amendment, but not talking about the Bill. I would be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman could restrict his comments to the amendments that he has tabled.
Philip Davies
I am trying to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I keep getting distracted by Members wanting to raise all sorts of other matters. I will stick to my amendments, as I was trying to do in the first place.
Amendment 4 would remove the chance of anyone being sent to prison for such an act. Other countries have different positions, as was confirmed by the House of Commons Library before Second Reading. A range of offences is covered, and there is a distinction between wearing medals, wearing medals with an intent to deceive and wearing medals with a view to a financial gain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said, fraud legislation already provides protection in this country when it comes to wearing an Army uniform, so we do have other legislation that covers this area, when other countries have no such legislation.
My amendments give a range of options: I have gone from no custodial sentence to custodial sentences of one day, seven days, 14 days, 21 days and 28 days, all of which are naturally better than three months. I prefer no custodial sentence at all, but I have tabled all those different amendments to give the House some kind of choice if it felt a different option was more appropriate.
Gareth Johnson
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very sad that, come this Remembrance Sunday, any individual can parade in front of widows, veterans, families and loved ones wearing medals that they have not won themselves—they may not have even served—with the intent to deceive and to curry favour? The reason why they will be able to do so is that he has filibustered this Bill.
Philip Davies
I thought that my hon. Friend was going to make a sensible point, rather than bandying about more accusations. I am trying to improve his Bill. The fact is that, by his own admission, he brought forward a Bill that was a bit of a dog’s breakfast, because he changed it radically in Committee. If he had had his way, his Bill would have gone through on the nod; no one would have said anything and it would have gone through in its original form, which he accepts was a dog’s dinner of a Bill; it is now half a dog’s dinner. I accept that he made some improvements in Committee, but just because he is on a tight timescale is no basis on which to pass legislation in this House. It cannot be appropriate to say, “Well, I know that it is not a very good Bill, that there are deficiencies in it and that there are lots of concerns with it, but, I tell you what, we are on a bit of a tight timescale so we will forget about all that, just nod it through and to hell with the consequences.” Are we saying that, if someone gets sent to prison and gets a criminal record when no one in this House ever intended that they should get a criminal record, then so be it—hard cheese? That might be the attitude that my hon. Friend takes, but it is not one that I take. We must take these provisions seriously.
Philip Davies
No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not yet made any sensible contributions. He seems to talk a load of old nonsense, so I will press on with the whole point of my amendments, which is to try to turn this Bill into something worth while. We still have other days on which to consider other private Members’ Bills in this Session. I hope that we can conclude this if time allows.
Mr Chope
It is disappointing that anyone should wish to try to use emotional blackmail against my hon. Friend and what he is proposing. In his last intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) referred to people who were wearing medals that they had not been awarded. He did not deal with the issue of them wearing things that had the appearance of being an award. I cannot understand why some of the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) are not acceptable to the Bill’s promoter.
Philip Davies
I agree with my hon. Friend. Perhaps if the Bill had been drawn as narrowly as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford is now trying to draw it, it may well have been acceptable to all concerned. Unfortunately, he did not do so, and decided to go way over the top to include all sorts of people who were never envisaged to be included originally. That is why we must try to sort out some of these issues.
Philip Davies
The idea that I am scared of the hon. Gentleman is bizarre, particularly given that he did not even understand what an amendment was in his first intervention. He has a lot of learning to do.
I have dealt with the custodial sentence part of the Bill. Now, I come to the part on fines. I am trying to reduce the level of fines because they are disproportionate. With the way the Bill is drafted, it seems that somebody could be given an unlimited fine by the courts for this offence. Again, I cannot honestly see how an unlimited fine is appropriate for committing this offence, but that is what it would be in England and Wales following the changes to fines a few years ago. It would be rather different in Scotland and Northern Ireland, with a maximum of £5,000, which is still too high. Amendments 16 to 23 are about reducing the level of fine from unlimited to something more manageable. I have suggested a range of options. The lowest I have gone down to is £200, which is a level one fine in the courts, and I have gone up to a level four fine, which is £2,500. At least that sets a limit because an unlimited fine seems rather over the top.
Clause 1(4) provides that the Secretary of State may change the schedule of medals at any point. Amendment 24 would mean that the Secretary of State may not change the schedule of medals. When my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford introduced the Bill, he said that the challenge in drafting it was knowing where to stop. As I have said before, he may know where he wants to stop but, as with many things, where the legislation stops and where other people might want to stop are the most important. We should not encourage legislation giving the Secretary of State unlimited power to change the schedule willy-nilly. It obviously has the potential to apply to many more medals and other awards for non-armed forces personnel—and, in many cases, why not? But we should not be giving the Secretary of State that power. Amendments 25 to 27 are consequential amendments to that.
Clause 1(5)(b)(ii) states:
“The regulations may add an award to the Schedule only if it is awarded in respect of…a level of rigour significantly greater than might normally be expected in a non-operational environment.”
If the right to include medals in the future remains, it should only apply to those involving danger to life from enemy action, not
“a level of rigour significantly greater than might normally be expected in a non-operational environment.”
I am not sure who would be the ultimate judge of or who would determine the phrase
“greater than might normally be expected”.
Amendment 28 would deal with that issue.
Amendment 29 would delete the wide-ranging provisions regulations. Why do we need to hand over all these powers to make regulations that are in the Bill? Surely these things should be on the face of the Bill. Amendments 31 to 34 would delay the Act coming into force by two months, four months, 10 months or a year and 10 months respectively.
I have been through my amendments as quickly as I could. They would all make the Bill stronger and deal with some of the potential unintended consequences that were not envisaged when the Bill was conceived. I hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford would have taken them in the spirit in which they were intended. I could have gone on at greater length on every single one of those amendments, but I went through them all as quickly as I could. I hope they are helpful because I worry that if we are not careful, we will end up criminalising not the people who my hon. Friend wants to criminalise, but people who we never had any intention at all of criminalising. That is all I seek to avoid in this legislation, and that is a duty that we should take very seriously.
Giving someone a criminal offence is a serious matter; it is not something that should be taken lightly—it can have devastating consequences for people—and the same is true of sending people to prison. Yes, of course we want to expose Walter Mitty, but do we really want to criminalise and imprison Walter Mitty? That is where I draw the line with this legislation. If we think we are sending too many burglars and robbers to prison, surely the solution cannot be to send these people to prison, too.
Gareth Johnson
The main purpose behind the Bill is to protect veterans. It is intended to ensure that when anybody sees someone wearing medals proudly at a remembrance service or in any other sphere, they can have confidence that that individual is the legitimate article. That has always been my intention.
I find it grotesque in the extreme that certain individuals—we have had numerous examples of them—can parade in front of others and cause deep upset, hurt and ridicule to those who have actually served and those who have lost loved ones. It is grotesque to see that bravery undermined by those who do not have the courage to put their own neck on the block for our country.
It is because of that that I put forward the Bill. Legislation has worked very successfully in many countries around the world, and it worked successfully in the United Kingdom; in fact, legislation was originally introduced by Winston Churchill after the first world war. He said that when anybody sees a person wearing medals, that should radiate an opportunity to say, “There is a man in whom we can all have confidence and pride.” That is exactly the motivation behind my Bill.
I leave it at that. There is very much more that I could say, but I hope that we can make it at least to Third Reading.
Stephen Doughty
I just want to add my voice in support of the Bill. The hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) has gone about it on a very cross-party basis. It is something we all support. It was gone through at great length in Committee, when many of the aspects that have been raised today were dealt with. Fundamentally, what I cannot understand is why, if the Bill is supported by decorated veterans who have put their lives on the line for this country, and indeed by Members of this House who have put their lives on the line for this country, it should not go forward.
Mr Chope
I want to speak briefly to some of the amendments. It is sad that there is a falling-out among people on the detail of the Bill. I do not think anybody is against making it an offence for an individual to wear medals or decorations that were never awarded to them. The problem is that the way in which the Bill has been drafted goes much wider, and is in danger of having a whole lot of unintended consequences.
If the law prior to 2009 was as simple and straightforward as I have said, why do we have to make it so much more complicated in reintroducing one of its provisions? I am sure everybody thinks it is despicable for anybody to wear medals or decorations to which they are not entitled, and we condemn that behaviour without equivocation, but that is a very different proposition from bringing in a Bill with a whole lot of other technical measures designed to widen the offence far beyond what it was originally.
I cannot understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), who is promoting the Bill, has not been able to reach an accommodation with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) in the spirit of consensus. If we do not finish the debate on this group of amendments today, it may still be possible for an accommodation to be reached before the Bill comes back to be considered further. I still hope that that will be so, because we all feel very strongly—certainly I do—that, as the promoter of the Bill says, we must protect our veterans and ensure that there is confidence that people wearing medals on parade on Remembrance Day have in fact been duly awarded those medals. In my constituency, where we have some of the finest remembrance parades anywhere in the country, I do not think there has ever been an incident where somebody who was not entitled to a medal was wearing one.
We have to think about the proportionality of the issue when working out how we are going to address it, particularly if we are to do so through the criminal law going beyond what is already contained in the Fraud Act 2006. I suspect that the provisions that were previously in place on the wearing of medals or decorations that were not awarded were repealed in 2009 because it was thought that the offence was covered by the Fraud Act. Under that Act, it is an offence to make, or attempt to make, a financial gain by fraudulently wearing uniforms or medals or by pretending to be, or to have been, in the armed forces, with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. It is a very serious offence, and so it should be. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford is trying, in a sense, to replicate part of that, and using emotional arguments in support of it, while not drawing the public’s attention to the fact that these are already serious offences subject to a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. So why do we need this Bill? In particular, why do we need a Bill that goes unnecessarily wide in its sanctions and its interpretation of what would be the criminal behaviour?
That is why the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley are well worth considering. Of all his amendments, I cannot understand why anybody would be against amendment 1, because it would mean that clause 1 would read,
“A person commits an offence if, with intent to deceive, the person wears…an award specified in the Schedule”,
and would no longer include a reference to
“something which has the appearance of being an award specified in the Schedule.”
I cannot see why my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford is not prepared to accept that amendment. I hope that given a bit more time for reflection, he may be willing so to do.
Some of the other amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley have a lot to commend them. It is sensible that the offence of wearing awards with intent to deceive should be triable summarily, bearing in mind that under the Fraud Act, as I said, there is a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment, and no summary trial, for much more serious offences. We do not want people to be criminalised for what is, in effect, frivolous conduct on their part. That is why the suggestion in new clause 3 that this should apply only to wearing awards in a public place is very sensible. My hon. Friend referred to what goes on in public houses, but I am not so sure that I am necessarily persuaded on that point. Nor am I sure that he is necessarily very knowledgeable about what goes on in public houses, because he is teetotal. I might therefore be able to give him the excuse of not having fully comprehended that matter.
New clause 5 is well worth considering, as is the issue of post-traumatic stress disorder. One issue the whole debate raises is how we deal with private Members’ Bills in Committee, because if they are completely changed in Committee—
Business without Debate
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be considered on Friday 24 March.
Guardianship (Missing Persons) Bill
Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be considered on Friday 24 March.
Kew Gardens (Leases) BiLL
Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be considered on Friday 24 March.
Wild Animals in Circuses (Prohibition) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March.
Animal Fighting (Sentencing) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March.
Animal Cruelty (Sentencing) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have just had three excellent Bills with huge public support on animal welfare that have been blocked by Front-Bench and Back-Bench Conservative Members. Is there any way of putting this on the public record?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Yes. The right hon. Gentleman has just done so.
National Health Service Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March.
Asset Freezing (Compensation) Bill [Lords]
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that throughout the IRA’s reign of terror, much of the explosive they used to kill was supplied by Libya. The Bill has the support of victims of IRA terrorism. Are you able to give any advice to those of us who want to put on record the anger of those victims that the Bill has been objected to?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has very cleverly just done so.
Workers’ Rights (Maintenance of EU 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 24 March.
Vehicle Noise Limits (Enforcement) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March.
Children of Armed Services Personnel (Schools Admission) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March.
Families with Children and Young People in Debt (Respite) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March.
Defibrillators (Availability) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March.
Unlawful Killing (Recovery of Remains) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March.
Protection of Family Homes (Enforcement and Permitted Development) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (25 November), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 24 March.
Bread and Flour Regulations (Folic Acid) Bill [Lords]
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
HIV Awareness: PSHE Lessons
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
The issue that I wish to raise today with my hon. Friend the Minister is sex education in our schools. For once, however, I do not want to stray near the issue of statutory sex education; I wish to focus on HIV awareness in the teaching of health and sex education to pupils. Before I touch on the issue of how the subject is taught, I think it is important that we understand the ongoing public health issues that need to be addressed, in part through improved sex education.
As chair of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, I am conscious of the work we still have to do to eradicate HIV/AIDS. Despite the groundbreaking public health initiatives of the 1980s—for which much credit must go to the leadership and tenacity of the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, Norman Fowler, who is now Lord Speaker—HIV/AIDS continues to be a health issue in the UK. There are now more people living with HIV in the UK than ever before. In 2015, an estimated 101,200 people in the UK were living with HIV, 13% of whom were unaware of their infection. Infections used to occur predominantly among men who have sex with men—MSM—but that has changed over the past 10 years. The majority now occur through heterosexual transmission: in 2015, 57% of new infections were among heterosexuals. Most telling is the fact that 90% of those new infections came through unprotected sex—sex without condoms.
We continue to have a public health issue and a problem with sexual behaviour. I believe that we must therefore redouble our efforts not just to change, but to ingrain behaviour. We need to ingrain the safe sex message at the time in people’s lives when it can have the biggest impact—in our schools, with the 15-to-18 age group. I do not propose to touch on the arguments about statutory sex education—as I said, that is a debate for another day. Instead, I want to touch on why targeting 15 to 18-year-olds is important and, crucially, on why we need to look at a different approach to teaching this important topic.
Overall infection rates were on a steady downward trend until recently, but we have seen a slight increase in infection rates in the 15-to-24 cohort. There could be many factors behind that increase. HIV/AIDS is less visible in the media than it used to be; it receives less attention from celebrities, who have been invaluable in raising awareness. Major breakthroughs in treatments and in the accessibility of anti-retroviral drugs—ARVs—mean that HIV/AIDS is no longer life-threatening, although it is certainly life-changing. The fact that it is no longer deemed a terminal illness might be a factor in why people are becoming a little complacent: because living with HIV is manageable, people think that they can cope by just taking a daily pill.
You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, and so will other hon. Members, that when we were under the age of 24 we felt invincible—nothing could touch us. Now, when we drive past a club at 3 in the morning, it might be minus 6° outside, but under-24s are scantily clad because they think they are invincible. They think that nothing will happen to them, or that if it does they do not have to worry, because there is a pill or because by the time it becomes a problem there will be a cure. Importantly, the safe sex message about the use of condoms has been lost or diluted. It is important to remember that condom use protects against not just HIV, but a range of other sexually transmitted infections.
How do our teenagers learn about sex? We know that access to the internet has changed how many teenagers view sex, and that online pornography can provide a distorted and unrealistic view of sex. The ability to find a date or sexual partner via phone apps has changed how teenagers learn to have sex and the frequency with which they can have it, but sadly online pornography and hook-up apps rarely teach or stress safe sex. Too many provide no sexual health messages at all.
That, of course, is not a matter for the Department for Education, but how we combat that distorted view of sex and address the lack of safe sex messages is a matter of education. We have to be honest and accept that few teachers relish delivering sex education, and it is probably true that few pupils relish discussing sex with a teacher. It is embarrassing for both. There is likely to be a credibility gap. Even a teacher in their 30s will be deemed old by teenagers in school and being taught about sex by them is likely to be viewed as being taught by their mum or dad. That is how cringe-worthy much sex education can become.
I believe, therefore, that we need to use people closer to the age range of the students, especially those I would call young advocates—those with personal experience of living with HIV or chlamydia, of having a cervical cancer test or of the implications of losing a parent to HIV/AIDS. If sex education is delivered by people closer to the age range of the audience, it becomes personally relevant and much more powerful in getting the audience to listen. Young advocates can explain sex beyond the mechanics without embarrassment—I realise it was a long time ago, but my sex education was very mechanical and quite rudimentary.
If we can update how we teach teenagers about sex, we can have a significant impact on their sexual health. We need to show how life-changing illnesses such as HIV can be, and that message is much more powerful if taught by somebody going through that experience. It is important to stress not just the implications of dealing with an infection or life-changing illness but—most importantly—how teenagers can protect themselves from HIV/AIDS and a range of other sexual health issues. Young advocates can deliver a more powerful and personal message—one that students can relate to and are more likely to take notice of. We need a radical change in how we approach sex education, especially HIV awareness.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the chair of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS for giving way. As a vice chair of that group, I wholeheartedly agree with his comments. Will he join me in praising the work of people such as the Student Stop AIDS campaigners, who are raising awareness of the epidemic not only in this country but of its impact globally, and setting an example for their peers?
Mike Freer
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The all-party group often invites young advocates and voices to come in and talk to parliamentarians and others, and we have seen at first hand the impact that a young person can have talking about the impact of an HIV infection on their life and their family. It is much more powerful than middle-aged men or women talking to teenagers—not that he is a middle-aged man yet.
I shall provide just three examples of people and organisations that I would ask the Department to consider meeting and using. One of the most inspirational young men I have met is Robbie Lawlor. He is an HIV advocate based in Ireland and the UK. He was diagnosed as HIV positive at 21. He was taught little about sex in school, let alone safe sex. His diagnosis sent him into depression and he abandoned the university place he was about to take up, but he has now become an inspirational advocate for HIV awareness. He tours and speaks passionately about the need to talk more openly about sex and safe sex and about how to challenge stigmas and ensure that people are more aware of risky behaviour and the importance of testing. He says:
“If we can’t talk openly about sex with our friends and family, how are we going to negotiate safer sex with people we may potentially sleep with? Shame inhibits people from going to get tested, and prevents people from getting the information they need.”
Robbie has also advocated for people living with HIV to be at the heart of education on HIV to ensure that individual stories are heard and some of the most damaging misconceptions about what it is to live with HIV are confronted by people who know how their diagnosis has affected their day-to-day lives. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to meet Robbie and hear at first hand how we need to change the way in which we approach HIV in sex education.
There is also a group called Positive Voices, whose speakers are fully trained to deliver sexual health presentations to diverse audiences in a range of settings including schools, colleges, faith-based groups and community organisations. They cover HIV prevention and safer sex messages, as well as sharing their own experiences of living with HIV. Those presentations are very powerful. They are tailored for young people and adults, and the speakers work with organisations in advance to ensure that they are both appropriate and engaging.
I recently came across the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation, which is now doing work in the UK. It has launched an initiative called the sex squad. I must say that I became rather excited by the idea of a sex squad: it is certainly a catchy title for a sexual health education initiative. Imagine the sex squad coming into your school! It would certainly catch the imagination of the pupils.
The sex squad initiative is part of an arts-activist movement to improve sexual health education. It started in Los Angeles, and, interestingly, in the very traditional, conservative southern states of the United States, and it involves a multiple-component presentation and peer education. It is a new model for community-based sexual health education, which targets young people in communities that are at risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. As well as organising live and digital interventions, it is inspiring the creation of youth-led high school sex squads at four state high schools in Los Angeles. It harnesses the power of humour and story-telling to create performances for teens that are memorable, inclusive, and fun. I can only recommend the work done by the foundation, which is driven by Elizabeth Taylor’s grandchildren. They are still heavily involved, which is to their enormous credit.
HIV continues to be a problem in the 15-to-24 age group, accounting for 11% of new infections, while 33% of new infections are in the 25-to-34 age range. It therefore accounts for 44% of new infections in people under 34. We need to reach people when they are most susceptible to behaviour change. We need to stop the conveyor belt towards inappropriate behaviour that puts their health at risk. We need to change the way we deliver sex education, especially HIV education, so that we can protect the next generation. The current sex education system is not ingraining the message on safe sex. It is time for a more innovative approach. It is time to introduce youth ambassadors where they will be listened to, and where we stand the best chance of changing behaviour and changing lives. Let us change the teaching, and let us change our approach.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Caroline Dinenage)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) for raising this important issue, and I congratulate him on his ongoing work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS, which I know is making a huge difference. The dedication and tenacity that he and his group show are to be applauded.
HIV/AIDS is a serious public health concern that affects the lives of many, both in the United Kingdom and internationally. Stopping the spread of HIV is still a priority in the UK, as is supporting people living with it so that they can lead full and healthy lives. I believe that if we look at our efforts to tackle the HIV epidemic in this country, we can be very proud of our record so far. The United Nations’ 90:90:90 ambition to eliminate HIV-related mortality and transmission by 2020 calls for 90% of people living with HIV to be diagnosed, 90% of those diagnosed to receive treatment, and 90% of those treated to be virally suppressed. We are responding to that challenge. The UK has already met the second and third components of the 90:90:90 targets, with 96% of those diagnosed receiving antiretroviral treatment and 95% of those treated being virally suppressed.
Of course, there is still much more to do. In 2013, an estimated 13% of individuals with HIV were undiagnosed. Awareness of HIV status is important not only because it enables people to get treatment and allows them to live long and healthy lives, but because it can prevent the infection from being passed to others. That is why the work to improve testing is critical to the public health response to HIV. Local authority services funded through the public health grant do a vital job in that regard, but we need to go further and faster in making testing routine.
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is crucial that we ingrain the safe sex message, particularly in young people. Schools have an important role in preparing young people for the challenges they face in modern life. That includes building their knowledge and raising awareness of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.
Education can help to improve young people’s ability to make safer, healthier choices as they progress through life, in a sensitive and age-appropriate way. HIV is part of both the science curriculum and sex and relationship education, which is frequently taught as part of personal, social, health and economic education. The national curriculum and the new combined science and biology GCSE stipulate that pupils be taught about HIV within the context of communicable diseases during key stage 4. They are also taught about how HIV is spread.
HIV awareness is also taught as part of sex and relationship education, which is mandatory in all maintained secondary schools. Academies are encouraged to teach sex and relationship education as part of their requirement to teach a broad and balanced curriculum. Primary schools are free to teach the subject if they wish to.
When teaching sex education, all maintained schools and academies have a statutory requirement to have due regard to the Secretary of State’s sex and relationship education guidance. The guidance makes it clear that all sex education should be age appropriate and that schools should ensure that young people develop positive values and a moral framework that will guide their decisions, judgments and behaviour. We want all young people to feel that SRE is relevant to them and sensitive to their needs. The guidance is clear that teaching should help pupils to clarify their knowledge about HIV and AIDS, to understand risky behaviour and to become effective users of services that can prevent and treat STIs and HIV.
Teaching sexual health is a key part of SRE. Effective SRE does not encourage early sexual experimentation, but teaches young people to understand human sexuality and respect for themselves and others. It enables young people to be mature, to build their self-confidence and self-esteem and to understand the reasons for delaying sexual activity. It equips young people to tackle the many different and conflicting pressures they experience today.
To teach young people about HIV effectively, teachers need accurate and up-to-date knowledge. The Government are funding the network of science learning partnerships to provide continuing professional development for science teachers. That includes providing support to teach the new science curriculum and GCSEs. A number of resources to support teaching about HIV are also available on the National STEM Learning Centre’s website.
I agree with my hon. Friend that innovative, engaging ways of delivering sex and relationship education are important in supporting young people. Schools are free to develop peer education models to complement SRE and I would encourage them to do so. As a mother of teenagers, I know how anyone over the age of 25 is regarded as old and anyone over the age of 40 is regarded as practically prehistoric. Therefore, having young role models—I have seen some great examples up and down the country in schools I have visited—is helpful and a powerful tool. The guidance identifies that as good practice, stating:
“Secondary schools should…use young people as peer educators”.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting organisations working in that field, including Robbie Lawlor, Positive Voices and the intriguingly and quite excitingly named sex squad. I would be delighted to meet them and hear more about the work that they are doing.
Of course, young people are an important target group. Schools play an important role in ensuring all young people are equipped to develop safe, healthy relationships. We know that young people get information about this from a wide variety of channels and we want to ensure that they are accessing factually accurate information.
That is why I am pleased that Public Health England has developed “Rise Above” specifically for young people. “Rise Above” is a digital platform, with engaging interactive content, which aims to prevent or delay young people between 11 and 16 from engaging in exploratory behaviours, and that includes risky sexual practices. It is also developing a schools programme for launch at the end of March 2017.
Public Health England also funds the “Worth Talking About” free helpline for young people providing information about all aspects of sexual and reproductive health. We also continue to fund the Terrence Higgins Trust to deliver social marketing and digital media messages to groups at increased HIV risk and to promote National HIV Testing Week.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the age-appropriate teaching of safer sex in line with guidance is very important. The guidance makes it clear that
“young people need factual information about safer sex and skills to enable them to negotiate safer sex.”
Schools that deliver this effectively do so in partnership with parents and reflecting the needs of their community, but we can do more both in PSHE and SRE.
According to the HIV Stigma Index UK, the stigma sometimes experienced by those living with HIV can, unfortunately, lead to low self-esteem and a reluctance to access specialist services, thus preventing individuals from receiving the best treatment available. Raising awareness of HIV in schools can help young people overcome prejudice and understand that it can affect anyone.
Overall, I believe that schools make a considerable contribution through the core science curriculum to providing young people with the knowledge they need to have an informed understanding of HIV, AIDS and sexually transmitted infections. But this is about much more than just knowing the facts. As I said earlier, SRE is often taught as part of PSHE, and effective PSHE teaching makes a critical contribution to a broad and balanced curriculum in schools that promotes pupils’ spiritual, moral, cultural, social, mental and physical development.
PSHE is a non-statutory subject, but we know that many schools and teachers already recognise the importance of good PSHE education, and know that healthy, resilient, confident pupils are better placed to achieve academically and be stretched further. We want to help all schools to deliver high quality PSHE and SRE so that all young people are equipped to have healthy and respectful intimate relationships at the appropriate age, and leave school with the knowledge, skills and attributes to prepare them for life and work in modern Britain.
That is why we are committed to exploring all the options to improve the delivery of SRE and PSHE. My boss, the Secretary of State, has committed to update Parliament further on the Government’s plans during the passage of the Children and Social Work Bill, and I would very much value the input of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green on this very important issue as we move forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Exoneration of persons convicted of gross indecency and related “homosexual offences”
Written Statements
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
EU Energy Council
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)
There will be a meeting of the Energy Council in Brussels on 27 February.
The Council will begin with an initial exchange of views on the Commission’s “clean energy for all Europeans” package published on 30 November 2016. This will include discussion of the electricity market design proposals consisting of the recast of the regulation on the internal electricity market, the recast of the directive on common rules for the internal electricity market, a regulation on risk preparedness in the electricity sector and the recast of the regulation establishing a European Union Agency for the Co-operation of Energy Regulators (ACER). The discussion will also cover the proposals for the recasts of the directives on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, energy efficiency and energy performance of buildings, and the new proposal for a regulation on governance of the Energy Union.
The Commission will then present the second state of the energy union report which was published on 1 February. The report highlights progress in 2016 taking forward the aims and objectives of the energy union and considers trends since the first state of the energy union report was published in 2015.
The presidency will provide an update on the “state of play” on a number of legislative dossiers currently under negotiation. Both the regulation concerning measures to safeguard the security of gas supply and the regulation setting a framework for energy efficiency labelling are currently the subject of trilogues with the Commission and European Parliament. Negotiation has recently commenced on the proposed legislation to amend the energy efficiency directive and that to amend the energy performance of buildings directive.
The Commission will also make a presentation on the ocean energy forum, which in November 2016 published a strategic roadmap building on European leadership in ocean energy, and the development of technologies that could meet a significant amount of Europe’s future power demand.
Finally, the Czech delegation will look ahead to the European nuclear energy forum in May 2017, an annual event hosted alternately by the Czech Republic and Slovakia bringing together all relevant stakeholders in the nuclear field, to discuss issues of mutual interest.
[HCWS498]
Avian Influenza
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Andrea Leadsom)
High pathogenicity H5N8 avian influenza has been circulating in Europe since the autumn. There have been nine confirmed cases in poultry in the UK and several findings in wild birds across England. Public Health England advises that the risk to public health from H5N8 is very low and the Food Standards Agency has said there is no food safety risk for UK consumers.
In response to the threat from H5N8 to poultry, my Department has taken robust precautionary action. This has included an indefinite ban on poultry gatherings, enhanced wild birds surveillance and an avian influenza prevention zone across England. The zone was put in place on 6 December and amongst other things requires the compulsory housing of poultry and captive birds or where this is not possible, their separation from wild birds.
Where H5N8 has been detected in poultry or captive birds, this has been dealt with effectively by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and I am grateful for all involved in this considerable effort to control and stamp out this disease.
On 28 February, the avian influenza prevention zone will have been in place for 12 weeks. This is the maximum allowable period that poultry can be housed for disease control purposes and retain free range marketing status.
The risk of H5N8 in wild birds across the UK remains high. As a result, from 28 February, my Department will put in place a new avian influenza prevention zone. This will continue to require that all keepers of poultry and captive birds observe heightened biosecurity requirements regardless of their location. Subject to these measures being put in place, housing will no longer be required for the vast majority of keepers.
Within England, there are some areas that are at higher risk of H5N8 due to their proximity to substantial inland or coastal bodies of water where wild waterfowl collect. In these higher risk areas, which will cover around 25% of poultry premises, mandatory housing or fully netting outside areas will be required. This may temporarily result in the loss of free range status for keepers in these areas unless they apply netting of range, rather than housing.
The higher risk areas are based on expert advice on the latest veterinary and ornithological data and have been reviewed by leading experts.
I am very mindful of the impact that temporary loss of free range status will have on affected businesses. During this unprecedented period of high risk, I have taken this decision based on the best scientific and veterinary advice in order to control disease and protect our poultry industry. Effective disease control will always be our priority: disease outbreaks cause birds to suffer, damage businesses and cost the UK taxpayer millions. We do not anticipate any significant disruption to the supply of free range eggs after 28 February.
These measures will be put in place in the first instance until the end of April, but will be kept under constant review with the aim of lifting the targeted measures within higher risk areas as soon as risk levels allow it.
[HCWS496]
EU Environment Council
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I will attend the Environment Council that takes place on 28 February in Brussels alongside the Minister for Climate Change and Industry, my hon. Friend Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd).
Following the adoption of the agenda, the list of “A” items will be approved.
Under legislative deliberations, Council will debate a proposal to amend the directive on cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments (that is, the EU emissions trading system) with a view to reaching an agreed Council position or “general approach”.
Under non-legislative activities, Council will exchange views on implementation of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development; and the links between greening the European semester and the recently published EU environment implementation review.
The following items will be discussed under ‘any other business’:
a) Emissions Trading System (ETS)—aviation.
b) EU action plan for the circular economy.
c) Natura 2000 in the European solidarity corps.
d) Scientific conference on “Sustainable development and climate changes in the light of the encyclical letter of Holy Father Francis, entitled Laudato Si” (Warsaw, 15 October 2016).
e) Luxembourg circular economy hotspot (Luxembourg, 20-22 June 2017).
f) Paris agreement: international developments.
g) Environmental concerns regarding a Belarus nuclear power plant.
On 23 June, the EU referendum took place and the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Until exit negotiations are concluded, the UK remains a full member of the European Union and all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. During this period the Government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation. The outcome of these negotiations will determine what arrangements apply in relation to EU legislation in future once the UK has left the EU.
[HCWS497]
Hong Kong (Sino/British Joint Declaration)
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
The latest six-monthly report on the implementation of the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong was published today, and is attached. It covers the period from 1 July to 31 December 2016. The report has been placed in the Library of the House. A copy is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-office). I commend the report to the House.
It can also be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-02-24/HCWS499/.
[HCWS499]
Use and Retention of Custody Images
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
I am pleased to announce that today I am publishing the “Report on the Review of the Use and Retention of Custody Images”, copies of which are available in the House Library and online at www.gov.uk . These are the images taken when people are arrested.
This review has found that the police make extensive use of custody images and that they are a standard feature of everyday policing. It sets out the Government’s view of the framework for the use and retention of custody images by the police.
The review acknowledges the important role that custody images and facial searching plays in the detection and prevention of crime. However, it recognises the need to strike a careful balance between protecting individual privacy and giving the police the tools they need to keep us safe.
Accordingly, following consultation with key partners, the principal recommendation is to allow “unconvicted persons” to apply for deletion of their custody image, with a presumption that this will be deleted unless retention is necessary for a policing purpose, and there is an exceptional reason to retain it. In practice, this will mean that people could apply to chief officers for their image to be deleted where they have not been convicted of the offence in relation to which their image was taken.
Further, the review recommends that there should be an even stronger presumption of deletion upon application for unconvicted persons whose image was taken when they were under 18 years old and that such images should be retained only where there are exceptional reasons to do so.
Where the image of an unconvicted person is not deleted, or where no application is received, the review recommends that it should be reviewed in accordance with the periods set out in the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice guidance (the APP), with a presumption of deletion at the next review unless there is an exceptional reason to retain the image (a strong presumption of deletion and highly exceptional reasons in the case of a person whose image was taken when they were under 18).
The review also recommends that persons who are convicted of the offence in relation to which their image was taken should have a limited right to apply for deletion of their image. Forces would only be required to consider such applications for deletion six or 10 years after conviction or release from custody where the person was sentenced to a term of imprisonment or detention for the offence in question or another offence, depending on the APP group that the offence falls into. There would be no presumption of deletion at the point of review, other than where the image was taken when the individual was under 18. In all cases the police will be able to retain the image if this is necessary for a policing purpose and proportionate to the level and type of risk the individual poses.
Where the image of a person convicted of a recordable offence is not deleted, or where no application is received, the review recommends that its retention should be reviewed in accordance with the periods set out in the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice guidance (the APP), with no presumption in favour unless it relates to an image taken when they were under 18.
A person convicted for a “non-recordable” offence (which are broadly less serious than recordable offences), would be able to apply for deletion of their image six years after conviction. If the image was taken when the person was an adult, there would be a presumption in favour of deletion; if the image was taken when the person was under 18, there would be a strong presumption in favour of deletion.
Where the image of a person convicted of a non-recordable offence is not deleted, or where no application is received, the review recommends that its retention should be reviewed six years from conviction (or release from custody) and every five years thereafter, with a presumption in favour of deletion and a strong presumption if it relates to an image taken when they were under 18.
The core recommendations will be implemented through changes to the APP.
[HCWS500]
Justice Update
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)
Today the Government have published their response to the consultation on proposals to reform fees for grants of probate. The consultation opened on 18 February and closed on 1 April 2016.
The Government are committed to providing a modern, world-leading justice system which is proportionate and accessible. In 2015-16, the courts and tribunals system cost £1.9 billion to run and we recovered only £700 million of that through fees and other income.
The best way to protect access to justice in the long term is with a properly funded justice system. The income fees generate is necessary for an effective courts and tribunals system that supports victims and vulnerable people, and is easy for people to use.
The Government will therefore, subject to approval from Parliament:
implement the fee structure as consulted on;
raise the threshold under which no probate fee is payable from £5,000 to £50,000; and
remove the grant of probate fee from the fee remissions scheme. We will retain the Lord Chancellor’s power to remit fees in exceptional circumstances.
This means we are abolishing flat fees and replacing them with a banded structure, related to the value of the estate. This includes raising the fee threshold from £5,000 to £50,000 and lifting 25,000 estates out of fees altogether. Overall, 58% of estates will pay no fee at all and 92% will pay £1,000 or less for this service.
We are confident through our engagement with organisations like the British Banking Association and Building Societies’ Association that executors will have a range of options to finance the payment.
The new fee structure will generate around £300 million per year in additional fee income, which will all be reinvested back into Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.
Full details of how the Government intend to take forward these proposals is set out in the consultation response document which has been published on the gov.uk website.
[HCWS501]
Youth Justice
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)
In December 2016, we set out our plans to reform our approach to youth justice, which will help drive forward improved outcomes for young offenders both in custody and in the community.
We are today announcing the next steps of our reforms with a package of measures which will create stronger, clearer governance for the youth justice system.
I have appointed Charlie Taylor as the new chair of the youth justice board. He is uniquely well placed to take on this role: he has led changes in Government policy on the education of children who have been excluded from school, is a former head teacher of an outstanding school for children with complex behavioural, emotional and social difficulties, and his youth justice review set out a compelling vision for reform. As the chair of the board, it is this vision that he will work with my Department to drive forward.
We will create a new Youth Custody Service as a distinct arm of HM Prison and Probation Service, with a dedicated director accountable directly to the chief executive and working closely with the chair of the youth justice board. The director will have operational responsibility for the day-to-day running of the youth estate, will keep a firm grip on performance, and will be a board-level member of HM Prison and Probation Service. The Youth Custody Service will have its own workforce separately recruited and trained to work in the youth estate, and we will create distinct career pathways for those wanting to work with children and young people in the secure estate, including a new youth justice specialist worker role.
We will bring responsibility and accountability for commissioning youth custody services into the Ministry of Justice. Working closely with the chair of the youth justice board, the Department will be responsible for setting clear standards for the provision of youth justice and will be responsible for intervening decisively to address poor performance.
These changes will enable the youth justice board to build on its strong track-record and focus on its statutory function of providing vital independent advice on, and scrutiny of, the whole system, advising the Government on what standards to set for the youth justice system and monitoring delivery of those standards. It will continue to work closely with youth offending teams to promote early intervention in the community and share best practice across the system.
The youth justice system covers England and Wales and the majority of services for children and young people in Wales are devolved. We will continue our collaborative approach with the youth justice board Cymru and the Welsh Government under these new arrangements.
We are very grateful to Lord McNally, whose term as chair ends shortly, for his dedicated leadership of the youth justice board over the past three years, and thank him for the drive and passion he has shown.
Charlie Taylor will become the new chair of the youth justice board when Lord McNally’s term ends. Under the Governance Code on Public Appointments, which came into effect on 1 January this year, Ministers can, in exceptional circumstances, make an appointment without a competition. I have decided to appoint Charlie Taylor as the new chair of the youth justice board on these terms and, in accordance with the Code, have consulted the Commissioner for Public Appointments who has accepted the decision.
We are also publishing today the findings and recommendations of the youth custody improvement board. The board was set up to explore and report on the current state of the youth custodial estate and recommend how the system could be improved, particularly focusing on any current risks to safety and well-being. We are very grateful to its members for their work. The board’s report underlines the importance of reforming the youth custody system. Many of their recommendations are reflected in our plans, and we will consider all their recommendations as we implement our reforms.
[HCWS502]
House of Lords
Homelessness Reduction Bill
Friday 24th February 2017
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 View all Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 27 January 2017 - (27 Jan 2017)
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, it is a great honour for me to pilot this ground-breaking Private Member’s Bill through your Lordships’ House. I declare my interests as on the register, including as chair of the council of the Property Ombudsman for the private sector, as a past president and vice-president of the Local Government Association, as a member of the Crisis external advisory board and from nearly 50 years of working with housing charities and housing associations.
The Bill, which has been guided so expertly through the other place by its sponsor, Bob Blackman MP, is indeed ground-breaking because of the fundamental change it brings to the way that homelessness is tackled in this country, but also because it has followed a unique route through Parliament. The story began two years ago with a report from an inquiry initiated by the well-respected housing charity Crisis, chaired by the leading academic in this field, Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick. This report showed that very many of those becoming homeless were not receiving the help they needed and that some people were being treated very badly.
The Select Committee for Communities and Local Government in the other place, chaired by Clive Betts MP, took up the story and made proposals for action to stem the rising tide of homelessness. By great good fortune Bob Blackman, who as a London MP has a keen interest in this issue, secured second place in the ballot for a Private Member’s Bill and, working with Crisis, choose the homelessness theme. Most unusually, under Clive Betts’s leadership the CLG Select Committee then undertook full pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill. Important changes to the original version were agreed on a cross-party basis. Next came the all-important decision of the Government to back the Bill in principle. All this was just the start because an extensive and robust Committee stage followed the lengthy debate at Second Reading, with its 39 Speeches. With its seven sittings and 15 hours of discussion, the Bill Committee agreed amendments which returned for a five-hour Report, with a further 21 amendments, and Third Reading with speeches by 20 honourable Members. I suspect that no Private Member’s Bill has ever had quite so much attention and scrutiny and, ultimately, so much cross-party support in the other place.
What was achieved was the reconciliation of the conflicting interests and concerns of all the key parties. The list of these different bodies is extensive. First, there were the charities representing the interests of the homeless people they serve: alongside Crisis, there was St Mungo’s, Shelter, Centrepoint, Homeless Link and others. Secondly, there were the vital local government interests, represented by the Local Government Association in particular. Local authorities will have responsibility for implementing the new legislation and, naturally, councils have been anxious about taking on new duties and the cost of paying for them. Thirdly, there were the interests of the organisations representing private landlords, since the private rented sector is now the source of homes for so many households, having doubled in size since 2000. Fourthly and finally, there were the interests of central government, which must find the funding for the extra burdens placed on local councils. Here the lead was taken by the DCLG Minister Marcus Jones, who has proved immensely skilful—not least, I feel sure, in difficult behind-the-scenes discussions with HM Treasury.
The end result of all the negotiations is a Bill which delicately balances the interests of these different parties. It has proved acceptable—this is pretty remarkable—to all the political parties, to central and local government, to the housing charities and to the landlords’ representative bodies. I congratulate Bob Blackman, Crisis and all involved in this mammoth effort. I believe that the Minister will shortly spell out the new measures in the Bill in more detail but perhaps I could briefly summarise what it aims to achieve.
Exactly 40 years on from the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, a landmark in itself, the Homelessness Reduction Bill seeks to build on that foundation. It reaches out to the homeless people who have not been helped by the earlier Act because they have not been deemed as in “priority need”, mostly because they are single or in childless couples with no specialist problems. For these people, a new duty on councils is introduced to provide them with the advice and support that can get them off the streets or prevent them ending up there in the first place. For those families and vulnerable people who are regarded as in priority need, for whom the 1977 Act has been invaluable in requiring councils to find them somewhere to live, the Bill now goes further: it ensures the process of assisting them starts earlier, two months before they seem quite likely to become homeless, most often because they have been given notice to quit by their landlord. Again, the aim is to prevent homelessness rather than to pick up the pieces too late in the day.
In so far as prevention succeeds, the Bill will bring down the cost of homelessness in terms of human misery, as well as in hard cash. Costs follow directly from a priority household having to be found temporary accommodation and indirectly from a non-priority household being forced to sleep rough with all the attendant health and social costs that brings. These measures bolster the Government’s important homelessness prevention programme, for which extra funds have recently been found.
Some exemplary local authorities are already engaged in strenuous efforts to help potentially homeless households. I recently saw the work being done by the London Borough of Lambeth against almost insuperable odds. Lambeth has a big team dealing sensitively with heart-breaking cases, as I know from sitting in on interviews there. The caseworkers will refer those who are non-priority cases to specialist support services; they will mediate with landlords, maybe helping tenants with a deposit or organising discretionary housing payments to top up inadequate rental entitlements; sometimes they will even pay off some rent arears; and always they will treat people in trouble with respect.
Sadly we know there are also councils that seem to do as little as possible to assist people before a real crisis strikes. Bad practice too often takes the form of telling those tenants who have been served notice that they cannot be helped until that notice has expired, until court action against them has been taken, or even, in the worst cases, until the bailiffs are at the door. A family that has been forcibly evicted will find it virtually impossible ever to secure a new tenancy elsewhere. The trauma and disruption will stay with them, particularly for children, for years to come, and then follow the cost and distress of temporary accommodation, perhaps in an awful, unsafe bed-and-breakfast hotel.
Sometimes, moreover, it has seemed that certain local authorities have used the excuse that someone has failed to co-operate, even if they have only failed to attend an interview, maybe for very good reason, to refuse them any further help. For some councils, a whole cultural shift is needed to go from finding reasons for doing nothing to making efforts to help people pre-empt, prevent and avoid homelessness, with proper assessment of their requirements and a formal plan for their future. The Bill includes a provision for new codes of practice, which would be the subject of extensive consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, to up the game of everyone.
There is no denying that this Bill places extra burdens on local authorities. It will cost millions to implement even if, in the longer term, a reduction in homelessness leads to savings. I congratulate the Minister, Marcus Jones, on securing £61 million, which represents the Government’s estimate of costs over the next two years, but many in local government, while not wanting to avoid the new duties the legislation will bring, believe actual costs will be a lot more. Pressure from the Local Government Association and the Opposition Benches in the other place has led to the Government agreeing to a full-scale review before the initial two-year funding runs out. This is a very important commitment by the Minister. With councils suffering badly from inadequate resources, particularly for social care, it is extremely important that this funding is at the right level. If costs turn out to be more than the Government anticipate, I would certainly expect additional resources to be forthcoming, since that is the commitment which this Bill implies, but I realise the Treasury will make no promises for a period more than three years from today.
It is not for me to try to unpack or disturb the agreed content of the Bill after all that has gone before, but this is an opportunity to air some wider thoughts about homelessness in the UK, about the context for this new legislation and about the issues yet to be resolved alongside the implementation of the Bill. This brings me to two wider policy points, and I feel sure other noble Lords will add their broader comments on issues of homelessness.
It is obvious that problems of homelessness will continue so long as there are not enough homes to go round. Addressing the chronic housing shortages with which we are now all so familiar is clearly a prerequisite. I commend the Government’s determination to get far more homes built, and I think the housing White Paper takes us in the right direction, not least in its central recognition that new homes to rent are needed as well as new homes to buy.
Increasing supply to match demand is a five to 10-year project that calls for all hands on deck, no longer relying on a handful of big housebuilders but backing councils, housing associations and build-to-rent developers as well as smaller building firms, retirement housing providers, self-build, custom housebuilding and new garden villages and garden towns. We cannot conquer homelessness or even reverse its alarming growth while, year after year, we have more new households formed than new homes built. The Bill can give councils new responsibilities to guide, advise, help and support but, if there are not the homes available, we will still see families moved to other areas, people sleeping in doorways on our high streets and people impoverished by their housing costs. It will take every new measure in the housing White Paper and more to tackle this underlying, abject deficiency in this country’s housing system.
If my broader comment is one of encouragement for the direction being taken by the Department for Communities and Local Government, I am afraid that is not the case for the actions of the other key government department, the Department for Work and Pensions. In its understandable but unrealistic efforts to cut the cost of housing benefit, the DWP is busy undermining the efforts of the DCLG and local authorities and, indeed, of this new Bill.
Our Shelter briefing on this Bill says that:
“Housing Benefit is one of the best tools to improve affordability and prevent homelessness by allowing those on low incomes to house themselves without having to turn to their local authority”.
Cuts to housing support accelerate and exaggerate current homelessness problems because they block off opportunities for accommodation in the private rented sector. I must leave on one side the DWP’s unfortunate plans to limit rents charged for specialist supported and sheltered housing where, in theory, DWP funds via local authorities will top up local housing allowance payments. That issue is a big worry in the homelessness sector, but I have a bigger concern about rent ceilings, benefit caps and freezes on the local housing allowance. These cuts mean fewer and fewer landlords will take in anyone who relies on government help with housing. Increasingly, there is a widening shortfall between the rents which landlords can obtain from those not reliant on any housing benefit and the rents which housing benefit will cover. Shelter figures show that, by 2020, the local housing allowance will not cover rents for even the cheapest properties in over 80% of local authority areas.
These real-term rent reductions come on top of the hazards for landlords from the difficulties poorer households face in finding deposits and rent in advance, as well as the DWP’s insistence on paying housing support to the tenant not the landlord. The result is not simply that, in seeking to prevent homelessness, councils and charities will find fewer and fewer landlords willing to accept the people they want to assist; the bigger problem is that, gradually, more and more existing tenants will find their landlords ending their current shorthold tenancies because reduced housing benefit support means those tenants can afford a rent only well below that available on the open market. As Shelter says:
“By far the largest cause of homelessness is people being unable to find somewhere else to live when their private tenancy ends”—
out goes the mother with two children; in goes the two-earner couple or even the three students. It seems quite likely that over the next couple of years, we could see a large proportion of the 800,000 or so households who are currently in the private rented sector and receiving housing help from the DWP being asked to leave. This will create a crisis indeed. I simply ask DWP Ministers to recognise that they cannot buck the market: if the least affluent are to be housed in the private rented sector—as they must be, because there is a woeful lack of available council and housing association accommodation—then the DWP must return to paying the same rent as the landlord can get from other tenants. The freeze on local housing allowances must go.
The Bill is not going to end homelessness. That will require, first, massive efforts to ease housing shortages—on which an important start is being made, I hope—and secondly, a better understanding by the Department for Work and Pensions that it is creating the problem, not the solution to homelessness. Nevertheless the Bill can, and I believe will, reduce homelessness, reduce the numbers suffering the horrors of living on our streets and reduce the far greater numbers of people who, in the absence of relatively inexpensive guidance and concrete support, are forced into hidden homelessness—sofa-surfing or living in ghastly conditions. Although this occasion brings the opportunity for us to put our wider concerns about the housing scene firmly on the record, I hope very much the Bill receives strong support from your Lordships. I warmly congratulate Bob Blackman and all those who have brought this ground-breaking Bill before us. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, I declare my interest as the chair of the organisation Housing Justice and thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his sponsorship of this Bill in your Lordships’ House. I also add my thanks to Bob Blackman, the Member for Harrow East, for his initiative in bringing forward the Bill in the other place. Before turning to the specifics of the Bill, I will echo the final points made by the noble Lord about the connection between the wider issues of housing supply and housing finance and the sharper end of homelessness which we see on our streets and in other manifestations. It would be such a tragedy if some of those wider matters were not tackled and frustrated the good intentions of this Bill.
I particularly welcome in the Bill the extension and redefinition of the duties laid on local authorities around prevention, relief and referral. These new duties should significantly extend the reach of support, care and help for those who are homeless, not least those such as the single homeless, already referred to, who hitherto have tended to fall through every net that there is to fall through.
I also welcome the Government’s commitment of £61 million of funding. Clearly, where local authorities and other public bodies are being given new duties to undertake, they need to have the resources to do so. But there is the question of the unknown demand for advice, advocacy and support services which may result from the Bill—hence the commitment by the Government to a review after two years, which is very welcome. Slightly pre-empting that review, I will dare to express the hope that the Government might do something which we might not always associate with a Government of any hue, which is to be generous and, when the time comes, to make sure that in future spending rounds—to pick up another point that has already been made—all local authorities are resourced in such a way that they can operate at the level of the best, and thereby ensure that we are working together to tackle these issues.
Legislation provides frameworks, and the Bill will greatly improve the framework around which we deal with matters of homelessness. Local authorities and other public bodies have duties and, as we have already heard, new duties will be given as a result of this legislation if the Bill is passed. The reality on the ground is that much of the provision often comes from voluntary and community organisations of one kind or another, ranging from the big national organisations, some of which have already been referred to, to little local initiatives in particular communities. That will continue to be the case: indeed, that provision may even need to increase as new possibilities come forward through the Bill.
I know my right reverend friend the Bishop of Southwark will refer to some specific projects and initiatives in places which illustrate this, and the importance of partnership between statutory agencies and voluntary and community organisations in helping to end homelessness, and I suspect that other noble Lords will, too. Had I been minded to bring forward an amendment—I assure the noble Lord that I will not be doing so, because that would risk frustrating the passage of the Bill—it might have been around a clearer duty on local authorities to work in partnership with voluntary and community organisations. In the best places, that works really well—but that is not universal, and we need again to encourage all to aspire to what is done by the best. It is often the voluntary sector bodies that are providing those services, sometimes referred to as non-commissioned services, which are vital if we are going to achieve our intentions of reducing homelessness and even—it would be wonderful—ending it.
The organisation I referred to which I chair, Housing Justice, is a coalition body for a range of Christian and church-related organisations working in the homelessness and housing sector. Following a symposium at the end of last year which we convened across the road in Millbank, we published a statement in January, on the occasion of Homeless Sunday, which affirmed the commitment of the Christian homelessness sector to work with energy, enthusiasm and everything that we can bring to end homelessness in our country. We believe that the sector has resources to offer, not least in the form of people of good will who bring time, commitment and energy. We know that if the contribution of church-related organisations was taken out of the homelessness sector, we would all notice it. So we reaffirm our offer to be a resource and the offer of our experience, energy and commitment to work with central and local government to seek solutions to homelessness wherever it is found.
Alongside the affirmation of the offer, we also in that statement encourage both central and local government, at the different levels, to produce comprehensive and long-term strategies to end homelessness. It seems to me that the Bill provides a good framework within which that might happen. I encourage those statutory bodies to actively seek out partners in their particular area with which they might develop such strategies in order to give effect to what the Bill seeks to bring about.
I assure the Minister of the commitment of the sector that in a sense I represent, and of the willingness of the Christian homelessness sector to be part of the solution to these issues. I also affirm my continued support for the Bill as it passes through this House, and I very much hope to see it enacted. I therefore welcome it. I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his sponsorship of the Bill, and trust that it will have a smooth passage through your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, like my colleagues on these Benches, I wholeheartedly support the Bill and congratulate Bob Blackman and the noble Lord, Lord Best, on their work on it. I congratulate the Government on their support and the DCLG Select Committee, chaired by Clive Betts, on its pre-legislative scrutiny. It is rare in this place that we view something that has been through a proper process of due diligence in the Commons. Today we have been served not the usual dog’s breakfast from the other place but a hale and hearty dinner, lunch and high tea, with a cheeky cocktail thrown in, too. It deserves a fair wind, full support and a speedy process in this place.
The new duty to assist those threatened with homelessness within 56 days and the prevention measures that are included are a historic step forward for those of us who have campaigned in this area for too many years to mention. At a time of so much division, that this issue crosses party divides and has consensus is further evidence that Jo Cox was right when she said that,
“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; col. 675.]
The people who will be served by the Bill need our consensus and united purpose now more than ever.
Part of that achievement is the work of Crisis, its independent expert panel and the backing of Centrepoint, DePaul, Homeless Link, Housing Justice and St. Mungo’s. It was on a visit to St. Mungo’s in Shepherd’s Bush that I met a couple in their mid-20s who had been rough sleeping. They were far from the borough they started out in and therefore had little chance of help in a place that did not want to take on the burden of their problem. I am delighted that the Bill, particularly Clause 2 with its duty to provide advisory services, will start to tackle those kinds of issues.
I am sure that most noble Lords would agree that it is crucial to know who is homeless in order to identify how best to help them, which is why I am so concerned about the continuing failure of DCLG to be robust in its analysis of levels of homelessness. Last August the DCLG Select Committee published a report on homelessness and expressed serious concerns about data collection and robust information. It sought reassurances from Marcus Jones, the Minister for Local Government, that data would be robust by the end of the year, as he had received, frankly, a bit of a ticking-off from the UK Statistics Authority a year earlier. He was unable to give that commitment.
At the end of last year I was so concerned about the use of DCLG statistics regarding homelessness that I made a complaint to the Statistics Authority, which published its result this week upholding my complaint, which is available on their website. What transpired from its inquiries as a result of my complaint was that statements were being published, without proper clearance in DCLG, making the claim that homelessness was currently less than half its 2003 peak. Those statements were made without placing them in any context. I praise the Minister for using much more cautious language in this place than any of his colleagues have.
The reason why I believe this is important is that, first and foremost, data should be robust. When Howard Sinclair from St Mungo’s and the DCLG Select Committee ask us to consider the strong recommendation that CHAIN, the multiagency database, should be used across the country rather than the current methodology of a snapshot survey, we should listen.
Secondly, the highly political use of the reference to the 2003 peak suggests a level of complacency on the part of this Government—complacency that is not borne out by their backing of this Bill—about how many people are sleeping rough. Frankly, you would struggle to walk through the streets just outside this building currently and make that argument. The CHAIN database records information about rough sleepers and the wider street population of London. The DCLG’s figures on rough sleeping are based on rough-sleeping counts and estimates carried out on one night in October and November each year. At the time when the estimates were introduced it was progress, but technology and recording have moved on. CHAIN is a continuing record, with different categories of all contact by outreach teams, every day of the year.
In the Select Committee report, the CHAIN projection between April 2015 and March 2016 was that there were 8,096 people seen sleeping rough in London compared with the 940 reported in the DCLG’s equivalent figure. I say to the civil servants behind the Minister and back in the department that I hope my complaint to the UK Statistics Authority will result in greater power for you to put your foot down when the numbers cannot be defended. When Ministers make decisions about funding and support for the Bill to the total of £61 million, I worry about which estimates they are using. I worry that DCLG is underestimating the problem, and I can see no evidence to argue against that. When London Councils argues that the £61 million will not go very far and Lewisham estimates that the additional burdens will cost it £2.4 million, I sincerely hope that we are listening.
Shelter says that the Bill must be implemented but cannot be seen in isolation from the necessary resources to back it up, which includes help for private tenants—tenants who according to the new White Paper the Government will champion. So in tandem with this Bill I ask the Government to look again at local housing allowance rates, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, described, to ensure that they reflect actual housing costs, and use that as a powerful tool to prevent homelessness alongside the Bill.
I am also delighted with the recently announced intention to ban tenants’ fees from lettings agents. I believe that will alleviate an up-front burden for many on the cliff edge of homelessness in the private rented sector. I particularly welcome the commitment by the Government to review the implementation of this legislation and its resourcing two years after commencement of the main clauses.
This is all about the future so I thought I would share with the House a letter written by a schoolgirl from St Patrick’s primary school in Sheffield, asking us to give our wholehearted support to the Bill. She says:
“I am writing to you because of the appauling amount of innocent people living on the dusty streets!”.
So she sees the problem just as we do. Her name is Minar Khan. She expresses a very nice vision of the future, as does the Bill.
I have expressed concerns about the robustness of the data in particular, and I would like to hear the Minister’s response to that. However, I conclude by saying I have no hesitation in expressing our full support for the Bill going through unamended. I congratulate all who have been involved in campaigning for it and I hope that we can get on with it as soon as possible.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, this is a very welcome Bill. It gives me great pleasure to support it, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Best on introducing it so ably to your Lordships’ House.
Some nine years ago I was at a small seminar at Lancaster House, chaired by the then British Foreign Secretary and the American Secretary of State, in preparation for a joint visit that they were about to make to Afghanistan. I was asked on that occasion to introduce and lead a discussion on the aspirations of Afghan civilians. Of course I had to start by saying it was not for me to speak for Afghans; I did not live in their country, I was not of their religion and I came from a very different cultural background. However, I continued, many years of experience in diverse parts of the world had persuaded me that the desire for certain basic needs was common to the great majority around the globe, whatever their location, history or circumstances. First, they wished to be secure in their persons and their property. They wanted assurance that their lives, their well-being and the possessions they had accumulated, no matter how meagre they might be, would not be ripped from them by predators. But second only to this, and pertinent to our debate today, they wanted to be able to provide a roof for their heads, a fire for the hearth and food for the table—a roof for their heads, my Lords.
In that meeting, we were discussing the pressing needs of the people who were part of a society that was in many ways still medieval and was riven by decades of war. It was perhaps unsurprising that home and hearth were such fragile aspirations for them. How much more embarrassing, then, that here in the UK, in the 21st century, we have so many citizens who face a similar plight?
No human society can ever be perfect, and I doubt whether we will ever reach the stage when we have totally eliminated poverty and homelessness, but it is surely our duty to maintain the struggle, to continue to reach for perfection, even if we know it will continue to elude us. The Bill does exactly that. It will not eliminate homelessness, as is apparent from its very title, the Homelessness Reduction Bill. It will advance the struggle, it will make practical changes that will have a real impact on this terrible problem. It will, crucially, put prevention at the forefront of our efforts to tackle the issue—and who can doubt that pre-emption is so much to be preferred over treatment? But where pre-emption fails and people are left homeless, the Bill extends the duty of care beyond the narrowly defined group that is perceived to be hardest hit and brings so many more within the ambit of local authority assistance.
These are important improvements to the current position and seem to me more than ample reason to support the Bill, but I have a narrower, more personal motive for speaking on its behalf. The homeless in our nation are not, as some might imagine, simply people from the fringes of society who contribute little, who are somehow inadequate and whom we should help just out of some sense of condescending charity. They have fallen on hard times for all sorts of reasons and they come from diverse situations and backgrounds. Among them, I regret to say, are veterans of the UK Armed Forces. I am encouraged to see that the number of these ex-military homeless has fallen in recent years, not least because the Ministry of Defence and the service charities have put a great deal of effort into addressing their plight, which in itself goes to show that more effective action can yield results, but they nevertheless exist. They are not, in the main, homeless because of their experiences in the military. A small number suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, and many more suffer from wider mental health problems, but the factors that have driven them to their current situation are, by and large, the same as those that affect the wider population. In that sense, they are no different from their fellow sufferers.
How ought we as a society to respond to such a situation? How ought we to feel when some of those who have served their country, often in the most difficult and dangerous conditions, are being allowed to languish on our streets without a roof to their heads? Ought we not to say to ourselves, “We cannot allow this to continue—not just common humanity but our own sense of obligation commands us to act”? Of course we should. I therefore welcome the Bill’s specific acknowledgement of this particular group.
I do not mean by this to suggest that the homeless who have no military background are somehow less deserving. They all have their stories, they all suffer, they all deserve our help. My point is that the presence of veterans among their number demonstrates clearly that this is not a problem afflicting others, it is a problem afflicting all of us. It adds yet more weight to the urgency of the challenge and the need to address it with ever more vigour. The Bill is a valuable and very welcome step forward in that regard, and it has my full support.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests in this matter. I chair an organisation called Changing Lives, which is active in this area of work and based in the north-east of England, although we work way beyond the north-east. I am also involved with Lloyds Bank Foundation. We fund a number of small charities which work with the homeless.
I am delighted to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, Bob Blackman, and those charities, particularly Crisis and St Mungo’s, who have been driving the changes in the Bill. I am also delighted to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. When I was responsible for tackling rough sleepers between 1997 and 2001, far too many were ex-service people. It was clear that that was not something that the Armed Forces had been thinking about before discharge, particularly for squaddies who had struggled a bit before they got into the Armed Forces and might find life difficult once they left. We had a particular programme for that. The Ministry of Defence Minister with responsibility for veterans used to come to all our planning meetings on tackling rough sleeping, and the head of the Rough Sleepers Unit, as it then was, went especially to Catterick to work with the Army on how it could use preventive methods before a problem arose. I know that, since then, lots more work has been done. I was always grateful that we could engage actively with the Ministry of Defence to consider those issues.
The Bill is very important. It will put on the statute book measures to help to tackle homelessness. Prevention and advice for all, including the single homeless, is very important; the Bill provides new support to those who are not entitled to assistance under current legislation, particularly the single homeless, which is the area in which I have the most knowledge and experience. Inevitably, services have grown up to tackle single homelessness but, too often, they pick people up when they are already sleeping rough and facing a whole range of problems.
The new prevention duty in the Bill, which extends to 56 days the period for someone being threatened with homelessness, is also very sensible. It will give local authorities time to plan and work with landlords and others to try to ensure that eviction does not take place, as well as introduce measures to deal with the family or individual if it comes to pass. The new duty on other public bodies that encounter those threatened with homelessness or who are homeless to refer them to local authority homeless teams is also important. When I was Minister for social exclusion in 2007-08, we mapped those individuals with multiple needs in one London borough and, unsurprisingly, found that they would turn up at a range of organisations from A&E to mental health services, from addiction services to the police, as well as the homeless services. Most of them were without long-term accommodation, but no service took overall responsibility. It was out of that scoping work that we developed the programme that we called ACE—government is really good at all these acronyms; it stood for adults with chronic exclusion, if I remember rightly—to find more effective ways to work with people in a more holistic way. That work has subsequently been taken up by the Big Lottery, which is funding about 12 programmes around the country called Fulfilling Lives that are about helping local services to address the needs of the most excluded in a more holistic way. The charity which I chair is running one of those programmes.
The Bill will not solve this, but it will at least mean that agencies talk to one another about accommodation needs. Most of us could give horrendous examples of people who are in need but are turned away because they have not turned up at the right service that day. We have to change the way in which services deal with someone who is homeless, addicted or whatever and treat them as a whole person, recognising that they have to bring together the services that they are going to need.
I welcome the Bill and will work for its speedy passage. But—there is bound to be a but—in terms of the scandalous rise in homelessness and rough sleeping in recent years I find it modest. Its provisions will be important, but much more needs to be done in a structural way. Homelessness has not risen because the Bill was not in place: it has done so because of decisions that have been taken, many of which the noble Lord, Lord Best, spoke about. These need to be addressed in order to ensure that homelessness really is a thing of the past. Are Ministers asking themselves about the effect on homelessness of the withdrawal from some local authorities of the fund for supported housing and supporting people who are vulnerable in housing? Three authorities in the north-east have now withdrawn the fund since the Government increased cuts to local authorities and stopped ring-fencing it. Our experience is that many people are now being pushed into the city areas because the services they had been used to in their own local authorities are simply not available any more. This rise in homelessness in the cities is putting real pressure on them.
Are Ministers asking themselves what effect the changes in local housing allowance will have on the availability of rented accommodation to those who are struggling? Not all of them will be seen as vulnerable, but many will be struggling because rent levels are becoming so high and landlords will pull out of offering housing to those who depend on public support. Why are so many housing associations pulling out of supported accommodation and asking the voluntary sector to take over those responsibilities? I am a bit scared by the number of housing associations that are coming to the charity I chair saying: “We are going to pull out of this because we cannot afford to do it. Will you take it on”? The Government tell me that I have to be absolutely sure that the board which I lead appreciates the challenges of funding and does not undertake things if it does not know it will be able to fund them, so I am a bit anxious. We spent some time last Friday looking at this. Our chief executive is always enthusiastic and optimistic, which is great, but we had to say to him that there has to be very good due diligence. If the housing association is saying it cannot afford to do it, will we be able to?
We also know that the market will not step into much of this work. When the funding was earmarked in George Osborne’s last Budget, all the money allocated to voluntary, not-for-profit organisations for bringing empty homes back into use was put for developers to use. Surprise, surprise, the programme virtually stopped. It was suspended by the Homes and Communities Agency in terms of giving grants to not-for-profit organisations, in the hope that developers would take this on. However, this was not their priority or what they wanted to do, so the HCA has now reinserted and ring-fenced some money and reopened that programme. However, this has slowed down my organisation’s work of recovering and bringing back into use empty homes, which our service users help to refurbish and then move into. That affects our business model, but we will try to get into it again. We have been developing this area of housing partly because we know that enabling the single homeless—even those with multiple needs—to go straight into independent tenancies works, if they are properly supported. That is another reason why I am asking the Government to keep an eye on what is happening to the supported housing fund. If that is withdrawn, people who are put into independent tenancies will struggle.
It is also because local authorities are saying to us that they are finding it more and more difficult to meet the cost of hostel provision. They are sort of giving us warning that this area may have to go, in the cuts that they see coming down the road. My own local authority has just announced another £65 million of cuts for this year. They know that more will come next year. With an ageing population in the county of Durham, more and more money has to go to social care. This is not part of that priority, so hostels will begin to be more difficult to fund effectively. That is why we need more independent housing for the most vulnerable, but that is also becoming hugely challenging. I know that the Government have been exploring social investment bonds to deal with some of this, but I urge caution. Experience of these bonds has so far led all the charities that I am talking to to approach them with caution because they are proving exceptionally difficult to develop. Even though the strength of the SIB is that it will be there for six or eight years, it is challenging for charities, particularly smaller ones, to get involved in this.
In this period of local government cuts, the extra money is welcome, but is it going to be enough? I support others who are saying that the two-year review of the Bill will be very important. I hope that in that time the Government will look honestly at what it costs to prevent someone becoming homeless and really keep an eye on it so that it is kept at a level that ensures local authorities can develop. I hope this is not just a move to put all the blame on to local authorities. I am sure that it is not; I am not that cynical. However, we have to demonstrate that that is the case.
The Bill is welcome and, as I say, I enthusiastically support it. However, it will not be sufficient to end homelessness. I have raised some issues. Other Members have raised and will raise others. I hope that the Government recognise that there is very wide support across this House to tackle homelessness and, indeed, to end it. I believe that we can virtually end homelessness. From my period in government, I know what needs to be done about rough sleeping and what you can do to bring the number down to many fewer people than is the case at present. Many people in this House have experience of both historic developments and current activity. If the Government are wise, they will harness that experience—dare I say expertise, or are we still saying that we do not need expertise? I hope not. I hope that the Government will harness the expertise and the experience in this House to tackle homelessness in that more holistic way which is essential if we want to get anywhere near ending it.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, in common with the sentiments already expressed, I strongly support this Bill with its emphasis on the reduction of homelessness. Like others, I am heartened by the cross-party work that has been done, not least by the Government, to bring this important legislation to this point. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, on his sponsorship of the Bill and, in another place, Mr Bob Blackman, the Member for Harrow East. I trust that we will expedite matters at all stages of the Bill and fully endorse what was said by my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester.
Under no circumstances is homelessness an easy or positive expression of living. There is also the twin malady in a country where housing provision, especially in the capital, is often at ruinous expense. Homelessness is always born of crisis and once embarked upon rapidly erodes physical and mental well-being. I particularly welcome, therefore, the expansion in the Bill of the rights of single homeless people, to which the previous speaker alluded. Too often people go to their councils for help, are turned away because they are not considered to be in “priority need”, and end up sleeping rough. It is a dreadful scenario to which the appropriate solution must be remedial action: relevant services, including housing provision; and a relational response, which often comes from voluntary and community organisations.
Across my own diocese, a number of projects respond magnificently to the need. In Greenwich, operating out of 10 church venues an ecumenical endeavour runs a night shelter every night of the winter, staffed by 120 volunteers. Meanwhile, 28 churches in the London Boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark, through a project called Robes, have welcomed 70 guests for the night each winter, with the help of over 400 volunteers. I declare my interest as a patron. I myself participate in the annual sponsored sleep-out in the grounds of Southwark Cathedral to raise money for this project. Last year it raised over £100,000, which has funded the project and provided for a full-time support worker. In Wandsworth, churches do similar work with a charity called Glass Door. Again in my diocese, the ecumenical Croydon Churches Floating Shelter was set up in 2004, a partnership of 22 churches offering overnight hospitality to guests, from November to March each year. Your Lordships will be familiar with the inspirational work of Street Pastors, also an ecumenical endeavour, which brings a non-judgmental encounter and help throughout the night to the streets of our cities and plays a significant part in reducing crime.
Only last Sunday on my visit to the Church of St Peter Norbiton, I was able to see for myself the offices of Kingston Churches Action on Homelessness, and in particular the Joel Community, operating in what was until recently the church hall, offering shelter, food and friendship and accommodating over 70 people a year experiencing homelessness. The aim is a fully tailored service for each person. A repeat factor in the story of many of those experiencing homelessness is isolation, which is in itself soul destroying. In response, the Joel Community seeks to provide a focus of welcome and hospitality within a community setting. This, in common with all the examples I have cited, but in a still more focused manner, is a relational approach seeking to bring people through the crisis of homelessness to a better place. It can be life-saving. Thus, this Bill, if implemented effectively, should ensure that more individuals will at last receive meaningful assistance to prevent or relieve homelessness.
One group of individuals whom I hope are already covered by the existing definitions of priority need are military veterans. I support the words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, on this matter. The Armed Forces covenant, to which the Church of England nationally is a signatory, signals important considerations in this area. Veterans, for whatever reason, still form a disproportionately high element among the single homeless. I pay tribute to Veterans Aid and its work housing such veterans in New Belvedere House, a stone’s throw from my old rectory in the parish of St Dunstan’s, Stepney, in the Diocese of London, where I served in the 1990s, and to Alabare, founded by the Reverend John Proctor, a permanent deacon in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Clifton, which also works among homeless veterans and others.
Changes in legislation will not be enough on their own. Legislation will avail us little if suitable accommodation is not available in areas where there is a chronic shortage of affordable housing. On the structural level, like the noble Lord, Lord Best, I pay tribute to Her Majesty’s Government for making available £61 million of additional money to local authorities for the years 2017-18 and 2019-20 to meet the costs arising from the Bill. However, following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said about the London Borough of Lewisham, your Lordships may wish to know that London borough councils alone estimate that their additional burdens under the Bill will be £77 million in the first year. It is important that new demands be properly funded. None the less, I remain of the conviction that our endeavours in this critical area will fail without the necessary relational approach.
I have a further concern as regards regulations due to be laid by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which restrict entitlement to the housing costs element of universal credit for some 18 to 21 year-olds. For many young people the financial support provided through the benefit system to cover their rent is all that stands between them and homelessness. I hope we may hear about this during our deliberations. I trust we agree that the Bill be read a second time, and that it may proceed without amendment.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I support this important Private Member’s Bill. I place on the record a declaration of interest, in that I have a number of properties in the private sector. I start by congratulating my honourable friend Bob Blackman MP for bringing forward this very important legislation. I am delighted to see Bob here today. He has been present from the start of the debate.
I also want to take the opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for continuing to aid the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House, and for his excellent speech outlining the steps leading to the Bill and the scrutiny it has already received.
Last but not least, I also congratulate the Government on fully supporting the Bill and on the extra £61 million funding they will make available. I also thank the charities such as Crisis, St Mungo’s, Centrepoint and Shelter, which do such invaluable work to support the homeless and the most disadvantaged in our society. I was also delighted when the Evening Standard’s Young & Homeless Appeal smashed through the £3 million barrier a few weeks ago. That money will enable the creation of Centrepoint’s Young and Homeless Helpline. As an ex-trustee of the NSPCC, I know how important a helpline can be—a lifeline.
Through my work in the NHS and the charitable and legal sectors, I have seen the devastating effects on people and families who become homeless. They are individuals fleeing domestic violence or abuse, those with mental health problems, and people who have difficulty just keeping their heads above water. Food, shelter and warmth are all basic rights of humanity, yet so many people have difficulty in fully accessing these necessities—not in some war-torn country but here in the UK. This is unacceptable, particularly when employment is at a record high and we are the fifth richest country in the world. It is to our huge discredit that there should be even one person sleeping rough, in the bitter cold, exposed and vulnerable to the many dangers on the streets of our country. Of course, homelessness is a very complex issue, and there is no single silver bullet to remove homelessness overnight. However, the fact remains that rough sleeping has doubled since 2010, and more will need to be done to tackle it.
In autumn 2016 there were an estimated 4,134 rough sleepers in England—the highest figure since 2010 and an increase on the previous year—of which 23% were identified in Greater London. Sadly, an increasing number of women are sleeping rough. Interviews with homeless women conducted by Crisis showed that over 20% become homeless to escape violence from someone they know, with the majority—70%—fleeing violence from a partner. Homeless women are also more likely than men to have greater levels of mental illness as a result of physical and sexual abuse. Statistics show that in 2015, 112,330 people made a homeless application, with 54,430 accepted as homeless and in need of assistance. But these figures are likely to be significantly higher, as has already been stated, as many people are in overcrowded accommodation or sofa-surfing. I am therefore pleased that the Government have announced a package of measures costing £40 million to tackle rough sleeping.
It is right that the Bill seeks to change the culture in local authorities and the point at which they provide housing support to vulnerable people. Currently, many local authorities act only when someone is literally on the streets or indeed sleeping rough—when an individual is in crisis. But crisis management cannot be the answer any more. It is failing too many individuals and causes huge distress and despair to those in need. Crisis management can also come at a huge cost to the public purse if individuals or families must be placed in expensive temporary accommodation in an emergency. The ONS report of 30 September 2016 stated that a total of 74,630 households were in temporary accommodation.
The Bill, along with the promised extra government funding, will promote prevention and enable a change in the culture of many local authorities by enabling them to provide proactive support to people who find themselves in difficulties before they are in crisis and become homeless. The aim of the Bill is to ensure that everyone, irrespective of whether they have drug or alcohol addictions or other priority status, will be entitled to receive free information, advice and support 56 days prior to becoming homeless. Local authorities will have a duty to provide a focused personalised plan which will highlight steps to prevent the person becoming homeless. Clause 1 is important.
The Bill will also aid better co-ordination between key public services because there will be a duty on public bodies such as the NHS to ensure that anyone who is identified as homeless is reported to their respective local authority so that it can take the most appropriate action for the individual concerned. I also welcome that the Bill creates a power for the Secretary of State to introduce a statutory code of practice, which will provide further guidance on how local authorities should deliver their homelessness prevention duties, particularly as there are variations in the standards of service given by local authorities. Some are very good while others, sadly, are less so. However, it will be important for the Government to make sure that they put in place proper monitoring arrangements to ensure that this duty is being met. Perhaps the Minister will say how the Government will assess this duty to ensure that it is being met.
Another aspect of the Bill will enable local authorities to check private sector accommodation to ensure that it meets both safety and suitability criteria before it is let to individuals. This will help to remove and sometimes improve the appalling and dreadful conditions and unsuitable accommodation that some people are forced to live in. This is to be hugely welcomed. The Bill is a compassionate response to a growing problem. It is a good start. I of course recognise the priority of ensuring more affordable housing, particularly as rents are high and becoming increasingly out of reach for some of our most disadvantaged people. Indeed, for working people like teachers and nurses who live and work in places such as central London, it is becoming increasingly difficult to rent or afford to buy accommodation without sharing or receiving significant financial help to get on the property ladder. I therefore welcome the Government’s White Paper, which seeks to address these issues. While increasing the stock of affordable housing or inducing lower rents is welcome, it is not the purpose of the Bill, although it adds to the wider government strategy on housing.
As I and other noble Lords have said, the Bill is about moving from a crisis-management response to a focused preventive strategy by local authorities—a significant cultural driver for change. Although there were up-front costs, Wales has already instigated such a strategy, and some figures show that in some 65% of cases in Wales, homelessness has been successfully prevented when at-risk households have been helped by local authorities sooner.
I urge the House to support this Private Member’s Bill as drafted because, should noble Lords put down any amendments, it may fall due to lack of parliamentary time. As Crisis and other charities have stated, the Bill,
“could transform the help available to homeless people, and if passed could represent one of the most important developments for homelessness in nearly 40 years”.
I fully support it.
Lord Bird (CB)
I am pleased to support the Homelessness Reduction Bill. In the 25 years that I have been involved with the Big Issue I have rarely seen the word reduction—or even prevention—used in relation to homelessness. Reduction and prevention are, of course, not the same. Prevention is a science that we have not yet arrived at. The elements that make up homelessness are not yet defined adequately and scientifically enough so that we can begin the process of dismantling it even before it manifests itself.
What is so interesting about Mr Blackman’s Bill and the work of my noble friend Lord Best is that at last we have before us a mechanism for embracing that beautiful word “prevention”. But we have to go even further and start preventing in the schoolroom and in the ghetto, and we have to prevent people being bullied and pushed out because they are gay, black or Gypsies, or because their mum and dad have problems with drink and drugs. I look forward to that process beginning not just in this House but in the other place. We have to fall in love completely with the idea of social transformation. I shall not talk too much because your Lordships are all incredibly eloquent and have all the facts and figures before you.
I am reminded of that wonderful song by Ian Dury, which I will not sing: “There Ain’t Half Been Some Clever”—I will say “Bar stewards” rather than the word he used. Listening to the right reverend Prelates, the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, and everyone else, it is clear that we are all able to intervene in the lives of the poor and come up with some very astute observations and methodologies, but prevention is where we need to start.
I started the Big Issue 25 years ago with a man called Gordon Roddick, who, as your Lordships know, started the Body Shop with his wife. The Big Issue was a business response to a social crisis. We wanted to prevent people continuously falling into trouble. We did not look at what the 501—there are now over 2,000—homelessness organisations in London were doing; we said that we were going to stop people falling back into crime again and again, as that just complicated the problems.
What is so beautiful about the Bill is that it will prevent quite a number of people ending up selling the Big Issue. I thank Mr Blackman and my noble friend Lord Best for that because we have too many people doing that. But the real politics will be preventing Johnny, who is now three years old, living a disfranchised life and becoming a Big Issue vendor or a drug user in 20 years’ time. That is the big issue—that is where we have to move on to—and I am glad that we have started the process of dealing with prevention, bringing it forward in this House and out into the world, so that we can make progress on it.
Noble Lords will forgive me for stopping for a drink of water—I was out with a number of homeless people last night and got to bed very late.
I have developed something called PECC, which I have mentioned before. It stands for prevention, emergency, coping and cure. When you look at the vast amount of money that we spend socially on emergency and coping and at the very small amount we spend on prevention or cure, you can see that we live in a topsy-turvy world. Mr Blackman’s Homelessness Reduction Bill is a step in the direction of making “prevention, prevention, prevention” the best course that we can all follow. I am glad that he is following the work of the Big Issue. I am not saying that we are the great leaders—we are still learning—but now we really do need to move the argument on and become vitalised by the wonderful idea of stopping children becoming homeless 20 years after the seeds of discontent and problems enter their lives.
I declare an interest. I was homeless at the age of five because my mum and dad were enemies of the rent man when there was no Crisis, Shelter or SHAC, or all the other 501 or 2,000 organisations that there are now. We have to start defining the causes of homelessness. Some of it is self-perpetuating and some of it is to do with not being able to budget, but a lot of it is to do with the fact that the mechanisms that lead to you receiving a Section 21 notice can drive you into homelessness—an area where you need not be. That is the beauty and magnificence of this Bill. I am so pleased that we are debating it today and I am 150% behind it. God bless you all.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bird. He has the advantage over most of the rest of us in that he can say with authority and conviction that he has done something himself to ameliorate the situation. His experience is valuable to this House.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
We encourage him to continue with his enthusiasm and flair in addressing this important problem.
I start by paying a special tribute to the sponsor of this Bill. Mr Blackman is a man whom I salute. I do so because I was the modest author of two small Private Members’ Bills and I piloted them through Parliament in anticipation of the Freedom of Information Act a long time ago, so I know how precarious these Bills are. The noble Lord, Lord Best, is absolutely correct to say that this is a signal parliamentary moment. I have never come across a Private Member’s Bill that comes armed with a money resolution and the prospect of money. In my experience, that is unique and it is not achieved easily. So I admire Mr Blackman’s professionalism and application. The noble Lord, Lord Best, gave him an appropriate tribute and I want to add to that, because it is very special for him to have achieved his Bill being debated this morning.
I want to go back to 1977. The noble Lord, Lord Best, was right to say that the last time we really addressed this issue was on a Private Member’s Bill in the hands of Mr Stephen Ross—a man of sacred memory and a valued former Liberal colleague. That was 40 years ago. He did not get the money and, apart from the glory of introducing a Private Member’s Bill, he did not get very much else. It was an important Bill. It did not quite have the advantages of prevention that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, has so eloquently spoken about, and that is a significant difference. There is a real danger that this Bill will suffer the same fate as the one introduced by Stephen Ross—I hope not—but Mr Blackman must not give up with his application.
Prevention is very important. It has a much wider application across public services more generally and it can save money for the public purse. If it works—the next two or three years will be fundamental in establishing that—it should be a model, considered for application in other areas of public policy.
I want to say two things: one about context and one to reinforce what has already been said about the social security environment. To a large extent, the situation that we face has to be estimated using forecasts. I say up front that forecasts can be wrong and that things can change, but you do not have to be an economist to understand that the impact of inflation, lower exchange rates and things of that kind do not make things any easier.
Noble Lords will probably know that the bible for those who follow the arguments surrounding living standards is the Resolution Foundation’s Living Standards report, which comes out annually. It was produced earlier this month. The executive summary looked at the regressive nature of future income growth, which I agree is a real matter of concern. It would be out of order for me to go into living standards at any great length but let me, if I may, share with the House a quote from page 10 of the executive summary that caught my attention. In looking at differential growth across income distributions, the Resolution Foundation said:
“The result is that the parliament from 2015-16 to 2020-21 is on course to be the worst on record for income growth in the bottom half of the working age income distribution”.
It goes on to say that,
“we project the biggest rise in inequality since the 1980s, with inequality after housing costs reaching record highs by 2020-21”.
The context in which we are applying this Bill is not auspicious, and that has to be recognised and taken into account by the Government when they are coming to the costings.
I applaud my noble friend Lady Grender for her valuable work in straightening out the data. I never believed the figures, and the work she has done will bear fruit in the future. We should congratulate her on that.
It is not new, but noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me say that the £12 billion cut in social security that we will experience between now and 2020 will have a massive impact on the cohort of our population that might be subjected to the horrors of homelessness in the future. I want to mention five cuts, which are known to the House. The four-year freeze on most working-age benefit rates will save around £5.2 billion. That will have an impact on homelessness. The new two-child limit will save £1.1 billion. In big families, that will also have an impact on homelessness. Cuts to universal credit of £2.7 billion will have a direct impact on homelessness. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark mentioned the impact that universal credit can have, and there is the additional impact of the long waiting times before people can get the housing element of universal credit, which is currently causing such a problem. Cuts in employment and support allowance for the work-related activity group will save £0.4 billion. That will particularly affect those in our community who are disabled or incapacitated. Finally, the reduced household benefit cap will save £0.4 billion. These cuts are significant not just because of the money they will save but because of the impact they will have on the group of people we are discussing this morning.
I am also particularly worried about the tightening benefit cap, council tax increases and the effect of the local housing allowance. The noble Lord, Lord Best, is right: the private rented sector is a significant worry and we need to pay attention to it.
There will be regional variations in the application of this policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, was quite right to give us her experience of what is happening in Durham. Homelessness is not just a London problem. I know that the incidence is high in London, particularly around temporary accommodation. However, it affects the rest of the country, particularly low-income areas. In the future, local authorities will struggle to fund any sensible services.
I strongly support what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said about veterans. They are one of a number of specifically disadvantaged groups, and that includes those with mental illness more generally, which is a problem we are all struggling to face up to sensibly. I have mentioned families with a larger number of children, and some ethnic-minority communities have particular difficulties. Another group is young people in single households, whether they have had military experience or not. These are all particularly vulnerable cohorts of the population to which we should be giving time and special attention.
There are examples of good practice. Coming from where I do, the House might expect me to say, for example, that Scotland abolished the idea of priority housing need in 2012. A lot is going on also in Wales, where prevention ideas are being piloted in the new housing Act. I hope the Minister will accept the need to keep dialogue going across all the jurisdictions to make sure that best practice is shared and we all know what one another is doing. That ensures that there are no unintended consequences and is beneficial and positive.
As has been said, the long-term solution is obviously building better supply. It is astonishingly disappointing to me that we will be spending public money to the tune of £1 billion on discretionary housing payments. That is an enormous sum of money to shore up a system that is failing. The system is failing because there is no supply, particularly in relation to supported accommodation and social rented accommodation at affordable levels.
I have spent most of my public life looking at social security and social policy areas and there is one thing I am sure about. Low-income households are more robust and resilient than we imagine—the noble Lord, Lord Bird, is a good example of this perhaps. They can deal with a £5 cut here or there in innovative ways, but what they cannot do is survive homelessness—the family unit has nothing around which to build security and to develop. We all know that children learn to be poor and insecure by the time they are three—although the noble Lord, Lord Bird, survived until he was five. Addressing the needs of the homeless community is therefore a very serious issue. It is not only in their interests but in the national interest that we pass this Bill and get it on the statute book with all due speed.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register as a property owner and as a vice-chair of the Local Government Association. I thank Mr Blackman for enabling the Bill to come to the House and for seizing the opportunity available to him in the Commons. I also thank my noble friend Lord Best for introducing the Bill and taking it through this place. As a former director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and chair of a housing association, he obviously has so much experience in this area. His introduction today reminds me of how valuable this House is because of the depth of expertise of its Members in many areas.
I thank the Government for supporting the Bill today; in particular, for the £60 million in financial support and the review they have undertaken to carry out in the next two years to ensure that local authorities are not out of pocket as a result of the Bill. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, for drawing attention to the fact that the Government are also funding to the tune of £40 million their work on rough sleepers. The noble Baroness gave a very vivid example of why this Bill is so important. One can become callous. One sees people on the streets, day after day and year after year, and can take it for granted. The noble Baroness highlighted the fact that we are the fifth-richest nation in the world, with one of the highest levels of employment, yet we cannot get this right. I found what she said very helpful.
In the referendum last year, I was disappointed by the decision that was taken. But one of the very positive things that came out of it is a growing recognition that large sections and areas of this nation have been left behind and forgotten. I am grateful to the Government for recognising this and for taking these steps to ensure that the forgotten—those who have been left behind—are properly taken into account and for introducing measures to ensure that their needs will be better met in future.
I am particularly grateful for the impact the Bill will have on young, disadvantaged people, who are perhaps managing without a family. Let me give the example of a young person I met in December of last year. The Drive Forward Foundation is a charity which works with care leavers to help them into professions. A number of its ambassadors came to Parliament to meet with me and to discuss their experiences. I was introduced to a young black woman in her early 20s, about five foot tall, who had a disability. She had secured an apprenticeship in a City firm, at great sacrifice to herself because of the complexities of how things work with housing benefit. For many care leavers there is a disincentive to enter work because, as long as one is on benefit, one is fine. However, as soon as one starts getting an income one’s housing benefit drops and one has to perhaps seek a new home—as she did—in order to be in employment. She just managed to meet her rent each week and was eking out a living in order to do this apprenticeship which was important to her.
She had to lie to her landlord because, as we have heard, more and more private landlords do not wish to accept people on housing benefit. She did not tell him that she was on housing benefit but he found out and decided that she must go. I had an e-mail about a week after we had met to say that this young woman was about to become homeless and asking if I could do anything to help. Thankfully, through her own resourcefulness, she found another room.
I was also told that, as she was a care leaver, her local authority owed her certain duties. Her local authority said, “Wait until the bailiffs arrive and then we will come and help”. Her situation highlights the importance of the early intervention that the Bill offers. The last thing this young woman needs is to have to worry about her accommodation. By enabling early intervention to help people through the transition, the Bill will be a great help to disadvantaged young women like her who are ambitious to make a good job of their lives.
I have another request for the Minister. It would also be helpful to young men and women in her position if the Government were to respond to the requests in the Crisis campaign to ensure that, first, there is a proper mortgage guarantee for people entering private landlord accommodation; and, secondly, that help-to-rent supports both the private tenant and the landlord to give them confidence that things will progress well. There should be a mortgage guarantee and support for the tenant and landlord so that it becomes more attractive for private landlords to take on tenants such as this young woman.
Perhaps the Minister will write to me outlining what progress has been made in responding to the Crisis campaign in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has raised this matter in the past and I would be grateful if the Minister would write to me about it.
In closing, I say that I am grateful to Mr Blackman and my noble friend for bringing the Bill to this House and for the Government’s response. Listening today to broadcasts about the recent by-elections, I heard one woman say, when asked about her vote yesterday, “I feel forgotten. I do not think it matters which way I vote”. Another resident of Stoke-on-Trent said, “For 40 years nothing has been done here. I feel that no party has taken any interest in my area”. So I am therefore grateful that the Government are taking steps such as these to reach out to people who may have been left behind in the past. I wish the Bill a speedy journey to the statute book. I certainly will not seek to make any amendments to it.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, like all other noble Lords, I strongly support the Bill. It is wonderful that Bob Blackman MP should have got it through with all the amendments in the Commons. It is hugely to his credit and that of the Government that that happened. We are fortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Best, opened the debate today with an excellent speech. We need to congratulate the Government, as others have done, on supporting the Bill—and not only supporting it but supporting it with finance, which is probably the first time that that has happened in many generations.
I will draw the attention of the House to two vulnerable groups of people about whom nothing has been said so far this morning. They urgently need priority housing. I declare my interests as vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation and a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery. The first group consists of overseas trafficked victims who come to this country and go through the national referral mechanism. They have 45 days-plus of accommodation organised by the Salvation Army. They are looked after during that period. If they do not have conclusive grounds, they are rejected and after two days—after 48 hours—they have to leave the secure accommodation. If they are found by the national referral mechanism to be conclusively victims of trafficking in this county, they have to leave after two weeks and absolutely nothing is done for them unless one or other of the charities comes in to help them.
They are to be contrasted with asylum seekers, who have a number of rights. Many of them are pushed into the asylum process, which does not offer the sort of help that they need and which they begin to get by going through the national referral mechanism. They have no status and no rights, and many of them go on the streets. That is why I am referring to them today.
On the streets they may well be re-trafficked, with the women, and some men, going into prostitution in order to survive. This is a scandal as a national referral mechanism set up by government has identified them as victims of trafficking and identified that they have been slaves. Then they go missing. Speaking as a former lawyer, I say that this is a side-effect of some importance, because it is more difficult for the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to prosecute successfully to conviction because the victims do not have accommodation and the police cannot find them. That is the first group.
The second group consists of the British victims of slavery and trafficking. I do not know how many noble Lords know—I only learned recently—that soup kitchens are good places for traffickers to target those whom they wish to make slaves. In Westminster there is a soup kitchen which, as the Shadow City report of 2013 pointed out, has traffickers targeting it two or three times every night.
In 2008, the Swedish police sent seven dossiers on British people who were slaves in different parts of Sweden. This was particularly taken up in the Connors case. The Connors were a number of English Gypsies in Bedfordshire who I am glad to say are now serving long sentences of imprisonment. They picked up a number of English men at soup kitchens and took them to the north of Sweden. We are a source country, not just a country of destination or transit, for some reason particularly for workers on construction sites in Sweden. It was only because one of a group of Swedish slaves in northern Sweden managed to get to Stockholm and report this to the Swedish police that the police travelled 500 miles north, banged on the door of the caravan where a number of these men were locked in, got the door open and said to them, “Do you realise that you are slaves?”—because they did not. The reason I know about this incident is that I had been working with Frank Field MP and the then MP Sir John Randall on an inquiry for the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, and one of the victims from Sweden came and gave evidence to us. It is interesting to note that we are also a source country. We have homeless English people on the streets who are being targeted and find themselves becoming victims both in this country and abroad.
Hugely to his credit, the very active Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Kevin Hyland, commissioned a report from an NGO, The Passage, which reported in January this year. It made a large number of important recommendations, one of which was about awareness. A great many social workers have absolutely no idea that the people they see on the streets can be the victims of trafficking and slavery. But the consensus of the report was how enormously important it is to provide support of all sorts, including housing of course, for the victims of trafficking who are found on our streets. So there is a clear need for priority housing and free advice for these two groups of very vulnerable people.
An example of what can go wrong is mothers with children who are moving from one form of temporary accommodation to another or are indeed homeless. I learned about one mother who had had to move house and so had two children in school in one London borough and one child in school in another borough. That is not a helpful situation for someone who is a trafficked victim from overseas.
The Bill should, could and, I hope, will do something about these two groups. I am acutely aware that the noble Lord, Lord Best, does not want any amendments, much though I would like to put down an amendment to deal specifically with the victims of trafficking and modern slavery. But perhaps I may refer to Clause 2(2), which states:
“The service must be designed to meet the needs of persons in the authority’s district including, in particular, the needs of … any other group that the authority identify as being at particular risk of homelessness in the authority’s district”.
I hope and expect that the two groups about which I have spoken will be seen as coming under that provision.
It is interesting to note that in November last year, before the Bill came to this House, Bristol City Council recognised that there was a local authority responsibility to provide welfare support for the victims of trafficking and modern slavery in order to avoid breaching Articles 3 and 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as, I am glad to say, the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and the EU directive on human trafficking. I hope that the relevant national and local authorities will listen and that the Bill will help those two groups.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and to pay tribute to her work to stop human trafficking. I am the 12th speaker in the debate and I am pleased to note that the first 11 have all been strongly supportive of the Bill. I should remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The debate has demonstrated the wide expertise and experience in this House, which has been brought to the fore in the detail on the clauses of the Bill. It is a vitally important Bill and I too pay tribute to Bob Blackman MP, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the Government for their support, to the charities and the voluntary sector, and all those who have undertaken such an enormous amount of work to make this Bill what it is. It has benefited from a lot of scrutiny before it reached your Lordships’ House. That has come through in terms of the clarity with which the policy changes are proposed. The Bill rightly identifies the importance of extending more help to homeless single people, and seeks to do something practical about the problems caused by Section 21 notices.
We have heard a great deal about the large number of voluntary organisations that assist to ameliorate homelessness and I was particularly pleased to hear the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who mentioned Street Pastors. In the early hours of a Saturday morning a few weeks ago I accompanied the Street Pastors in Newcastle upon Tyne in order to meet those who were sleeping rough. Two things struck me. The first was that the rate of rough sleeping in the city was clearly rising, and the second was that a number of those who were sleeping rough had recently been discharged from prison. We heard earlier about those who have left the Armed Forces, and it should not be the case that people are discharged from an institution and have nowhere to go.
We have seen the impact of this problem both in the numbers of those sleeping rough and in the Government’s own homelessness figures, which show that in December there were nearly 75,000 households in temporary accommodation, including 125,000 children who were homeless at Christmas. Three-quarters of the households in temporary accommodation are in London, but it is a general problem nevertheless. I am particularly pleased that the Government have recognised this, and I pay tribute to the work that Ministers have been doing. It is hugely helpful to have a sense of common purpose on an issue as important as this.
Much has been said in the course of the debate about why homelessness is rising. My noble friend Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope and most other speakers identified the consequences of the reform of welfare, some of which were forecast, I have to say. It is clear that the welfare reforms have had an impact. We have not been building enough homes for social rent in this country. I think that the housing White Paper may help in that regard and I am pleased that the Government seem to have altered course. It is pretty evident to me and to most noble Lords that it is vital to build more homes which people can rent at a social rent, because otherwise it is very difficult to see how homelessness will be reduced.
Falling security for private tenants has been a factor as well. I was particularly concerned to hear during the debate that this may get more difficult unless the supply of homes increases. Of course, we have had the impact on supported housing. We heard from a number of speakers that it has made it more difficult for a number of voluntary organisations and housing associations to manage supported housing. This is a question that successive Governments have not faced up to: a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Housing pointed out that the Government are investing some £45 billion in housing up to 2020-21, but only £2 billion, or 4% of that, is for housing below market rent. There is a very big strategic issue here for the Government to address: subsidy is going into owner-occupation, which is understandable in many ways, but I believe that the Government have got the balance wrong. We need to give extra support to social rented housing.
Quite a lot has been said about the costs of homelessness. The issue for local government around the initial costs of prevention is clear and evident and will become more evident over the two years of monitoring. Can local authorities manage to fulfil the terms of the Bill? I very much hope that they do and they all need to try. Evidence from Wales shows that the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 has led to a 69% reduction in the number of households owed the main homeless duty. If figures of that scale can be produced it indicates that if the public sector invests properly we will save money later. I commend what has happened in Wales and I hope that, with the huge financial burden which is about to occur in London, for example, which has some three-quarters of homelessness, the investment will enable savings to be generated further down the line.
Very close monitoring is important. Crisis’s research is impressive and indicates that public spending could fall by around £370 million in England if 40,000 people were prevented from homelessness for one year. These are very large sums of public spending. I mentioned the importance of close monitoring of what happens over the next two years. A number of noble Lords talked about this. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, reminded us, in her closely argued case on statistics, that we have to understand the numbers. They have to be right or it is very difficult to draw conclusions. I pay tribute to her work on letting agents’ fees: that is equally helpful in assisting those, particularly in the private sector, having to move very frequently who have been confronted by regular payment of letting agents’ fees.
The contributions of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, stressed the importance of all councils engaging with the voluntary sector and brought together the issue of local working. It is vital that all public agencies work strongly together to deliver the solution that we all want. I have two or three very brief final comments. I was very struck when reading the Bill by the amount of written correspondence that there is going to be as local authorities are required to do more for individuals. That is essential. One consequence of that will be an increasing role for advocacy, and the voluntary sector may have a key role in helping. There will be a need for advocacy support in terms of personal planning, reading and writing letters for those who are disadvantaged. I very much hope that part of the monitoring will relate to how individuals are helped, because official procedures can be daunting.
The issue of co-ordination between the DWP and DCLG was mentioned several times. It is difficult when different Whitehall departments have different objectives. The noble Lord, Lord Best, reminded us that cuts to housing support can prevent the help that individuals need. I entirely support his call for the freeze on the local housing allowance to cease. I wish the Bill speedy progress through this House. It is not a solution on its own but it is part of the solution. I finish with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who said, “At last, there is a mechanism for embracing prevention”. I think those are probably the most important words we have heard in the last two hours, because the mechanism contained in the Bill will enable many other things to happen.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I preface my remarks by referring noble Lords to my interests in the register: I declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. We support the Bill and wish it safe passage through your Lordships’ House. The Opposition Front Bench will not be tabling any amendments and I urge all other noble Lords not to do so.
I very much agree with the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and I associate myself with them. She made important remarks about the data used by DCLG, which I fully endorse. I will look more closely at figures we get from the department on different areas in the future. I pay particular tribute to Crisis, which is the national charity for single homeless people and has supported and championed this legislation. It has worked hard to get the Bill to this point and is to be congratulated that in its 50th year of campaigning for single homeless people it is on the verge of bringing about a major positive change in the law. It is a campaigning organisation that works all year round as well as providing services to homeless people at Christmas. I also pay tribute to Bob Blackman MP for steering the Bill so ably through the House of Commons.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark highlighted the fantastic work undertaken across the diocese of Southwark by volunteers and voluntary organisations who work to combat the nightmare of homelessness, the physical and mental harm and the constant presence of danger and risk of violence that living on the street brings. The Bill before us today, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to refocus the efforts of local authorities on the prevention of homelessness. It carries new duties for local authorities to intervene at earlier stages to prevent homelessness and to take steps to secure accommodation for those who are homeless. I very much agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who spoke about the emphasis on prevention and the dramatic effect that can have.
Homelessness is something that no civilised society should have to put up with. It is very likely that noble Lords passed homeless people as they travelled to this noble House. They are outside every railway station in the vicinity: Charing Cross, Waterloo and Victoria. They are sleeping in Westminster tube station, near the entrance to the Palace. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, also referred to this. There are people sitting in doorways facing another cold night on the streets, and this has not been the coldest winter we have experienced in recent years. The situation is truly appalling. It is a national disgrace and a personal tragedy for the people who are homeless that we have arrived at this situation.
The situation has got worse since 2010 and the blame for that lies squarely at the Government’s door. According to the Office for National Statistics, local authorities accepted that 14,930 households had been statutorily homeless between 1 July and 3 September 2016. The ONS also reported that the total number of households in temporary accommodation as of 30 September 2016 was 74,630, a 55% increase from the figure of 48,010 on 31 December 2010—a record the Government should be truly ashamed of.
My noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top referred to the welcome measures in the Bill. The new duties in the Bill that will become the responsibility of local authorities include: an extended period in which an applicant is to be treated as homeless, increasing from 28 to 56 days; strengthened advice and information obligations on housing authorities to prevent homelessness; and a new duty to assess and agree a personalised plan, which will require a local authority to carry out an assessment of the applicant’s case. The prevention duty will require local authorities to ensure that suitable accommodation does not cease to be available to applicants who are threatened with homelessness. Further, the relief duty requires local authorities to help secure accommodation for all applicants who the authority is satisfied are homeless and eligible for assistance.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made a powerful plea to help veterans who have found themselves homeless after service to their country in some of the most difficult and challenging circumstances imaginable. The specific provisions in the Bill are most welcome in that respect. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made telling points about the plight of care leavers and I agree wholeheartedly with his comments. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, told the House about the particular plight of people who have been trafficked and have no rights or status and often find themselves on the streets, as well as the risk of British people being taken into slavery after being targeted at soup kitchens. I was not aware that we had become a source of slaves for other countries. That is a truly shocking revelation.
There are problems with the Bill and, of course, they start with the funding. Originally, the funding announced was £48 million, which was allocated on the basis of £38 million in the next financial year and the remainder the following year, and from then on nothing at all—not a penny provided to local authorities. As a result of amendments passed in the Commons, a further £13 million has been allocated to cover the additional new duties. It is important to note that the new money goes with new responsibilities. There has been no increase in the original sum of money to fund the items in the Bill before it was amended. This sum of money is just not enough to fund the new duties that will be placed on local authorities. Local authorities need to be fully funded to provide what will be required of them. London Councils, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark referred to, estimates that in the next financial year £77 million will be spent by local authorities in delivering this new duty in London alone. That is £16 million more in one year than the entire funding so far provided by the Government for England and Wales for two years. We risk a serious funding crisis.
I am aware of the commitments given in the other place by Marcus Jones MP that the legislation will be reviewed within two years. I welcome that and ask the Minister to repeat that assurance in the House today. But I go further and ask the Minister to tell us when the review will happen within the two years. What happens if after only a few months it becomes clear that the Government’s own figures—their allocation of resources—are woefully inadequate? What urgency are the Government going to place on this review to establish what the real costs are and what funding is really needed? These are serious matters, dealing with vulnerable people. Let us be clear: in itself, legislation will not significantly reduce homelessness if it is not properly funded. Without that being addressed, we run the risk of unlawful decisions; repeat homelessness, with damaging consequences for children and families; and a lack of meaningful outcomes for single people at the end of the process. That is good for no one.
The Bill and its possible effects must also be considered in a much broader picture. The fact is that budget reductions in a whole range of areas have an effect here and you cannot change the law in just one area and hope to solve the problem. Let us take local housing allowance as an example. If the freeze in local housing allowance continues until 2020, councils will struggle to pay rents for the cheapest properties in 80% of local authority areas. The noble Lord, Lord Best, set out the problems here and called for the Government to take action; otherwise, the problem will get worse. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester made important remarks concerning the housing supply and housing costs. I agree with him that this well-intentioned Bill must not be allowed to fail due to policy differences in other parts of government. A much wider effort is needed to tackle homelessness across a range of services, properly joined up to deliver the changes we all want to see. To date, we are not seeing that from the Government and that is what they need to focus on to tackle the horror of homelessness.
Looking at the Housing and Planning Act 2016—a truly awful piece of legislation from the Government—the forced sale of high-value council homes is only going to make trying to deal with homelessness more difficult. I support people wanting to own their own home but the ham-fisted measures in that Act are at odds with the aims of this Bill. Those include: the obsession with starter homes; the lack of support for local authorities to build more council homes; and the other obsession, the unaffordable “affordable rent model”, when we should be delivering more social housing. That is the key to a lot of our problems but the Government just do not want to go there. We need an increased supply of housing, especially social housing, with a long-term objective of reducing housing benefit expenditure. But the freezing of local housing allowance by the DWP risks undermining a policy and a measure put forward by the DCLG. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, made telling points about the growth of income inequality. He also referred to cuts to various benefits and the effect they have on homelessness. I agree wholeheartedly with his comments. This is not an example of good government or joined-up thinking. It is an example of a Government using money to alleviate the homelessness they have created.
Homelessness should be eradicated in one of the richest countries on the planet. It can be done and it should be done, but it will not be achieved by the passing of this Bill alone. It is a well-intentioned piece of legislation, which can make a real, positive contribution to ending homelessness, but it will be truly effective only as part of a much wider approach to tackling the problem that cuts across government and is seen as a priority for the Government to deliver on. I hope the Government are going to do that and for that to happen there will need to be a raft of other changes across numerous government departments. I wish the Bill well. It is an important first step. As I said at the start of my remarks, I want the Bill to become law. To assist in that, the Opposition Front Bench will not table any amendments and I urge all noble Lords to do the same. In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his sponsorship of the Bill and look forward to it becoming law in the next few weeks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this Second Reading. I give a strong thank you to my honourable friend Bob Blackman, who has done sterling work in the other place; as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, his has been an extraordinary success, not just in steering the Bill through the Commons but in achieving what he has in financial terms. Notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, suggested about the Bill coming without money, it has come with a significant amount of it. I congratulate my honourable friend on what he has achieved and thank him for being here today—it is good to see him.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for giving a masterful exposition of the position in opening the debate on the Bill. He gave the unanswerable case for it, which I think all noble Lords have accepted without exception. I thank noble Lords for stating that they do not want to see any amendments coming forward, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who is opposite. I am very grateful as this is the way to ensure that this becomes law, which is what we all want.
This debate has shown the House of Lords at its best and made an unanswerable case for it, with all corners of the House and all political parties coming together for the common good. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, made the point very movingly about the things that unite us, so in addition to the political parties we have had the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Southwark and the Bishop of Rochester, and then, speaking on behalf of the armed services and others, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. There was then a powerful speech from somebody who really understands this area because he has lived it in a way that the rest of us have not: the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who has vast experience and wisdom on this area from the Big Issue and many other aspects.
From the legal perspective, we heard from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and from a ministerial perspective, the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, spoke of when she was in charge of exclusion policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, of course led Shelter and my noble friend Lady Manzoor has vast experience in law and health. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, spoke of his experience in the other place and of private Members’ legislation. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has, I know, vast experience and wisdom in this area. I am very grateful for the support that my Front-Bench colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy, bring to the task of ensuring that the Bill gets on to the statute book.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, opened with a helpful overview of the Bill and why it is needed. As I say, I thank him for sponsoring such important and much-needed legislation, which is clearly supported by all parts of this House. I am proud that the Government have given their full support to the Bill. I say this tentatively now in view of what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said, but I believe that the number of statutory homeless acceptances is down from its peak in 2003. I will write to her, if I may, in relation to the data issue, copy that to all noble Lords who participated in the debate and put a copy in the Library. I could not agree more that we can operate as an evidenced-based Government only on the basis of reliable data. That is certainly what we want to do.
Mention has also been made of the role of other groups. Faith groups were mentioned, quite rightly, by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, who I know has taken a lead on this in the Church and done much in relation to homelessness shelters. On a recent visit to Peterborough, I was pleased to meet some of those providing support as part of the network he referred to. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark also spoke, for example, of his experience of what is happening in Wandsworth and Croydon. I thank them because, whatever happens today, there is always a role for faith and voluntary organisations to come together. They are trusted, familial and responsive. They are a vital part of the fabric and mosaic in this area.
This important legislation will reform the support offered to everyone at risk of homelessness. People need a roof over their heads, a phrase which I think was used by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about this basic human need. Local housing authorities will have a duty to provide support to all those affected, not just those covered under existing legislation. Services will focus on intervening earlier and working with people before they reach a crisis point. People facing a homelessness crisis will get quicker help to resolve it.
I particularly draw your Lordships’ attention to Clause 2, which was referred to elliptically and once or twice directly during the debate. This clause and its new section extend the duty on local housing authorities to provide or secure the provision of free advisory services. Services must be designed to meet the needs of particular groups including: in new subsection (2)(b), care leavers, who were mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and, in new subsection (2)(a), ex-offenders—I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who referred to people coming out of prison and youth detention. Victims of domestic abuse, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Manzoor, are referred to in new subsection (2)(d), as are those leaving the Armed Forces, who were mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and others, in new subsection (2)(c).
On the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I got the answer ready as she was going through her speech; she then presented the answer in reference to new subsection (2)(g). I agree that that subsection at the end of the new section should encompass the cases of overseas trafficked victims and victims of modern slavery. I would like to pick up that point in a letter, if I may. I will have a general letter to noble Lords who participated in the debate to pick up the various points made and any that I might miss—although I hope I do not.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, spoke of the new duty to prevent homelessness, which requires local housing authorities to help eligible applicants who are likely to become homeless within 56 days. This doubles the prevention period set out in existing legislation and, for those who are already homeless, the relief duty means that local housing authorities will work with them for up to 56 days helping them to relieve their homelessness, regardless of whether they are in priority need. These are essential sections—or clauses—of the Bill and demonstrate the potential that it holds to change the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, and he was echoed by others, the collaborative spirit in which the Bill has been taken forward is unique. I would like to share some detail on the positive outcomes that have been achieved through that approach. When the draft Bill was first published, the DCLG Select Committee and local authorities highlighted some areas of concern about the cost and burden on local housing authorities. Many of them were addressed in the Bill when it was introduced—for instance, removing the requirement to provide 56 days’ emergency accommodation for anyone who needs it, which was thought to be unworkable. The Government remain committed to helping those sleeping rough through our £50 million homelessness prevention programme and, in particular, the £20 million rough sleeping prevention fund, which was referred to by many noble Lords during the course of the debate.
This approach allowed the Government to support the Bill from an early stage and, critically, it ensured that local authorities are now supportive of the Bill. The collaboration has continued throughout the Bill’s passage in the other place with close engagement between my honourable friend Bob Blackman, the Government and other key stakeholders. Crisis was quite rightly praised for its role in relation to this legislation.
Mentioning Crisis leads me to say in relation to point made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about Crisis, financial support and security that I will write him into the write-round letter so that that point is covered.
The importance of voluntary organisations, as well as faith bodies and the third sector, in support was mentioned. I shall not go through the list, other than mentioning Crisis, because it has played a special part in this legislation, but there are manifold examples up and down the country of local support from voluntary organisations, as well as the bigger names, if I can call them that, which do sterling work across the sector. I know we are all very grateful for what they help us to achieve and for tackling the scourge which this legislation will help with.
Groups representing landlords and local government were concerned about Clause 1. It tackles the bad practice whereby some local housing authorities—certainly not all of them—advise tenants facing eviction to remain in properties until the bailiffs arrive, which is clearly bad advice. Landlords were concerned that flexibility included in the original drafting could be misused by some local housing authorities to delay their obligations to help tenants. They and the LGA were concerned that the clause was too complex and could be misinterpreted.
The Government and Bob Blackman worked with landlord groups, the LGA and homeless charities to simplify the clause, while retaining the core principle that any applicant with a valid Section 21 notice that expires in 56 days or fewer is to be treated as threatened with homelessness. This should ensure that valuable opportunities to prevent homelessness are not lost and that households are more likely to get the help they need at the right time. We have also committed to working closely with stakeholders on the guidance around this clause and, indeed, all clauses in the Bill. Alongside this we will work with stakeholders to improve our understanding of the scale and nature of the issue and use that evidence to consider whether further action should be taken.
Clause 7 contains provisions to incentivise applicants to co-operate with their local housing authority and allows the prevention and relief duties to be ended where an applicant deliberately and unreasonably refuses to co-operate with steps in their personal plan. Following discussions, this clause was amended to remove wording that presented a wider formulation of the circumstances in which a notice could be given. This ensures that the bar is set suitably high and does not disadvantage vulnerable applicants who may find it difficult to engage with services in the usual ways.
To ensure the Bill contains the right incentives, Clause 7 was also amended to ensure that where an applicant refuses a suitable offer of accommodation at the relief stage, the relief duty will end and the applicant will not progress to the main homelessness duty. However, alongside this change further amendments were made to safeguard the protections for those with a priority need, including requirements and checks for the accommodation offer and a right to review the suitability of the offer. Where an applicant requests a review of the suitability of the accommodation they have been offered, in circumstances where the main duty does not subsequently apply, the duty to provide interim accommodation will continue until the applicant has been informed of the review outcome. As noble Lords will appreciate, this has been quite a complex issue to work through, but through active and constructive engagement Clause 7 now provides the right balance between incentives and safeguards.
Finally on changes to the Bill, during the Committee in the other place’s consideration of its detail, Members raised concerns about Clause 12, which extends the requirement to carry out additional checks to ensure that property secured with a private landlord under the new prevention and relief duties is in reasonable physical condition, safe and well-managed. As drafted, this protection was not extended to certain categories of those in priority need, including families with dependent children or pregnant women. In response, the Government amended the clause to cover all those with a priority need.
Turning to matters raised today, noble Lords asked valid questions about funding for local housing authorities. Let me repeat the commitment made by the Minister for Local Government, Marcus Jones, in the other place: the Government will provide funding of £61 million to local government to meet the new burdens costs associated with the Bill in this spending review period. We will also work closely with the LGA to develop a fair distribution model for the funding, reflecting the different need in different areas and the additional pressures and costs faced by councils in areas such as London. The final new burdens assessment will be published once this distribution formula is agreed and the Bill has completed its passage through both Houses.
The Minister for Local Government, my honourable friend Marcus Jones, also committed the Government to reviewing the implementation of the Bill, including its resourcing and how it is working in practice, concluding no later than two years after commencement of the substantive clauses of the Bill. I gladly repeat that commitment. In relation to Private Members’ Bills, I think these provisions are unique. Bob Blackman has done extremely well in negotiating them and they take us forward in an agreed away. I hope this provides assurance to noble Lords who have spoken today about the costs of the Bill and its implementation.
Noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bird, also talked about the underlying causes of homelessness and the importance of preventing it at a very early stage. That indicates how this is very much a cross-government issue. It is not confined to DCLG, as noble Lords reflected in contributions. It is far more wide-ranging than that. The Bill will certainly make a considerable difference, but nobody, including those participating today, believes that this is a silver bullet that will completely crack the issue of homelessness in our society, which is something all of us in such a wealthy country share responsibility for.
The Bill will reform the support offered to people facing the threat of homelessness or already at crisis point. The Government are also responding through the housing White Paper published by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 7 February. Key matters are out for consultation until 2 May, as noble Lords will be aware. The importance of the White Paper was mentioned by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Best, in opening. In it, the Government acknowledge that the pace of housebuilding has been too slow for decades—this is not a problem that suddenly happened but one for which we all share responsibility—creating a housing market that is failing too many. When I say housing market, this is not just about purchase of houses, as the housing White Paper makes absolutely clear. There is a range of measures, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, correctly said: self-build, custom build, an emphasis on rental which did not exist previously, the need for council house building and so on. There are many weapons in the armoury to tackle the scourge of homelessness and we should not shun any one of them. As I say, I encourage noble Lords and others, through this debate, to participate in the open consultation.
As I say, the White Paper includes a number of measures that address homelessness. We are working with the British Property Federation and National Housing Federation to ensure that family-friendly tenancies of three years or more are made available, which is important. We will consult ahead of bringing forward legislation to ban letting-agent fees to tenants, which will reduce up-front costs. I pay tribute to the pioneering work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, which exemplifies the importance of looking at what is happening in the rest of our country and learning from the devolved Administrations. Reference has already been made to Wales, and to Scotland in the case of letting fees. Within the department I have set up a forum which looks at devolved issues and in which representatives of all four parts of the country discuss issues. I will try to ensure that this is on the next agenda, although it is for Northern Ireland to put it together, as we have already had one meeting here in London. It is important to learn from devolved areas and to share our experiences as well, of course.
In implementing the Bill, the Government will also take the opportunity to learn from our existing programmes, particularly as we review and update the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, working with local housing authorities and others with the appropriate interest and expertise. The Government are committed to building up evidence and good practice through our £50 million homelessness prevention programme, which I have already mentioned. We are supporting 84 projects across all regions of England, to ensure that more people have tailored support to avoid becoming homeless in the first place and receive the rapid support they need to make a sustainable recovery from homelessness.
I referred to the need for all Governments to work across departments. Reference has been made to the Ministry of Defence and its success with the military covenant, which has certainly helped here. Noble Lords also raised concerns about the impact of the Government’s DWP-led welfare reforms. I will perhaps cover some of the detail of that by writing round, but will take up some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, about the local housing allowance policy and supported housing. We are of course ensuring that supported housing is not affected until I think April 2019 and then looking at a new funding model. I am very happy to offer to engage with the noble Baroness on this—I know we have previously had meetings on housing. I will try to pick up some of the points about social investment bonds and so on in the write-round letter. It is a point well made, and I am not disputing the importance of ensuring that if one government department does something, we are all marching in the same direction. That is entirely fair.
There are many reasons for homelessness, as I said earlier, and housing itself is only part of the solution. That is why I am pleased the Government are giving their full support to the Bill, because it is part of the solution. This important legislation rightly puts the focus on prevention and on working with people before they face a crisis. I apologise for mentioning the very old cliché that prevention is always better than cure, but it is a point that has been widely shared across the Chamber.
I think the noble Lord opposite is keen to get in, and I will finish by repeating my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for sponsoring this legislation so effectively and thanking the many organisations that have contributed to its scrutiny and improvement. I also thank my honourable friend Bob Blackman in the other place for seizing this opportunity with his Private Member’s Bill, and for doing such unique and pioneering work on an issue on which I think the whole country is in agreement. I certainly believe the House of Lords is. On behalf of the Government, I give their support to the Bill and discourage any noble Lord from putting down amendments.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the Minister. I did not want to intervene but on his second point, I want to be absolutely clear that I did not say the Bill comes with no money. I said it does not come with enough money. I based that on the figures from London Councils and contrasted those with the Government’s funding today. I refer the Minister to the Hansard report of today’s debate.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that. The point I was seeking to make, although perhaps I did not make it as elegantly as I might have done, is that this situation is unique in terms of private Member’s legislation coming with any government money at all. I know the noble Lord welcomes that; equally, I understand that, speaking as he did as the 13th speaker, his welcome for it was perhaps always going to be muted. I accept his cry, which I suppose is usual from all opposition parties, of, “Let’s have some more money”.
Lord Best
My Lords, I think I get two minutes to say a few closing words. I thank my colleagues all around the House for 14 enthusiastic and supportive speeches that are deeply appreciated, especially with the harsh discipline of no one being able to put down any amendments, for which I am deeply grateful as we must get this legislation through. I am especially grateful to the Front Benches.
Special thanks go to the Minister for his summing up, which has covered all the ground we have covered and has therefore saved me doing that. Having been a Minister for one day, so to speak, in handling this Private Member’s Bill, I have to say that Ministers have to work incredibly hard. Yesterday the Minister was being very helpful to me with an amendment on the Neighbourhood Planning Bill, and we are all going to be discussing the White Paper with him next Thursday. In handling this Bill I have also discovered that the civil servants do an incredible job, far more than one realises up front, and I am deeply grateful to them. The real credit for the Bill, though, goes to Bob Blackman in the other place, who has had God knows how many meetings with all the different factions and elements in this field and managed to hold things together, with helpful support from the Government.
We have come to the end of the road here. With grateful thanks to all the participants and to Crisis, which started the process and saw it through to the end, it remains only for me to say that I beg to move that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill
Friday 24th February 2017
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Act 2017 View all Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 3 February 2017 - (3 Feb 2017)
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure and privilege to be asked to sponsor this Private Member’s Bill, which was so ably introduced and taken through the other place by Kevin Foster, MP for Torbay. I thank the DCMS staff for their helpful briefing when passing on responsibility for its passage through the House to me. The Bill completed its stages in the House of Commons without amendment, and enjoys government and indeed cross-party support. Broadcasting is a reserved matter and therefore the Bill relates to the whole UK.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable community radio stations and small commercial services in the UK to broadcast on the digital audio platform. It creates powers to modify the current regulatory framework in the Broadcasting Act 1996 for the licensing of radio multiplex services, thereby creating a new lighter-touch framework appropriate for the licensing of small-scale digital radio multiplexes. Each week 90% of adults in the UK listen to the radio—about 1 billion hours of listening in total, 45.2% of which is accessed through digital radio. This proportion is steadily increasing, and is expected to overtake analogue as the default listening mode in the near future.
I should perhaps dwell a little on the technical aspects of digital radio. The principle of digital is that the audio signal is converted to a digital format, compressed at the point of broadcasting into a single radio frequency and then decoded by the listener’s digital receiver. Digital radio uses radio spectrum more efficiently than analogue, allowing more radio services to be delivered to listeners. All digital radio services in the UK are broadcast on multiplexes, a term that relates to the infrastructure for transmitting digital signals. These are licensed by Ofcom, and licences are currently awarded for either national or local, county-sized coverage.
In the UK, national digital radio stations broadcast by the BBC and commercial radio are transmitted on three national multiplexes. There are currently 200 smaller commercial radio stations and 244 community radio stations still transmitting on FM and MW analogue frequencies, because of the cost and capacity constraints on existing county-sized local digital radio multiplexes. Many of these smaller community and commercial radio stations have indicated that they would like the option of broadcasting on a terrestrial digital radio platform—known as DAB—to their local area if a practical, cost-effective solution were available. It is this problem that the Bill is intended to address by introducing a power to create an appropriate legal framework for a third tier in the system of radio multiplexes: new, small-scale radio multiplexes for sub-county level transmission.
Ofcom has recently completed a two-year programme of work, which has successfully tested the technology to enable small-scale DAB broadcasting and which also suggested that there was sufficient spectrum to license at least one small-scale multiplex in most areas of the country. Ofcom’s work includes 10 trials of small-scale multiplexes in towns and cities, with 70 small commercial and community radio stations now broadcasting on digital for the first time. Based on these trials, Ofcom has concluded that there is demand from smaller radio stations for small-scale DAB multiplexes and that the wider rollout of additional small-scale services is possible.
The Bill is all about giving small radio stations a choice to broadcast on digital. It is not about mandating such a move. It would be a real opportunity missed to provide such stations with a low-cost option for broadcasting on digital if the Bill did not proceed. I recommend the Bill to your Lordships; I thank you all for staying for this Friday sitting; and I look forward to your speeches and the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I apologise that I did not appreciate that the Bill was coming before your Lordships until the last minute, and it is for that reason that I do not have my name on the speakers list.
I have a long-standing interest, particularly in the technical aspects of local broadcasting. I therefore warmly support the Bill and very much hope that it will soon find its way on to the statute book.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, we are in a slightly unusual situation because the fine introduction to the Bill by the noble Baroness has covered a lot of the ground. I reassure her from the start—she may be new to this business, and it may be a bit complicated—that my questions will not be directed at her specifically, although they would normally be to the sponsor of the Bill, because I think that they are for the Government to answer. In saying that, I am also aware that some of them raise issues that probably need correspondence rather than an answer at the Dispatch Box today, because they are not necessarily germane to the substance of the Bill.
Secondly, I reassure the noble Baroness that she was right to say that there was cross-party support for the Bill: we support it and will be anxious to ensure that it goes forward. As she may have hinted, the Bill will only make progress if we are disciplined enough not to make any amendments at any point in the process. So the only way we can explore it is by just asking questions and getting something on the record which might be helpful to those who have got to implement the Bill and to those who will be hoping to use the benefits that may flow from it.
We have had the technical background to and rationale for the Bill. We all understand what is happening here and welcome it. It is about extending further the digital audio broadcasting—DAB—system. That raises the question of when we are going to get to switchover. This is an issue for which I am sure the answer will be either “shortly” or “not shortly”, as that is now the way we have to do these things. However, I would be grateful if the Minister, when she comes to respond, would shed some light about where we are going. I understood that it was largely dependent on the number of cars sold, because new cars now seem to be fully equipped with digital audio broadcasting. This is all very well in most places, except it has a very unfortunate squeaky noise when you come to a point where you cannot get the signal. Otherwise, it is much better than FM and I am sure we will all welcome it when it happens. However, we need some government action on this. We need a date and a transition plan, and it needs to be clearly signalled so that we can all get behind it.
My second general point is not really for comment. I always get a bit nervous when I see in a Bill, or in correspondence from Ministers, that they are proposing “lighter-touch” regulation or licensing. I am not quite sure what that means. Who is wielding the stick on this occasion? To whom is it being administered and what force is being applied? These questions are all left skulking in the background. I think what it means in principle is that there is going to be a regulatory framework but it will be responsive to the purposes of the introduction of this new form of broadcasting—which, as I understand it, is primarily to assist with having more community-based radio services on a smaller scale and having wider coverage. The licensing regime for that should, therefore, be appropriately scaled down and I welcome that.
The helpful Explanatory Notes prepared by the department in support of this Private Member’s Bill indicates that we have currently got about 200 smaller commercial radio stations and 244 community ones, transmitting mainly on FM and medium wave, which do not have the opportunity to switch over to DAB or DAB+. In context, this is a relatively recent phenomenon. I have not seen much reporting of it and I could not find anything when I was trying to prepare for this speech. It would be useful if the Government could write to us at some point with some background detail—it does not have to be immediately. This is an interesting area of development in radio; it represents innovation and, sometimes, a distinctive voice which is not often there. If the Bill is about anything, it is about plurality of voices at a relatively modest and local scale. It would be interesting to have a record of what the department has made of that and the figures on it. It would be great if that were possible.
I have two specific questions on the Bill. Ofcom took advantage of an interesting technological development to take up this proposal and ran some trials across the country. I think I am right in saying that these were mainly in cities, so we do not really know yet whether the system is going to have any uptake in rural areas, which would be a good thing in terms of providing an additional service and more voices. I would be grateful if we could learn a bit more about the trials themselves—in writing if it is not possible to do it today. Am I right in saying that they were largely city based, and therefore is it right to conclude that this is going to be a largely city-based phenomenon? There is nothing wrong with that, but it would be interesting to know what the intentions were for this when it sets off.
Finally, there is a carefully worded phrase in the Ofcom briefing for the Bill which states:
“Ofcom’s wider spectrum planning work suggests that it should be possible to provide a small scale DAB multiplex in most areas (however this work is ongoing)”.
I have heard of qualifying statements: this has got about six conditional clauses and sub-clauses in it. Is it possible to throw a little light on whether that spectrum planning has progressed? Is it likely that it will be possible to provide small-scale DAB multiplexes in most areas? If so, what further work is required? That would also be helpful—but, again, it does not have to be today; it could be in writing.
The responses of other people to the Bill fall broadly into two camps. One is the professional independent operators of radio. They have, probably inevitably, raised the question about a provision in the Bill that would prohibit anyone with an interest in a national or local radio multiplex being involved in this development. The question is not unexpected but it is interesting, given that the intention behind the prohibition is presumably to try to restrict the uptake of this type of broadcasting to a particular group, mainly those involved in community radio, and therefore to non-commercial bodies. Therefore, it seems right that there should be a block on the acquisition of these licences by those who already have national or local radio positions.
If, after a few months or even years, there is still no uptake in an area which has the local radio multiplex capacity, will that barrier be permanent? It would be a pity not to have spectrum available that could be used for services. I think this raises a policy issue rather than a matter arising in the Bill, but I hope that the Minister will respond to that point. Will there always be a block on the use of this spectrum in the hope that someone is going to turn up, or might alternative proposals be made in that area?
As I understand it, the Bill is intended to promote community radio activities. The Bill does not specify—and it may not need to—whether these community services are to be commercial or non-commercial, although I think the assumption is made that most community operations, given that they will have some costs associated with equipping and running an operation of this nature, will probably be non-commercial or have sponsorship or be funded in some other way. The question from the Radiocentre—and therefore a commercial interest—is about whether this is really a bar on commercial activity in this area or whether the prevention is intended to encourage non-commercial activity. There is a slight subtlety there. If the Minister is able to respond to that, it would be helpful, but the Bill is relatively clear on it.
The Community Media Association, the body most interested in developing this area, raises a couple of points. There is the usual worry that the draftsman has presumably required those who are responsible for the Bill to use “may” instead of “must” in certain areas. The confusion, as always, is on the question of whether by providing a “may” provision, one is implying that it is permissive: in other words, that those responsible for exercising the power have that option to do it and it is not that they will not do it. In other words, it is not “may not” that is excluded, it is possible that they may do it. The reason for putting “may” rather than “must” is that it is not a requirement; it is just what is expected to happen. The question that is raised by the Community Media Association is whether, if the provision is that by order services may be required to operate on a non-commercial basis, should that in practice turn out not to be sufficient, is there a provision or power available which would exclude commercial services if those services were proving to be too difficult in terms of competition or for other reasons?
The Bill does not limit the number of small-scale radio multiplex services that any one person can hold, which leaves open the possibility, although I think it is rather remote, that a level of concentration is built up whereby people pick up licences right across the country. I do not think that much further work is needed on this matter because I think the intentions are very clear. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could say on the record that the intention behind that is to make sure that these licences are not subject to group purchase, that large numbers of them will not be bought up by people, and that the intention is that purchase should be licence by licence going forward.
This is a very interesting development which could be of huge benefit to smaller communities and groups right across the country. It would be sad if it were not extended to rural areas. However, I recognise that technically and organisationally that may be problematic. I wish the Bill well and hope that it will be successful in getting through its stages.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I first take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lady Bloomfield for introducing the Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex) Services Bill before your Lordships’ House. I also pay tribute to my honourable friend in another place, Kevin Foster, MP for Torbay, who worked so hard to make the Bill happen.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, straightaway —and as a lawyer—that this is indeed absolutely light-touch. The whole purpose is to be light-touch so that we do not put people off taking the opportunities that the Bill will present. I like his reference to the plurality of voices. The plurality of voices and content is absolutely critical, and the Bill will enable that to be supported.
The Government support the Bill because its objective is to create an appropriate framework for licensing the transmission of digital radio on a small scale. At present, many small local and community radio stations do not have a viable option of broadcasting on digital. The Bill will enable the creation of a tier of small-scale digital networks and address that issue.
Radio continues to be a popular medium. The latest industry figures indicate that 90% of adults in the UK listen to radio each week for an average of 21.5 hours, consuming in total over 1 billion hours every week. Although radio’s popularity has been stable over recent years, it is changing. Listening on digital radio continues to grow steadily and is declining on analogue. Currently, digital radio’s share is 45.2% of all radio listening, and 57% of homes own a DAB radio. The radio industry expects that this long-term shift in listeners’ habits will continue, which means that digital will overtake analogue as the default listening mode in the near future.
Noble Lords have made some important points about the key role played by their local radio stations—small commercial and community radio stations—in continuing to provide an important means of informing and engaging with their communities as well as providing entertaining, popular and lively programming. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for all the work he has done over the years in connection with this and I appreciate his support for the Bill. The Government also recognise the important role that smaller stations play in supporting the local communities they serve, and the importance of transmission in rural areas, which is indeed very much in the minds of those who have developed the Bill.
Before I move on to the Bill, it may be helpful if I provide noble Lords with more background about the characteristics of digital radio and digital radio transmission services. There are three “layers” of commercial and independent radio in the UK—national, local and community radio stations—and the BBC provides its own national and local radio services. On digital, three national multiplexes transmit national services: Digital One and Sound Digital, which are operated by commercial radio, and the BBC’s National DAB service, which currently broadcast between 10 and 19 stations each. These national services are available to up to 97% of the UK population in the case of the most extensive network. There are also 55 local commercial digital—DAB—multiplexes, which transmit local radio services, covering approximately county-sized areas. Each local multiplex broadcasts up to 14 commercial radio stations, as well the relevant BBC local station for the area. As a result of the programme to upgrade and expand this local tier, around 90% of UK households should be able to receive a local multiplex.
However, there are currently around 200 smaller commercial radio stations—covering small markets—and 244 community radio stations transmitting on mainly FM and MW analogue frequencies which are not broadcasting on digital radio. This is due to a combination of factors. There is insufficient capacity available on some of the 55 county-sized local DAB multiplexes across the UK, especially those serving urban areas. The costs of carriage on these networks can often be too high for many small local stations. Some of the costs are due to larger stations needing and wanting active monitoring, high-quality service standards and the provision of backup equipment to maintain broadcasting of services. Also, multiplex coverage area provided by county-level local DAB multiplexes may be too large for smaller stations compared to their own “core” FM transmission areas. But these smaller stations are concerned that they may lose prominence with local audiences and advertisers as digital radio listening increasingly becomes the default. The majority would like more options for broadcasting digitally and to have the option to broadcast on a terrestrial DAB platform to the localities they currently serve if a practical solution were available and if it could be done in a cost-effective way.
That brings us to the small-scale DAB trial led by Ofcom. Ofcom has been at the forefront of the development of a brand new approach to small-scale DAB transmission using open-source software to multiplex and encode signals and to distribute programme content in a much more cost-effective way. This opens the way for small stations to have alternative options to be carried on terrestrial DAB for the first time.
In December 2013, following a successful pilot in the Brighton area, the DCMS announced funding for two years—from April 2014 to March 2016—for a programme of work by Ofcom to examine the potential of the new software in real-life trials. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, wanted more information on this. The programme of work by Ofcom looked at spectrum planning issues, technology testing, small-scale network design and options for licensing small-scale DAB multiplexes. As the main part of the programme, Ofcom licensed 10 technical field trials of small-scale DAB multiplexes in cities and towns across the country. These trials were designed to test the viability of small-scale DAB technology and eventually involved more than 100 small commercial and community radio stations, including some new services, broadcasting on terrestrial DAB for the first time.
Ofcom published a technical evaluation of the trials in September 2016. The report concludes that the trials were generally highly successful and achieved their three objectives. The trials showed that the small-scale approach to DAB transmission is technically sound, and they helped Ofcom, those involved in the trials and the wider industry to understand the practical requirements for successfully sustaining DAB radio transmissions using the small-scale approach. I know that the noble Lord was concerned about the possibility of this being extended to urban areas. Although the trials were run mainly in urban areas, we are reassured that the technology would work equally well in rural areas. Indeed, the areas to be served by small-scale multiplexes are likely to be wider in rural areas which are not currently covered by local multiplexes, such as Cumbria.
The work by Ofcom has shown that small-scale mini-multiplexes work and that they can lower the cost barrier for smaller stations to broadcast on a terrestrial DAB platform. They open up a pathway for these types of radio services to transmit to small geographic areas, as they currently do on FM and AM. Ofcom also considered spectrum needs for new services as part of the trial. The conclusion here was that there should be sufficient spectrum to license small-scale multiplexes across most of the UK.
As a result of the trial, there is strong support from most parts of the radio industry for these trial small-scale DAB multiplex services to be put on a proper, permanent basis and for small-scale DAB services to be rolled out more widely. However, the trial arrangements for the 10 areas have been set up under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 and we have concluded that these arrangements are not a suitable basis for the long-term licensing of small-scale DAB multiplexes. The current legislative framework for the licensing of radio multiplexes is set out in Part 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1996. However, the legislation is not suitable for licensing small-scale DAB multiplexes because it is restrictive and places on multiplex operators large burdens which, while appropriate for national and county-level multiplex transmission, are disproportionate for low-cost, small-scale radio multiplexes.
Given the success of the technical trials of small-scale DAB multiplex technology and the widespread support in the radio industry, particularly from smaller stations, the Government fully support the Bill. Its purpose, which was set out by my noble friend, is to allow for the modification of the requirements for licensing digital radio networks in the 1996 Act in order to create a new, lighter-touch regulatory framework that is appropriate for the licensing of small-scale digital radio multiplexes.
At present, the construction of the 1996 legislation means that all the same procedures, rules and requirements that apply to local and national multiplexes have to apply to small scale. Ofcom has no discretion to adapt the requirements in the legislation to take account of the size and audience share for radio station services targeted at smaller localities—that is, at sub-county level.
Similarly, there is no power for the Secretary of State to adapt or change the requirements to reflect changing circumstances. Under the Bill the Secretary of State will be able, by order, to modify legislation that sets out the licensing framework for radio multiplex services. Some of the requirements set out in Part 2 of the 1996 Act will continue to be important, but other requirements are unnecessary or will have to be applied in a way that is likely to be overly burdensome for smaller stations wanting to work together as consortium to bid for a licence to develop and run a small-scale DAB radio multiplex service. The proposed measure in the Bill will allow for the provisions of the 1996 Act to be modified for small-scale multiplexes, rather than replacing them with entirely new licensing arrangements, enabling a modified licensing regime that will take account of the different needs of smaller stations that will seek carriage on the small-scale radio multiplexes. This approach of modifying broadcasting legislation by statutory instrument follows the precedents used successfully for community radio and for local television—Sections 262 and 242 respectively of the Communications Act 2003.
However, as my noble friend Lady Bloomfield has said, there is more work to do to develop the detailed structure of the licensing regime with Ofcom. Furthermore, an in-depth consultation with industry stakeholders will be needed to thrash out the detail of the new regulatory regime that will apply.
The detail of an order made under this power is likely to be used in the following ways: to allow licence periods for small-scale DAB multiplexes to be set according to the needs of small stations rather than for a fixed period of 12 years, which is inappropriate given the much smaller capital outlay needed to set up small-scale DAB multiplex services; to remove the necessity for small-scale DAB multiplex licensees to provide reserved capacity on the multiplex to the BBC; to set clearer requirements on small-scale DAB multiplex licensees to start broadcasting within a fixed period following the award of the licence from Ofcom; and to restrict the ability of small-scale DAB multiplex operators to overcharge digital sound programme services for carriage on the multiplex. It will also be used to set eligibility requirements for the holding of small-scale multiplex licences—for example, to exclude organisations with any existing interests in either national or local radio multiplexes, mainly large commercial groups, and possibly organisations holding a licence in a national station, from holding small-scale DAB multiplex licences or to require that small-scale multiplex licences can be awarded only to “non-commercial” entities. I hope that answers to some degree one of the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Also, to allow Ofcom the discretion to reserve capacity on the multiplex for community radio services, in some or all cases, and to make changes to the definition of “digital simulcasting” for independent local commercial radio stations that have taken carriage on a small-scale multiplex.
There are two areas where more thinking is needed, requiring consultation with industry. One, whether the small-scale licences should be held by a non-commercial vehicle or whether corporate entities should also be able to bid for and hold small-scale DAB licences. Related to this is the question of how Ofcom should decide between different consortia and whether holders or those with an interest in existing national or local multiplexes should be excluded from holding small-scale licences. We will need to consider both questions as part of a consultation on the detail and will need to take further comments from industry. The key point, however, is that it is useful that the Bill highlights these two areas as something that the modified requirements will need to cover.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about spectrum. The response to that has been very positive from Ofcom and work is continuing. However, that is very much dependent on this Bill.
On the question of “may” or “must”, the point of the Bill is to set out what the order to be made using this power is capable of doing, not what it must or will do; hence the wording of the Bill enables the provision on this issue but does not require it do so or to follow a particular policy option.
I want to make it clear that what this Bill provides for is not in the Digital Economy Bill. Put simply, as the Minister in another place, Mr Hancock, said, DCMS needed to see the conclusions of the Ofcom trials before legislating. Ofcom published the evaluation in 2016, several months after the introduction of the Digital Economy Bill.
The Government’s position on a switchover decision remains the same. A decision about the timetable for a future switchover will be considered only once the listening and coverage criteria have been met—that is, when 50% of all listening to digital and national DAB coverage is comparable to FM, and local DAB reaches 90% of homes.
Good progress is being made and we are very much in listening mode about this. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that it is not just about the number of cars sold. This Bill and other measures will contribute to when that decision will be made. Digital’s radio share of listening continues to grow steadily—it now stands at 45.2%—and the radio industry expects this trend to continue. Therefore, with the funding by DCMS and the expansion of local DAB coverage, along with the BBC and commercial radio sector building 182 new transmitters across the UK and making technical modifications to 49 other sites, the programme will expand local DAB network coverage from around 75% of UK homes in 2013 to 91%, which is about 4 million extra, and from 56% to 77%, an extra 4,400 miles of major roads, by early 2017. So we are well on the way to considering when switchover can take place.
A key success of the small DAB trials has been the strong support from smaller stations, including community radio. The majority of trials of small-scale multiplexes are full or nearly full. Overall, based on the trials and other work, Ofcom believes that there is a significant level of demand from smaller community stations and commercial radio stations for carriage on small-scale DAB multiplexes and that a wider rollout of additional small-scale services into more geographic areas would be both technically possible and commercially sustainable.
This Bill will provide the vehicle to create an appropriate and lighter touch licensing and regulatory framework, which is a necessary prerequisite to facilitating the development of a tier of new small-scale DAB multiplexes across the UK, and for that reason the Government are fully supportive of it.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his support, coming as it does from a position of greater knowledge and experience in this field than I have. I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her constructive comments and support.
I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has raised important concerns relating to multiple ownership and non-commercial purposes of these multiplexes. These were debated at length in the other place and were addressed by the Minister in her response. As to lighter touch regulation, as the Minister mentioned, the Government have stated that there will be a full and careful consultation on the detailed arrangements for this.
As this is the first Bill I have had the privilege of leading in this House, it is encouraging to know that it enjoys support from all sides, if not perhaps the same level of interest as was evidenced in the debates held earlier this week. I ask your Lordships’ House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Bill
Friday 24th February 2017
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Act 2017 View all Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 3 February 2017 - (3 Feb 2017)
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure and privilege to be asked to introduce this Private Member’s Bill. I congratulate my honourable friend the Member for Bosworth, David Tredinnick, on sponsoring the Bill in the other place—where, I am pleased to say, there was opposition support and no amendment of the Bill. I also thank the Department for Communities and Local Government for my briefings. I refer the House to my interests listed in the register.
This Private Member’s Bill supports businesses, large and small, which make up our town centre communities across the country, creating much-needed job opportunities. UK small businesses contribute 51% of our GDP and employ 60% of the private sector workforce. They are the foundation of the UK economy. The Federation of Small Businesses also supports the Bill before us as high parking charges can do serious damage to small businesses. A lack of free parking and escalating charges are particular threats to small businesses operating in town centres and high streets, with seven in 10 small firms thinking that parking is a priority for the future of independent shops.
Independent retailers in town centres are the engine which helps to make local communities what they are. The Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Bill, which I have been asked to introduce, will be of positive benefit to local authorities, shoppers and businesses. The subject of parking is of real interest to residents in North Lincolnshire, where I have had the privilege of serving both as a councillor and then as leader, as it is right across the country, because parking charges can be a sensitive issue in some communities. My council’s record of introducing free parking has been acknowledged as helping to inject substantial investment which has helped to stimulate and promote the high street. We have a duty to do all we can to make sure that our high streets are thriving places at the heart of our communities.
Since we first launched free parking across North Lincolnshire in 2011, we have seen more people visiting and spending longer shopping, socialising and visiting other venues. That choice helps to complement our large retail parks and challenge internet shopping. Our businesses need our support. This Bill sends a clear message to their owners and, it is hoped, will help to stimulate business confidence. In North Lincolnshire we have free parking all day on Saturday and Sunday in addition to two hours in the week and after 2 pm in The Parishes car park. We are seeing a reduction in the number of empty shops.
The clauses in this Bill would amend the existing powers of the Secretary of State under Sections 35C and 46A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to make regulations providing for the procedure to be followed by local authorities in giving notice to vary charges on both off-street and on-street parking places. It will allow for new regulations to be made that revise the existing regulations to reduce the burden on local authorities choosing to seek to lower their charges. In addition, the Bill allows for a new power which would mean that local authorities will need to consult their communities and businesses if they increase their parking charges under an existing traffic order.
As I said earlier, town centres are at the heart of our communities. This Bill will allow local authorities to respond quickly to market changes and allow greater flexibility if they decide to reduce parking charges or even introduce free parking. It would put them on an equal footing with the private sector by allowing them to provide free or discounted parking at short notice to support town centre special events. Conversely, this must be balanced by the effect that increased parking charges has on businesses in town centres as anecdotal evidence suggests, and the FSB has stated. It discourages visitors to high streets who those businesses rely on.
I am strongly of the view that councils should engage with their local communities when raising charges to help ensure that the business community is aware of any proposals and able to make informed comments or representations. I feel that that will reinforce what should be good practice and, I would emphasise, ensure that the system is less bureaucratic for local authorities when implementing any changes.
Perhaps I may also make reference to the RAC Foundation where the director noted that in the 2015-16 financial year, councils in England made a combined surplus or “profit” of £756 million from their on-street and off-street parking activities. He went on to say that this Bill recognises that there are times when setting parking charges is not about keeping cars out of urban areas but about ensuring the vibrancy of our towns and cities by making them accessible, affordable and sustainable. Motorists and businesses will welcome a change in the law and agree that councils will be able to react quickly to boost local economies by cutting fees while ensuring that any prospect of charges being raised will be fully scrutinised through consultation.
Finally, it only remains for me to highlight once more that the Government are supportive of the Bill’s purpose, together with opposition support in the other place. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, for giving me the chance to speak very briefly at this point. What I have to say is not really relevant to the Bill but it is relevant to the subject of the Bill because it is about car parking in towns and cities, specifically in private car parks. Although all car parks are useful to disabled people, the different rules that apply in private car parks can catch people out—when blue badges are not recognised, for example. Often, private car parks are close to DWP assessment centres, so it is quite a live issue. There can also be a problem when there are no ticket machines and payment has to be made by card. Quite often this arrangement does not work, for one reason or another. A person may try to give a credit card number and when it is rejected they face a penalty. One of my correspondents had this problem when he was delivering a disabled person to such an assessment centre. Or it may be that a disabled person is being helped out of a car, very helpfully and safely, and the time limit is overrun by a few minutes and a penalty charge is incurred. I ask the Minister whether there is any meaningful oversight of the running of private car parks to make quite sure that they are operating fairly, both for disabled people and other motorists. As far as the Bill is concerned, we Liberal Democrats give it a warm welcome.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register and declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, on sponsoring the Bill and securing its Second Reading. Parking charges are an important issue, as the noble Baroness outlined, and the Bill proposes to make it easier for local authorities to lower parking charges and requires them to consult on changes such as increasing charges. I can be very clear that the Opposition support the Bill and wish it a speedy passage on to the statute book.
It is important to say at the outset that local authorities are not seeking to extract as much cash as possible from parking charges; these are part of managing the traffic situation in their district and the fee charged is an important part of that and material in enabling traffic and parking in their area. It should also be noted that the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is prescriptive about what the surplus can be used for; if there is a shortage of car parking spaces in towns, the money can be used to provide additional spaces and other improvements. It is not a profit-making service for the local authority and if a surplus is made, it is reinvested: it is important that we note that as well. It is not just about people being able to get in and out of our town centres but about supporting the economies of our towns and cities and their high streets to ensure that they are vibrant—as we know, they have been struggling for some time in many places. Review after review has highlighted the vulnerability of our high streets, in particular, and we want to make sure that we give them as much support as possible. The measures in the Bill are another way that we can do that.
We should give as much power, responsibility and accountability as we can to local councils and their communities to do what is right for their area: if it is not right the voters at the next local elections can give their verdict on the councillors concerned. My own local authority, Lewisham, often suspends parking charges on a few Saturdays before Christmas, for example.
We also need to be a bit clearer about what we mean by consultation and who is going to be consulted. In some cases this can be straightforward, such as consulting the business improvement district or another small group of people, but the area of interest could be much wider, meaning that a much wider group of people would be considered to have an interest and should be consulted. We want to be clear about what that involves. I would not want to see an onerous consultation exercise imposed on a council if it was seeking to reduce car parking charges or to make minor changes to the car parking arrangements. What will the consultation involve? Would a statutory notice in the local newspaper be enough or would we expect much more than that? Equally, councils, quite rightly, might look at raising their charges as part of their budget-making processes. If a local authority is proposing a modest, perhaps inflation-linked, rise in their car parking charges, what sort of consultation can we expect to deal with that? We need to be clear about what we want from councils in terms of proportionality. That is important.
It is also important to recognise that no two areas are the same. There are different local communities, local economies and local experiences. Lewisham, where I live, is very different from Brigg in the noble Baroness’s district, which, again, is very different from Nottingham, where I lived for many years. These are all very different areas, which have their own problems of car parking and traffic and other issues. It is right for the local councillors to make what they think are the best decisions. It must be a matter for local councils. For me anyway, it is not just a way to generate revenue but is about ensuring that the parking arrangements support the viability of the shops and the retail sector in town centres. I think we all agree with that and we all want to see vibrant local economies. That is an important matter. I was pleased to learn that we have the support of the Federation of Small Businesses.
In conclusion, I congratulate the noble Baroness on presenting her Bill to the House. I wish the Bill well. I will not be tabling any amendments. This will be my last contribution on the Bill before it reaches the statute book, I hope. It is an important area and we need to ensure that we get these things right.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill’s Second Reading. I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lady Redfern on taking her first—of many, I am sure—Private Member’s Bill through the House. I also congratulate my honourable friend the Member for Bosworth for his hard work, in his 30th year in Parliament, in getting his first Private Member’s Bill through the House of Commons. I am grateful to those who have spoken. I will come to the serious issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, in a moment, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for the support from his Benches for the Bill.
Parking is an issue that will be familiar to many of us. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Redfern assures me that as leader of North Lincolnshire Council she has always made sure that her local business community is properly consulted on changes to parking charges. North Lincolnshire Council has also led the way in providing targeted free parking in support of its high-street businesses. More than 1.5 million free parking permits were issued in 2015-16, double the number in 2012-13, by her council.
As my noble friend said, and was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, high streets and town centres are an essential part of the fabric of our lives and are the social core of local communities. The need for affordable parking to access town centres is critical to the sustainability of our high streets. The coalition Government brought forward reforms to make it mandatory for local authorities to give 10-minute grace periods for all on-street parking bays and all off-street car parks. This gives consumers greater flexibility to allow them to complete their business in the town centre without having to worry too much about feeding the meter. That Government were also concerned about the use of CCTV camera cars as a revenue-generating tool. That is why, in addition to the grace periods, they banned local authorities from sending parking tickets through the post. This means that individuals can have a degree of certainty that, when they get a ticket, they know about it on the day.
My noble friend the Minister for Local Government noted that further reforms to the local government transparency code will follow. A recent consultation set out the Government’s intention to amend the code so that everyone will be able to see first-hand a complete breakdown of the parking charges their councils impose and how much money they raise, promoting accountability.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised the issue of what consultation is. I would like to take that away but perhaps my noble friend Lady Redfern, who also consults at the moment on parking charge changes in North Lincolnshire, can shed some light on best practice in her part of the country.
My noble friend’s Bill recognises on the one hand that all councils need flexibilities, but that they also need to involve local communities in the decision-making process. Her Bill offers a real opportunity for a small but sensible reform to local authority car parks. It will give the Government powers to scrap the bureaucratic requirements on local authorities if they wish to lower their car parking charges. This would allow councils to take a flexible approach in supporting their high streets—for example, by responding to the opportunity of local festivals that can be used to celebrate town centres.
While there is a need to offer councils flexibility in respect of car parking charges, it is important that we recognise that charging levels are a significant concern to town-centre businesses. The Government therefore think it fit and proper that councils are responsive to local concerns before seeking to increase charges. My noble friend’s Bill provides for a consultation requirement if local authorities want to raise their charges on an existing traffic order. I believe this is a sensible and proportionate reform that balances the needs of the local authority to set fair pricing policies, but takes into account the views of local communities.
I listened with interest to the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and I was concerned to learn about the problems that face many disabled motorists in private car parks when they have difficulties paying or with other issues. Of course the Equality Act applies to all bodies, and the Government urge those who operate private car parks to discharge their responsibilities under that Act. We are carefully considering our response to the discussion paper that we published on private parking in 2015, which focused on a range of issues including disability. We will announce our response in due course and I will make sure that the concerns expressed in this short debate by the noble Baroness are taken on board.
The Government are supportive of the Bill’s intentions because it helps to deliver a more effective parking model that is supportive of Great Britain’s high streets and town centres.
Baroness Redfern
My Lords, I too have sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, regarding fairness to disabled people in private car parks. I also take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his comments, particularly about not wanting too much bureaucracy when we consult people. I thank the Minister for his constructive comments and support.
The Bill recognises that councils need not only to have flexibilities but to involve local communities in their decision-making process. It offers a real opportunity for a small but sensible reform to local authority car parks and will give the Government powers to scrap the bureaucratic requirements on local authorities, if they wish to lower their parking charges, and to react more quickly to market changes and allow for greater flexibility. It also offers a real opportunity for councils to take a flexible approach to supporting their high streets. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve and I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Abortion (Disability Equality) Bill [HL]
Friday 24th February 2017
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Abortion (Disability Equality) Bill [HL] 2016-17 View all Abortion (Disability Equality) Bill [HL] 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 95-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 64KB) - (22 Feb 2017)
Lord Winston
“( ) After section 1(1)(a) insert—“(aa) that the pregnancy has exceeded 24 weeks and there is a high probability that the fetus will die at, during, or shortly after delivery due to serious fetal anomaly; or”.”
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, in rising to discuss the Bill, I first pay considerable tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, whose courageous approach to these matters is massively appreciated on all sides of the House, irrespective of the argument that we may have about the nature of termination of pregnancy in different circumstances. His tireless work on disability is of massive importance to our society, and I very much hope that he will continue that work—even though I disagree with some aspects of the Bill, to which my Amendment 1 refers.
I feel I need to correct a particular impression that the noble Lord gave in the Second Reading debate. Unfortunately, I could not be here; I was lecturing in the United States. Very far from the Bill being modest, reasonable or logical, there are all sorts of flaws which are not modest in their effects on women and their families and are not reasonable for women who are suffering with these hugely difficult decisions about what to do in their interests and the interests of their family—and I do not believe that the Bill is in any way logical. As noble Lords will see from the amendments I have put down, I do not intend to try to prevent the Bill going through, but it must at least be adjusted and, in one aspect, Amendment 1 does that.
One thing that concerns me about the Bill is that the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, talks about discrimination against people who have a disability. One problem here is that it is surprising that he has produced the Bill for termination of pregnancy where a minor number of babies are being aborted but has avoided a much bigger issue. For example, he has not discriminated against pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, which is going on worldwide in every in vitro fertilisation centre and is designed to screen out foetal defects where families suffer from those defects.
I have to explain to the House exactly what happens in that situation, because it is relevant to my amendment. There are some 6,000 to 6,500 severe foetal disorders of different kinds caused by mutations in DNA. It so happens that in the debates so far only two have been described, neither of which is fatal. Neither muscular dystrophy nor brittle bone disease is generally fatal, but most of the 6,000 diseases are fatal—they kill mostly children, and they kill them mostly at an early age, usually before the age of 2 or 3.
Noble Lords might say that we can screen DNA, and people have been talking about eugenic screening, but we cannot do that because, for example, even in the case of muscular dystrophy, which was cited, at least one-third of those mutations occur de novo in families without any previous history, so they cannot be detected and families will not expect them to be there until the woman is pregnant. Added to that, in, for example, the case of muscular dystrophy, which affects mainly males, there are about 700 different mutations in the dystrophin gene which causes that disease. So this is a seriously complex situation which is being looked at in a rather simple and, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, said, modest way, in the legislation that he is proposing—but it is very far from that.
The other thing that very much concerns me in his words and language is the charge that we have become search and destroy. To the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, I say this: in my professional life, although I have been mainly involved with reproductive medicine, I have been a professional obstetrician and a fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I have been involved with pregnant women and their families for more than 40 years, and I find it objectionable to consider that we undertake search and destroy during early pregnancy. What we try to do in pregnancy is what we should do as obstetricians, which is to diagnose and discuss. That is very different from search and destroy.
What we do with screening in pregnancy is to try to make certain that the foetus is healthy. If the foetus is not healthy in some way or suffers from an anomaly, what we can then do, having made that diagnosis, is discuss that at great length with the woman concerned—along with her husband where appropriate and if necessary with her family—and then decide with her what is in the best interests of the family. Hopefully, that pregnancy will continue whether the foetus is disabled or not, but knowledge of the disability means that we can have appropriate medical resources available at the time of birth. This is far from destroy: on the contrary, it is in fact designed to protect, promote and enhance life wherever possible. That is a basic issue that we have dealt with.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Winston. He and I go back together a long time to when we both created life—I as lawyer and he as expert witness—in Diane Blood’s case. As a result of that case, she was able to create two boys using her dead husband’s sperm. I listened with care to his speech. We are privileged to have him, one of the greatest experts in the country on the subject, and I agree entirely with his speech; I simply do not agree with the amendment, and I need to explain why.
I am a man; I am not, as far as I am aware, disabled at the moment; and I am not a doctor, so what is my reason for speaking on this subject, as I believe that it is very much up to the woman and parents, not to others, to decide whether to have babies? The reason I speak is because of my experience when I was counsel for the Family Planning Association in Northern Ireland, in a case that went to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland seeking to provide guidance to women in Northern Ireland, where, as your Lordships will know, there is no abortion Act in force, only the common law. The problem in Northern Ireland was, and is: what kind of medical service should be provided to those women in a common-law situation without the Abortion Act?
What I discovered during the course of the case and told the Court of Appeal, which was pretty disturbed by it, was that the one situation in Northern Ireland where women can get abortions without having to come to England, Scotland or Wales is on the grounds of foetal abnormality. They do so at common law, and they do so quite regularly. They do so without the benefits or burdens of the Abortion Act. My difficulty with the Bill, but my particular difficulty with the amendment, is that were it or anything like it passed, we would go back to the common law position, which is very uncertain and vague, but encourages the worst thing of all, which is backstreet abortions. The more difficult you make it to terminate pregnancies against the wishes of the woman, the more likely it is that she will be driven to other ways of aborting the foetus. That seems to me profoundly undesirable.
I understand perfectly well where the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is coming from with his amendment, but it cuts down the situation in which abortions are lawful under the Abortion Act and should remain lawful: where there is foetal abnormality but the foetus is unlikely to die when born. It should not be our function to limit the circumstances in which there can be a termination, given all the safeguards in the Bill about the medical profession and its ethics, which the noble Lord has talked about. Therefore, although I agree entirely with his speech, I cannot support his amendment.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I did not intend to speak to the amendment, but I have to stand up as a fellow medical practitioner—if a very humble one—to say that whenever the noble Lord, Lord Winston, speaks on his subject in this Chamber, he makes me feel young again. I am again a medical student listening to one of the best profs give a superb tutorial, and I thank him for that, because it was extremely useful. I add only a couple of things. I get very tired of people arguing that doctors assist women towards having an abortion—that somehow they want to get on with it, are complicit and do not allow women enough time. In my experience as a family planning doctor, and even when I was a Member of Parliament, I never came across examples of this. Women are listened to very carefully and allowed to make up their own mind. Allowing women to have the choice is essential.
A number of people say that women are terribly upset and traumatised after they have had an abortion. That is, again, a rarity. Usually, if they have had the right counselling and right termination, when they have had the abortion for whatever reason—particularly in the cases we are discussing this afternoon—there is a sense of great relief at being able to get on with their own lives. If the Bill went through we would be taking that away from a large number of women and I would deplore that.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will speak against the amendment and support the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, in bringing the Bill forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who is sitting in front of her, will not be surprised that we take a diametrically opposed view of this and not for the first time in our lives. They will recall that the reason I left their party was their proposition that abortion should become party policy rather than a conscience question. I have always been saddened that this issue should be politicised. Diametrically opposed views can be sincerely held for perfectly good reasons.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, have spoken as doctors. I am only the humble father of a doctor but I had the chance earlier this week to speak to two eminent doctors, one a former president of one of the royal colleges and the other a former president of the BMA, both of whom are opposed to the amendment. For one this is because of the danger of misdiagnosis. She gave me the specific example of a baby whose mother had been told it had a fatal foetal disability, but this did not turn out to be the case when it was born. The other said that it is far better to go ahead with the pregnancy and for the baby to be delivered in order to help the mother at that stage. I will come back to that point in a moment, because it is borne out by the guidance of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the submission it made on this subject in 2010.
We can disagree about these things, but let us at least accept that there is a disagreement. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, had been able to bring forward his amendment in Committee, when we would have been able to have a more robust argument and discussion about it. It is strange that this amendment should be laid before your Lordships’ House at 24 hours’ notice before Report. Since it has been, I have done my best to discuss it with others who know more about these things than I do. In 1990, when a Member of another place, I moved my only amendment in 18 years in the Commons on which there was an equality of votes. Mr Speaker Weatherill—who became Lord Weatherill—had to use his casting vote for the status quo. He was one of my two sponsors when I became a Member of your Lordships’ House and I know through subsequent discussions with him how disturbed he was that he was not able to follow his conscience that day but had to follow precedent in upholding the status quo. My amendment sought to ensure that, in the 1990 amendment to the 1967 Abortion Act, the nature of the disability would be placed on the green form authorising the abortion. I was challenged by Harriet Harman who said that it was scaremongering for Professor John Finnis, one of the country’s leading experts on jurisprudence, to suggest that the legislation as drafted could lead to abortion on the grounds of cleft palate. As noble Lords know from the figures that have been produced, there have been abortions post-24 weeks’ gestation on the grounds of cleft palate. Notwithstanding the examples the noble Lord gave a few moments ago, 90% of all babies diagnosed with Down’s syndrome in this country are now routinely aborted.
I have never described the Department of Health as being responsible for eugenics and I would never do that, nor do I believe that doctors in this country are. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, has said that society slides into eugenics when these things become normative. Therefore, I hope that when the noble Lord replies to the debate, he will tell us exactly what the list of disabilities is that cannot be diagnosed before 24 weeks’ gestation. Despite my own strongly held views about the law—indeed, 8 million abortions have taken place in this country since 1967, there are around 600 every working day and one in five pregnancies is now ended on those grounds—this Bill is not about that. This Bill is about equality legislation and discrimination, and whether a child with a disability should be treated differently from an able-bodied child.
I simply point out to your Lordships that there is a certain irony, as the very last words spoken by the Minister at the Dispatch Box in the previous debate on a Bill about car parking were about ensuring equality of opportunity for disabled people to be able to park in car parking spaces. All Members of your Lordships’ House have properly campaigned over the years on the rights of disabled people, and have a huge reputation in this country for asserting those rights. Is there not an inconsistency if we campaign for ramps to be attached to public buildings in this country but say that it would be better that someone with a disability had not been born in the first place? What sort of message does that send?
I do not think that people like me can put forward arguments such as this if we are just anti things. One of the things in which I got involved in my own city of Liverpool was the building of the first baby hospice in the country, Zoe’s Place, of which I continue to be a patron, and others have since been opened. It was built specifically to help mothers in this situation. You have to be positively for the unborn child but for the mother as well in these tragic and very difficult circumstances.
I admire medicine when it is at its best. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, and I sometimes disagree. Nevertheless, he knows that I admire hugely a lot of the work that he has done. When noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, are able to develop—as they are doing—surgery in utero to deal with things such as spina bifida, that is good science and good medicine marching hand in hand with good ethics. However, if I were to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for instance, that I was in favour of abortion beyond 24 weeks for reasons such as gender, race or—if it could be diagnosed—orientation, what would your Lordships say to me? I hope that they would rebuke me. That is why I argue that we should treat disability in precisely the same way as those issues.
I said that I would return to what the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists had to say. There were two things, one of which shocked me, when I read the details of what happens in late abortion of this kind. This is the college’s description, not mine:
“Intracardiac potassium chloride … is the recommended method to ensure fetal asystole. After aspiration of fetal blood to confirm correct placement of the needle, 2-3 ml strong … is injected into a cardiac ventricle. A repeat injection may be required”.
It goes on to describe other ways of doing this. This is a late abortion. Babies have been born and lived from 23 weeks’ gestation, so this is beyond viability that we are talking about. The college also states:
“Most women will be unaware that, within the NHS, medical abortion induced by drugs is the procedure usually offered after 14 weeks of gestation. The prospect of labouring to deliver a dead fetus will be difficult for many and discussions about the procedure will require sensitive handling by experienced staff. Although the prospect of labour in these circumstances is especially daunting, some women gain some satisfaction from having given birth and have welcomed the chance to … hold their baby”.
The college goes on to talk about the options that need to be offered for pain relief,
“and whether the woman might want to see the baby and have mementoes such as photographs and hand and footprints … She will … be made aware of information from a postmortem … These discussions are likely to be distressing for the woman and her partner”.
So let us be very clear that this is a tragedy for everyone involved.
I turn to the noble Lord’s amendment. It states that,
“there is a high probability that the fetus will die”.
We are drafting legislation here. What does this mean? Is the probability 99.99990%, or 50%? How should a high probability be objectively defined in law? Why is that not specified in the wording of the amendment? I am very disturbed by the fact that the noble Lord’s amendment says that you may go on to carry out these procedures “shortly after delivery”, when the baby has been born alive. Is this a matter of minutes, hours, days, weeks, months or, arguably, even years? It needs to be clearly defined in law, otherwise it will be interpreted far too widely. That is why the amendment should have been brought forward in Committee, when we could have had a proper discussion about it. However, I hope that the amendment will be resisted and that the Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, will be given a safe passage so that it will have a chance to go forward and there can be a proper debate about it in another place.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I intended to speak much later but I have to emphasise something which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, that we often forget. This is not and should not be a political issue. It is often about the life and death of women. The remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for whom I have the deepest respect, about gender and race in comparison to disability, is unfortunate, to say the least.
We have to remember the history of abortion in this country. At one time, women who could not obtain an abortion for legal reasons resorted to what were called back-street abortions or self-abortions. Those were dangerous and often humiliating. Do we really want to go back to that? The Bill, if it is carried, could mean going back to that for women. I suspect that if our laws were changed to deny abortions at any stage we could see women’s lives put in danger, and that would be completely abhorrent. For those reasons and others, I cannot support the Bill.
I have the deepest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, but this is an emotive issue, and much has been said already. First, on disability, I read something recently by the disability rights advocate, Professor Tom Shakespeare, who himself has a disability. He said that prenatal diagnosis is not straightforwardly eugenic or discriminatory:
“Nor should we interpret a decision to have … a termination as expressing disrespect or discrimination towards disabled people. Choices … are not incompatible with disability rights”.
I agree with him.
Our laws on abortion, which we are fortunate to have, have been well debated and carefully constructed. They are supported by professional bodies and by the vast majority of the general public. Women overwhelmingly support testing for abnormality in a foetus, knowing that the result may cause them immense distress and difficult decisions.
We know that some conditions cannot be diagnosed within 24 weeks. In fact, some can be diagnosed only within the third trimester. I find the Bill quite punitive. We know that parents find a decision on abortion difficult and distressing. They think not only of themselves —they are not being selfish—but of the whole family, possibly including children who have already been born. Such parents need support, advice and often grief counselling. It is not a simple matter. Medical services take account of this distress—my noble friend Lord Winston spoke eloquently about that—and I know some parents who have been advised and helped to hold a funeral for the aborted baby.
While this is an emotive Bill, we have to consider the rights of women and of the family, and think about the impact that it might have in particular on women who used to go for those back-street abortions.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I am, of course, not a doctor, although I have the great honour of being an honorary fellow of the royal college of which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is such a distinguished member. I well remember the situation which produced the result that the noble Lord has spoken of—that of amendments on abortion being made to our very interesting, important and ground-breaking Bill on IVF and related matters. I was clear, as were the Government, that the approach to the main part of that Bill depended on one’s conscience, so there was a free vote in both Houses of Parliament. There was always the possibility that the result of a vote in this House would be different from one in the House of Commons. That was a very serious thought in relation to a Bill of such ground-breaking importance, and the introduction of amendments on abortion in the Commons rather increased that difficulty.
However, I am glad to say that in the end we got what I think is regarded in the general scientific areas of the world concerned with these matters as a very good Bill. It allowed research which is not allowed in quite a number of other parts of the world. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has a different view from mine, but that was an important aspect of the Bill which depended very much on people’s consciences.
So far, I have understood this Bill to deal with the principle of equality as defined in our legislation in relation to disability. I understand that the Bill is based on the proposition that abortion would be in breach of the principle of not regarding disability as a ground for discrimination. It is as simple as that. The idea that this amendment would destroy the Bill and bring back back-street abortions and so on strikes me as rather excessive. It is an amendment to the existing Bill; it does not seek to abolish the Abortion Act. It simply suggests—with a good deal of merit, as I think my noble friend Lord Shinkwin has said—that the principle of not discriminating against disability should apply to this provision.
This amendment, produced by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, suggests that something else might be done. It proceeds on the basis that the nature of the condition is such,
“that the fetus will die at, during, or shortly after delivery due to serious fetal anomaly”.
That is not quite the same as what is in the Abortion Act. If that were the formulation of the clause, it might well avoid the idea that this provision of the Abortion Act is a breach of the rule against discrimination on the ground of disability. This is a different point and I can see the force of it as a different matter entirely from the provision in relation to this matter which is currently in the Abortion Act.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, for bringing the Bill before your Lordships’ House. It is very important that we come back to what the Bill deals with and possibly leave behind some of what I might regard as the slightly unwarranted assertions that we are in danger of reintroducing back-street abortions wholesale as a consequence of this Bill. What it actually does is give us the opportunity to remove the right to abort after 24 weeks an unborn baby which has a disability unless there is a risk of serious permanent damage to the mother or her life is at risk. I say with the greatest respect that it is, therefore, perhaps a rather more modest proposal than was described by the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Lester.
Amendment 1 deals with the situation in which the foetus will die at or shortly after delivery due to serious foetal abnormality. I absolutely oppose this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has very competently articulated some of the problems with the amendment, and I am not going to rehearse all the arguments against it. I will simply tell another little story. I have a friend: her name is Tracy Harkin. Tom and Tracy have a little daughter. When Kathleen Rose was born in November 2006, she had trisomy 13, which is one of the conditions that is generally regarded as what is loosely described as a fatal foetal abnormality. Kathleen Rose is now 10 years old. I want to quote her parents: “She has a beautiful, distinct personality. She is known for her mischievous laughter and her enormous hugs. Last year, she was the angel in the school nativity play, and to all of us, of course, she was the star of the show”.
I have another concern. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, would extend the provisions of this Bill to Northern Ireland. As noble Lords will know, Northern Ireland is currently in the midst of a very fraught election campaign. I know that in Northern Ireland the tabling of Amendment 1 and Amendment 8 has caused considerable anger and concern. Both justice and health are devolved to Northern Ireland. Therefore, the law on abortion in Northern Ireland—undoubtedly a sensitive and very controversial topic—should be dealt with only by the people of Northern Ireland through their constitutional processes. And my goodness, the right to do business in Northern Ireland through constitutional process has been very hard won. The Abortion Act does not extend to Northern Ireland. That is a position which, despite consideration, has not changed since 1967. It is therefore entirely inappropriate for this House to be considering introducing a change to an Act that does not apply in Northern Ireland and making that change apply in Northern Ireland.
As noble Lords may be aware, only last February, the Northern Ireland Assembly considered the question of whether abortion should be legal in Northern Ireland on the grounds of what is described as “fatal foetal abnormality”—a term which even the noble Lord, Lord Winston, explained to us lacks clarity. For a disability to be fatal, when does it have to be fatal—within hours, days, weeks, months or years? What of Kathleen Rose, heading for her 11th birthday? After a lengthy debate, the Assembly decisively rejected this move by 59 votes to 40. Following last May’s election, an MLA brought forward a Private Member’s Bill to allow for abortion on these grounds. The Northern Ireland Assembly had plenty of time to consider this Bill—in the nine months since the last election, the Assembly passed one Bill: the Finance Act. However, the Private Member’s Bill was not dealt with and it fell. The Northern Ireland Assembly is the place where this issue should be developed and debated, as it affects the people of Northern Ireland.
I know that some noble Lords do not accept the law on abortion in Northern Ireland, but when Parliament accepted the principle of devolution, we accepted that devolved parliaments have a right to make decisions about their own law, whether we like them or not. Reversing that principle and bringing the powers back to Westminster would be a major constitutional change, which Parliament would have to consider very seriously in the light of all the implications of such an action. It is fundamentally wrong for this House to seek to make a decision in this area and we should not, therefore, support these amendments.
Equally importantly, the sensitivities which surround this amendment are greatly compounded by the fact that they are proposed within five days of the elections in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those elections are unlikely to result in a devolved Assembly because the two parties having the greatest number of seats currently have indicated that they will not go into government together unless significant preconditions are met. In those circumstances we are moving rapidly towards direct rule, with all the political sensitivities attaching thereto, including the threat to our fragile peace process. Only yesterday there was an attempt to murder a police officer. A bomb was placed under his car; that bomb exploded and in all probability it would have killed him. These are fragile days in Northern Ireland and noble colleagues who are supportive of this Bill are understandably there today and unable to address your Lordships’ House.
Whatever happens, there will eventually be a devolved Assembly which has a mandate to uphold or change Northern Ireland abortion law, and that is where this debate should take place. I hope, therefore, that other noble Lords will join me in rejecting Amendment 1 because of the effect of it on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and in rejecting Amendment 8 because it is repugnant.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, my position on the Bill is rather less in favour of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, than it is against the Bill as a whole. I come to the Bill with no pretence to any medical expertise or direct experience in this field but, alas, as an arid lawyer. As such, I seek to stand aside from the huge emotional weight which always attaches to debates on abortion and on disability—as here, where both those emotive topics come together, there is much to be disregarded.
The Bill is concerned with cases where there is a substantial risk, recognised by two doctors, of a child being born with a serious handicap. As the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, for whom I have the most profound regard, recognised at Second Reading, at column 2546 of Hansard, if that risk comes to light within the first 24 weeks it is highly likely that, if the mother so wishes, she may be aborted under Section 1(1)(a) of the Act. However, if it is discovered later, the question arises—and this is the crunch question—should the mother be compelled to carry that child to birth or should she be allowed a later abortion?
According to the statistics given at Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, at column 2560 of Hansard, in 2015 there were some 230 abortions carried out under the Section 1(1)(d) provision after the 24-week initial period. That squares with the figure given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, of some 200 to 300 women.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, for whom I have the greatest respect, as I have for all who have taken part on both sides of this debate, referred at Second Reading—as he has again today—to terminations on grounds of “rectifiable disabilities”, and mentioned cleft palate and hare-lip, and in Committee he added club foot. I find it difficult to suppose there have been Section 1(1)(d) cases after 24 weeks on those grounds, and that two registered medical practitioners have certified in the terms of that provision. If they have, that seems to be a matter for the proper policing of this legislation. It is not the altar on which should be sacrificed the interests of those 200 or 300 women a year whom this Bill is otherwise condemning to be required to bear that child, whatever feelings they may develop, and however justifiable that it is a disability which only came to light after 24 weeks. For my part, I would not wish that they be so condemned.
Lord Swinfen (Con)
My Lords, I am a complete layman in these matters. When the noble Lord, Lord Winston, responds, can he tell the Committee what in his view is a “high probability”? What does he mean by that? Also how long is “shortly after” a birth? Would that be hours, days, weeks or years?
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for the time he has given me to understand fully his amendment, and I put on the record my deep admiration and respect for so much of the work he has done.
Of all people, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, will be only too aware of the extraordinary medical progress that is being made in perinatal and neonatal care. In this Bill we should be advocating for the best treatment of children with disabilities. The provision of holistic care, including perinatal and neonatal hospice care at the end of life, can help to ensure that these babies are treated with dignity, care and love. While the life expectancy of these babies may well be brief, they do have a life and are significant family members who will be valued, remembered and treasured.
The Northern Ireland Executive have recently set out a commitment to provide such hospice care in the Department of Health’s 10-year plan on palliative care for children. I hope that we will see such care being provided elsewhere in the UK. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that.
Amendment 1, aside from being antithetical to the spirit of the Bill, is fraught with difficulties, as we have heard in the debate. Taking the amendment in the order of its wording, what would be judged to be a “high probability?”. We have heard that question repeatedly in the debate. Is that more than 90%, more than 50%, or 65%? How would the decision about likely death be made? Would that be with or without treatment, since conditions may be classified as the same but manifest varying symptoms, from those which may be lethal to those which may in fact be treatable or not immediately lethal? In my meeting earlier with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, we discussed cleft palate, which can be very severe or quite minor and correctable. How long would “shortly after” need to be to qualify? Would it be a matter of hours or days or months? What would count as a “serious fetal anomaly”, since that is not even a medical term? Amendment 1 does not bring any certainty; rather, it raises more questions than answers.
These questions demonstrate how the law would treat these children differently from those without disabilities. It would again enshrine the discrimination that my noble friend Lord Shinkwin is seeking to eliminate, and I encourage noble Lords not to support the amendment.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, after that intervention I need say very little indeed. I share with everyone else my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Winston, as I have for my noble friend Lord Shinkwin. However, while it would be helpful to have the noble Lord’s assurance as to what is meant by these terms, that is not sufficient. It has to be on the face of the Bill because that is what the law will be. Otherwise it will be decided by the courts, which would mean there is no certainty. The purpose of good legislation is bring certainty, not doubt.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a thorough debate on this amendment and I thank my noble friend Lord Winston, who has such great expertise in this field, for his clarity in explaining why he wishes to move this amendment.
This is a sensitive matter with strongly held views on both sides. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, mentioned a woman’s right to choose: many people hold that view. My noble friend Lady Massey said that this was not a political issue. I agree that it is not a political issue. Whenever these matters are debated, in both Houses, Members have to make up their own mind; I think that that is the right thing to do. The term “back-street abortionist” has been used several times this afternoon. Many of us remember those days and absolutely no one wants to go back to a time when women were put at such great risk.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, mentioned Northern Ireland. We may be debating that later, on other amendments, but I take her point. The arguments have been well rehearsed on both sides of the debate today and from the Front Bench I can say only that the Opposition still fully support the Abortion Act 1967.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, I start by joining other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Shinkwin on steering the Bill through its Lords stages so far and on his engagement with noble Lords on the Bill. It raises important and sensitive issues about disability rights and abortion and it is quite right and proper that these are discussed and scrutinised at length by your Lordships. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for his amendment and for the scientific authority which he brings to the issues. I commend all noble Lords for the quality of the debate we have had on this amendment.
As I set out in Committee, the issue of abortion is a matter of conscience for noble Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, reminded us. The decisions that we take on this transcend the normal political or partisan divides and it is for that reason that the Government have taken and continue to take a neutral position on this issue and on the Bill. The Government do not, therefore, have a position on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, or on those that will follow in the House today. I do not intend to comment on subsequent amendments unless there are specific points that noble Lords wish to put directly to me and to which I can respond.
I do, however, wish to make one point that I believe is germane to the issues under discussion in this amendment and, indeed, in the Bill in general, and that is that it is vital that we have accurate statistics on and evidence for the reasons for termination of pregnancy. Officials are working directly with hospital staff to improve reporting on abortions. We have also reminded all doctors involved in abortion care of their legal responsibility under the Abortion Act 1967 and the Abortion Regulations 1991 to submit form HSA4, the abortion notification form, within 14 days of a termination.
Overall, between 2013 and 2015, there was an 18% increase in the number of reported ground E abortions. While we obviously cannot claim that this increase is solely the result of increased reporting of these abortions, as opposed to increased instances, we do know that this is the case in some of the units that officials have been working directly with. The department will continue to monitor carefully levels of underreporting of abortions for foetal abnormality.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, asked about palliative care for babies. I fear that I do not have that information to hand but I will be happy to write to her on the issue.
Lord Shinkwin
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have expressed support for my Bill and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for his medical lecture on so-called serious foetal anomalies. I address the noble Lord, Lord Winston, with respect but I also address him and all other noble Lords as an equal. I should say at the outset that I totally reject the very premise of this amendment. Other noble Lords have already explained why the amendment is totally inappropriate and, indeed, crassly insensitive, from a Northern Ireland perspective in particular, when it is linked to Amendment 8. I offer a disabled person’s perspective on why it is unacceptable. I have been consistently clear that the purpose of my Bill—a disability rights Bill—is to bring the law as it applies to disability discrimination before birth into line with the laws that your Lordships’ House has already passed to counter disability discrimination after birth.
Noble Lords will know that I accepted an amendment in Committee for an impact review as a logical amendment to a logical Bill. However, in the context of a Bill which promotes disability equality where discrimination begins before birth, this cynical amendment is not remotely logical. Indeed, it runs counter to the very essence of my Bill. The amendment reinforces discrimination because it singles out even more acutely a particular group for destruction on grounds of disability. It seeks to legitimise their destruction after 24 weeks with terminology that commands no clinical consensus and despite the fact that cell-free foetal DNA can first be detected in maternal blood as early as seven weeks’ gestation, which means that genetic or chromosomal abnormalities are being detected well in advance of 24 weeks. So what justification is there for abortion after 24 weeks on the grounds of so-called serious foetal anomaly?
Some noble Lords have seen that I recently asked the Department of Health about the number of fatal foetal abnormalities diagnosed in each of the past five years. The answer was that the information is not collected centrally. I followed up and asked about the number of fatal foetal abnormalities diagnosed after 24 weeks in each of the past five years. The answer was the same: the information is not collected centrally. I find that revealing, not because information is being concealed but because it reflects the reality—the truth of the situation.
Those noble Lords who were invited to attend a meeting on this issue, which I understand was held somewhere in the House on Wednesday, could be forgiven for thinking that there is some medical authority—some clear medical consensus—behind the definition of “fatal foetal abnormality”. There is not because there is not an agreed definition. Indeed, the consensus is that what is considered fatal or life-limiting involves a degree of subjective judgment which is influenced by understandings and by the availability of technology, both of which can change with time. The noble Lords who received the invitation to that meeting might also have got the impression, as was intended by the wording of the invitation, that those 230 disabled babies aborted after 24 weeks in 2015 had all been diagnosed with severe or fatal foetal abnormalities. They were not. Of the 659 babies aborted for the crime of having Down’s syndrome, for example, two were aborted at 25 weeks, one at 26 weeks, one at 28, one at 30, another at 31, three at 32 weeks, two at 33, two at 34—and one at 39 weeks.
Lord Winston
My Lords, I shall not use unparliamentary language. I reject the charge that my view of this matter is in any way cynical. I believe that it is compassionate. Perhaps unlike the noble Lord who has promoted this Bill, I have been in constant contact with pregnant women who have had to go through these difficult decisions throughout their pregnancy throughout my professional life. I have been a practising doctor—I am now not on the register as a full practitioner—for more than 40 years, and I have tried to listen rather than interrupt; I have tried to be non-judgmental rather than to judge; and I have tried to find a way through what are very difficult decisions for both the patient and her family and for my team and myself.
Sometimes there have been very long arguments and sometimes we have debated these issues repeatedly among ourselves and tried to internalise the arguments to come to the right decision. I do not think that my moving this amendment is in anything other than good faith, and I am sorry that it seems, at least to the noble Lord, to be merely a cynical adjustment to his Bill. If it was, I would have tried to have the Bill talked out, but that is not my intention. My intention is to discuss and examine some of the things that have been said during the passage of the Bill, to which a very large number of people will have a strong objection—and also of course because there is a great deal of misinformation.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, is under the impression that DNA diagnosis is the next generation of diagnosis. Believe me, it is not. I tried to explain that to him but he probably did not understand. If you have 6,500 different genetic disorders and you have, let us say, 500 different mutations that can cause each of those disorders, you end up with hundreds of thousands of different mutations for which you cannot screen at seven weeks, or even 24 weeks. The problem is that they come at different times. Unless the patient has already had and is bringing up, with great difficulty, a child with one of these problems, who is going to die, they do not know that they are carrying a mutation.
So one reason for this amendment—I thought it would have been quite obvious—is that one of the big problems for families is that a large number of women are, in all good faith and as great parents and wonderful people, trying to bring up children with Down’s syndrome, or with conditions that are far worse than Down’s syndrome in their impact on the child, and they frankly cannot manage to bring up another child, and there is a risk of those children having even more difficulty in their upbringing, adding great damage to those families. That is partly the purpose of this amendment.
I did not understand the interjection by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He comes from Liverpool, where a large number of pregnant women do not present at an antenatal clinic until they are beyond 24 weeks. This happens in the East End of London as well. I remember that I was once called down to casualty to see a patient with abdominal pain. I went down there, and the casualty officer said, “I don’t know what’s wrong. She’s got a large swelling in her abdomen and she’s in abdominal pain”. This 22 year-old was in the second stage of labour at 40 weeks of pregnancy, but she denied that she could be pregnant because, given the background she came from, she would not have undergone antenatal screening. Sadly, we do not live in a society that always has the same values that we have. Very often, women do not present at antenatal care for all sorts of reasons. One of the reasons for tabling this amendment is to protect those women.
The noble Lord has mentioned this before, but I am surprised that he raised the question of cleft palate, Down’s syndrome and club foot. With all due respect, most of us would regard these as being relatively minor and certainly not, on the whole, life-threatening conditions. However, cleft palate can be; there is a mistake about understanding this. Very severe central line defects are incompatible with life and, in spite of surgical operations on the foetuses, many of these foetuses will die in utero with such serious defects, even though they are diagnosed as cleft palate.
I will tell the House of one patient I heard about from a colleague of mine at Imperial College only a couple of weeks ago. This woman has now reached just beyond the 24-week limit and there is a question whether the child has hydrocephalus. The woman does not want to terminate the pregnancy but dreads the thought that she is going to have a baby that might have the most serious cranial defects. The advice that we gave, after great difficulty and a lot of discussion, is to wait to see how the pregnancy develops, because some of these babies do not end up with severe deformity, while others have a monstrous head that cannot even be delivered through the birth canal. The solution is to do some kind of horrific delivery with an operation on the foetus at term—in a woman who is now anaesthetised—or to do a caesarean section. We have to understand that this is not a simple matter of just obstetrics and medicine solving everything.
One or two noble Lords talked about the word “probability”. I would have thought it pretty obvious what that meant. We have a definition of the perinatal period, which is what I am referring to. That would normally be defined as the first month after birth, but if noble Lords feel that it should be the first week, which is why I did not define it, I would be happy to accept that in the amendment. That perhaps should be considered. But these things are defined: death before delivery is quite clear, death during delivery is quite clear and I would argue that death in the first stage of the perinatal period is also perfectly clear. I have no problem with any of the issues about it being shortly afterwards.
As for a serious abnormality, let us just look at the Abortion Act as it is written. As it stands, it is full of these rather gentle allusions and is very carefully worded. The noble Lord used the word “insensitive”. I find that truly astonishing, because with the best of faith I do not feel that I am insensitive. I do a huge amount of outreach in schools. The noble Lord may not realise, but much of that outreach is in schools with children who are severely disabled. I go into those schools regularly because I feel so strongly about disability rights. I do not feel prepared to have the finger pointed at me saying that I am not trying to do my best, in a small way, for a society where disabilities occur.
Claus 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act refers to the situation where,
“the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and … the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated”.
That is a judgment; it is not an absolute. We cannot say exactly what the risks might be. No doctor can say for certain that a termination of pregnancy will be safe. Terminations can occasionally result in the death of the individual, completely surprisingly. I have seen people haemorrhage profusely after termination, which is not always easy to recognise and document. One has to say that we make a judgment—that was my point about the ethical considerations in trying to do good rather than harm. I was hoping that that would be understood in this amendment.
However, I have listened carefully to your Lordships and do not want to prolong this debate any further. I am concerned of course about the women of Northern Ireland, who do not have equality with women in the rest of Britain. I feel that there is a question of discrimination, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, it is the custom of the House on Fridays to finish at 3 pm and we are very nearly at that time. I do not think that we will do any debate justice by starting another amendment at this stage. I hope that noble Lords will understand if I now move that the House do now adjourn.