House of Commons

Friday 23rd February 2018 Commons Chamber

Friday 23 February 2018

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Friday 23rd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

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

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

Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 23rd February 2018 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

09:30

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I was very pleased that yesterday afternoon she put out an official statement of support from the Government. They will be supporting the Bill, not just on Second Reading but through all its stages. That is very welcome and I appreciate that very much.

I am also very pleased with the support—I had no doubts at any stage—of the shadow Minister who will be speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. I must also mention that early on the Prime Minister indicated to me she had a personal interest and lent the Bill her personal support. I would like to say a sincere thank you to the Prime Minister for that. Rounding off this stage of my thanks, I have to mention the Leader of the Opposition. His leadership and support, and that of his office, has been invaluable. I have seldom seen such unanimous support across the House, with the 11 Members who have sponsored the Bill representing seven political parties in this House. Carrying that unanimity and commitment to the country and reaching a consensus there would mean that the Bill can become a very effective Act.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for using this opportunity to bring the Bill to the House. I hope that the House gives its endorsement to the Bill today. I note that the Government have welcomed the Bill. I assure him that if the Government work with him to ensure its speedy passage, they will have the Opposition’s full support.

[Mr Robinson]

I am grateful for that and thank my hon. Friend very much indeed. His support throughout has been consistent, welcome and a great help. I am pleased to tell the House we also have the support of three previous Prime Ministers. Only Sir John Major felt that he could not support us. He said he did not know enough about it, which was sometimes his problem as Prime Minister.

As I was saying, we should try to carry the unity of the House on this issue to the country and raise public awareness about the need for the opt-out solution we are proposing. That would be a major achievement. The Government have launched a consultation on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who was with me in the early meetings, urged that course upon the Government. They responded quickly and to great effect: the response has been unprecedented. I am informed, unofficially, that the number of individual responses—separate, individually written letters—is now over 11,000, which is a record for any public consultation of this kind. The consultation does not finish until 6 March. I hope that the campaign will create sufficient awareness for people to find the opportunity to participate in it online via the Government’s website.

The predominantly positive response that we have been led to understand the public consultation is producing is hardly surprising—it is very welcome, but hardly surprising. According to recent reliable polling from the British Heart Foundation, up to 90% of the public said they were in favour of donation in principle, but that only 36% get around to signing the register. I think that many people are guilty, as I was for a number of years, of finding themselves in that position. That in itself suggests how effective an opt-out register could be.

Why are we actively looking towards implementing an opt-out solution at this stage? In England, for example, the situation is disappointing. We have some of the lowest rates of consent for organ donation in western Europe. Low family rates of consent have been one of the major barriers to the donor rate increasing. In effect, that prevents one third of available organs from being used. They go straight to the grave or to the crematorium. None of us likes to think about the worst happening, and it is challenging to have conversations with family and loved ones about one’s wishes after death. However, one of the Bill’s principal aims must be to encourage open discussions among families, so that an individual’s real wishes are known to their nearest and dearest. I think it reasonable to say that in the majority of cases, given the outcome of the consultation and what we know from the polls, people would wish to donate their organs after their death.

However, there will be those who take a different view. Perhaps even one or two in the Chamber feel that way and will make their feelings known in the debate. In no way do I wish them to feel that they have been railroaded into decisions that they do not wish to take. Therefore, I emphasise to those who feel that they cannot lend their support or have doubts about the Bill at this stage that soft opt-out provisions will be built into it. Naturally, I imagine that there will be a fair amount of discussion about those in Committee. I assure hon. Members that, as the Bill’s promoter, I give them my fullest personal commitment to approach discussions about the opt-outs in the spirit of sympathetic open-mindedness.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I am here to support the hon. Gentleman’s Bill, but I ask him to engage with the Jewish community to see whether he can allay their concerns about how it might affect observance with their religious teachings.

[Mr Robinson]

I am very pleased to have taken that intervention. I remember that one of the former Prime Ministers who supports us—Gordon Brown—wanted to introduce an opt-out system, but came up against a fairly immovable block in the then Chief Rabbi, Rabbi Sacks, who said then that at no cost could he commit the Jewish community to supporting it. That rather held matters up and the Government were then overtaken by other matters with that Bill, but yes, we will do that. I have been in touch, and we believe that the council itself has made an official statement supporting the Bill.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his Bill, and I know that he has put a lot of hard work into securing it. As any Member who has dealt with a Bill in the House of Commons knows, a lot of effort goes on behind the scenes. He has given important assurances on an opt-out, particularly to communities such as the Jewish community, and it is important to convey that message across. I hope we will get further support on that basis.

[Mr Robinson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and my honourable colleague from our shared city—we are both immigrants to it, but we hold it very dear to our heart—and his support along those lines is most welcome. I notice that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has come in. I repeat my warm tribute to his leadership on the issue and to the tremendous help that I have received from his office in backing up the Bill. I am deeply grateful. I also took the opportunity to express a sincere thank you to the Prime Minister, who has taken a personal interest and lent her support. I know that he will welcome that, too.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I apologise for having just arrived, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. It is wonderful that he has got this Bill introduced, and I hope that today the House can pass it and thus save an awful lot of people’s lives in future.

[Mr Robinson]

That is indeed our aim. However, I shall sound certain notes of caution about what we need to do to ensure that we get and successfully utilise that increase in organ donation. We have to watch out for certain things, and I will mention those as part of the serious approach that my right hon. Friend would expect from me and that, in due course, he would want to see his Government adopt and perhaps have to implement. I hope that that is the case, too.

We have a proud history of innovation in the field of transplantation. I think that time prevents me from going into any detail on that—indeed, I am getting the message from you, Mr Speaker, that time is of no essence, so let me mention a few things that have been achieved. In our proud history, Britain’s first living donor transplant took place on 30 October 1960 at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. The operation was between identical twins, because at the time, the problems of rejection were still a long way from any sort of reliable solution. In November 1965, the first transplant in the UK from a “non-heart beating” donor was carried out, again at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. In 1968, there were the first successful heart and liver transplants. There is a proud tradition, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating the NHS and all the staff concerned in this department on their magnificent work.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this Bill. I think that he will move on to the point that transplant surgery is now becoming routine and people are living normal, long lives as a result. When I was growing up, a heart transplant was the No. 1 item on the news, and now they are being carried out every day.

[Mr Robinson]

Indeed, and the consequence is that to some extent we are victims of our success. We now have a growing need for organs and a growing waiting list for them, as I will mention. That problem must concern us all, and as a country, we must find a proper resolution.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign. There are 90,000 residents in Doncaster who are on the organ donation register, and I am proud to be one of them. However, 54 patients in Doncaster are waiting for transplants. Unfortunately, Andrew Lake, the brother of my constituent, Amie Knott, died waiting for a double lung transplant. Is it not the case that we need to secure more people who are prepared to be part of this service, so that we can save more lives?

[Mr Robinson]

The whole House will be touched by the constituency case that my right hon. Friend raises, and it will wholly agree with what she says about the need to increase the availability of organs. We believe in a system that everybody is part of unless they choose to opt out. I have made it clear that the opt-out procedure would be simple and that we would respect those who choose to do so. If we can get the Bill through, it will not make an immediate difference tomorrow, but I am sure that over a period of years, as the activity rates and our capacity to handle donations successfully increase, the availability of organs donated will also increase. That is why I am so keen to get the Bill through Second Reading today.

Since those early successes, some 50,000 people in the UK have been given a second chance and a new lease of life, thanks to organ donation. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing the gratitude that we all feel to the NHS for that. Even if our history is a proud one, we cannot rest on our laurels. Unaccountably, over the past few years, the steady increase in the rate for donation and transplantation has slowed. In the past four years, to be more precise, it has in effect plateaued in England.

Against that background, there has been growing concern about the fact that a certain amount of inertia is setting in. The most recent figures for the whole United Kingdom make disquieting reading. As of March 2017, 6,388 patients were registered on the active waiting list for a transplant; in the same year, 457 died while on the active waiting list. Perhaps more significantly, over the same period, 857 people died after being removed from the active waiting list because while on it they had become too ill to receive a transplant. That shows how severe the situation is.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Bill, which I support. Many of my constituents have contacted me about children who have died for want of a suitable organ donor. I wonder whether my hon. Friend will explain at some point how the Bill will benefit children who need an organ donor.

[Mr Robinson]

I think that that is one of the most moving aspects. We held a reception last night. Many of those present had benefited from organ donations, but in a number of cases it was their children who had benefited. I will indeed say more about that shortly.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I am, of course, here to support him. The sad reality is, however, that behind every organ donation is someone who has died. It is right and proper for there to be facilities for children to receive donated organs, but that means a very sensitive time for the donor’s parents, who have lost a child of their own. How might it be possible to deal sensitively with those families whose children have died?

[Mr Robinson]

We would encourage that across the board. Although my hon. Friend draws attention to a vital area, it is only one of those that we hope to address. As I am sure he will understand, different issues seem equally important to those who are in other categories. I do not claim that my Bill on its own is a panacea for our problems, but I am convinced that it is a vital prerequisite to the imparting of a new impetus to the increase in organ donations that we know the country urgently needs.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the Bill, which I support. May I pursue the point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd)? I believe that in 2016-17, after Wales had introduced presumed consent, 13 out of 33 families withdrew that consent when they were asked about it. Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that the Bill will allow room for relatives still to be consulted and to withdraw the consent? After all, it is being asked for at a very sensitive time. I want us to ensure that families are given that latitude, while trying to do everything possible to increase organ donation.

[Mr Robinson]

The right hon. Lady raises a difficult but important issue. As part of the soft opt-out, there will certainly be arrangements for families and close friends to express their opinions. It is interesting to note that in Spain, which has no register and operates what is effectively an opt-out system, there is always consultation with every family who can be reached in time in the absence of a register, and as a result of those consultations there is a tremendous rate of consent. It can, of course, work the other way as well, and the Bill will make full provision for that. It needs to be carefully worded, and I invite those with a particular interest to look at it, but the intention is to give families in that position an effective veto. I may not have fully picked up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd).

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the Bill, which I support. Does he agree that the point about Spain highlights the fact that the Bill is not actually the answer, but only part of the solution? After its Bill was passed, Spain took 10 years to increase the rate of donation by investing heavily in transport and infrastructure and a national organ donation system.

[Mr Robinson]

Yes. I shall refer to some of the circumferential investment that will be necessary to ensure that our own system is successful. Of course we would be starting from a much higher level, because our infrastructure—the nursing provision that is so vital, the body of professional surgeons and the specialist units—is much greater than it was in Spain. However, we recognise the success of the Spanish system. At its heart is the ability to reach the families and talk to them. That should happen in any event, but we believe that when it happens against the backdrop of an opt-out system, it starts from a different position and is—we hope—likely to produce a more positive result.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I think it fair to say that most, if not all, Members who are present today are here because we support the Bill and want to see it on the statute book. But—and it is a “but”—the hon. Gentleman said in his response to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) that friends and family would be consulted. I think it important for the Bill to be very precise if the matter is not to be brought into dispute and if a wave of withdrawals is not to be generated, which is the last thing that we want. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that that issue is very clearly addressed when the Bill goes into Committee, as we hope that it will?

[Mr Robinson]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s thoughtful and apposite intervention, and I can give him that assurance. Obviously, as the Bill’s promoter, I shall take a personal interest in ensuring that the right balance is struck. We should bear in mind that the balance will be struck in a context in which opting out is the law of the land, which I think changes the starting point of the discussions with families, but those discussions should nevertheless be handled with proper caution and respect in view of the moments of agony and the awful decision making with which families are faced.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I am here to support the Bill, but, as a Wales Member, I want to provide some reassurance. Wales already has legislation that has been working and that deals specifically with that point, and we have a higher donation rate than any other nation in the UK. I welcome the Bill, and I hope that everyone present will support it today.

[Mr Robinson]

I am very grateful for that intervention, in every sense. I was going to come on to the situation in Wales, which has been unfairly and prematurely judged to be a failure—even by as eminent an authority as the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which yesterday opined on the basis of figures produced only one year into the scheme. However, the latest serious peer-reviewed article in The BMJ expresses a different opinion, some three or four years into the scheme. It was written in February this year, so it is up to date, and there have been a few years in which to observe the trends. According to the author, a respected journalist, Wales has more registered donors and has experienced fewer family refusals and more living donations than any other part of the UK since the introduction of an opt-out system. The article concludes that

“none of the concerns about deemed consent”

—concerns rightly expressed by Members this morning—

“have materialised”.

The signs from Wales are very good, but these are early days, and I think it behoves us to note the caution expressed by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. We want to proceed carefully and with all the necessary infrastructure in place. One of the great aspects of our present system is that it is trusted by the public, and we cannot and will not put that trust at risk. We must ensure that the new system is introduced properly. What I have seen at first hand of NHS Blood and Transplant suggests that it is a very well organised outfit.

We do have a functioning register; we do know what we are doing; and we are building up our essential counselling nursing capability. As we build it up, some limited investments will also be needed in facilities, for any growth in demand will lead to a growth in the requirement for facilities. I say to the Minister, who is looking rather grim at the moment—[Interruption.] That’s better. I say to her that the NHS is very much in favour of this; I will quote a figure in a moment. Its thoughts as to the extent to which we can benefit in terms of increased numbers of organs and saved lives are encouraging, but it adds that its requirements for additional resources must be met. All I can say to hon. Members in that respect is that the amount of money required—the small requirement of resources in terms of software, mainly for the training of the nurses, and hardware and some facilities—is minuscule in relation to the good it can do. I think of the sheer joy we can see in those, particularly the children, who have had the benefit of a transplant.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman glossed over Wales in his remarks, but Welsh Assembly Government research showed that the introduction of the opt-out has had no impact on the number of organ donors in Wales, while the organisation CARE has said it has led to a reduction, not an increase, in the number of donors. What learning has the hon. Gentleman taken from the experience in Wales, and what measures are there in his Bill to address some of the flaws there might have been in that system in Wales?

[Mr Robinson]

That is a very moderate intervention from the hon. Gentleman, for which I am grateful. He is probably looking at the recent remarks and quotes from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which relate back a year, if I am not mistaken, to 2016 or ’17, but we are now in 2018 and the situation has evolved. I recommend to him an article I have here in The BMJ; I will leave it out for him if he would like to read it. It gives a full account of the situation in Wales, and is very hopeful. But, as I have said, we are going to monitor this carefully, and we should be cautious, practical and realistic in our approach to the introduction of the system in the UK.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan]

May I give the hon. Gentleman some good news on Wales? The legislation in Wales was pioneering, and was much discussed when I was Secretary of State for Wales. I have been looking at the details of some of the statistics from Wales in the latest report on organ donation and transplantation activity data, and the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to note that back in 2013-14 some 1,005,213 people were opted into the organ donation register in Wales, while for the first three quarters of the years 2017-18 that number increased to 1,220,331. The fact that more people are opted into that register is very positive news from Wales.

[Mr Robinson]

It was because the figure was so low in 2013 that the Welsh Government decided to move to an opt-out system. I agree with the right hon. Lady, and disagree with those who, for some reason or another, will not look at the most recent facts and move with the situation that is developing. The situation in 2013 was bad, which the Welsh Government recognised and they then went for an opt-out system. Then there was a period of bedding-in and there appeared to be no change, but the most recent figures for 2018—as opposed to 2017 or ’16—are showing a marked improvement, and I am sure we can all rejoice at that. This is not a matter of trading economic figures across the Chamber; that is a sheer fact and one that I think we can all take great satisfaction from.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

My interest in this matter arose from a constituent—a young man—who came here and lobbied. A year later I attended his funeral because, sadly, he did not get the transplant he wanted, but he had suffered enormously in the preceding period. We have now had the opt-out in Wales, however, and, regardless of what people can do with the statistics, the fact is that people in Wales are still alive who would have died before the law was passed, and people are dying unnecessarily in England.

[Mr Robinson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It was his Bill that sparked my personal interest, and I pay great tribute to the work he did in preparing that Bill, which we have adopted almost in its entirety. He will be pleased to know that we are hopeful that his Bill—from the beginning, as it were—will now find its way alongside my own on to the statute book; I know that will give him great pleasure. What he says about that individual case is certainly true. The positive news from a cautious assessment from the NHS is that, provided the opt-out system—the quintessential starting point for all these forward projections—is introduced and backed up with the necessary limited revenue and capital spending, up to 500 lives a year could be saved by deemed consent.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I am delighted to appear as one of the supporters of the hon. Gentleman’s Bill, and am very pleased to have my name on it. I hope he will be able to look at just one thing in Committee: the issue of deemed consent involving people who lose capacity towards the end of their lives. I hope there will be more clarity in Committee to enable people who have made the decision that they want to make their organs available to do so, when just their brain is no longer of much use to anybody else and they do not have the capacity. I hope the Bill will be clear about such circumstances when people lose capacity towards the end of their lives but when the rest of the body can still be of use to others.

[Mr Robinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and the fact that he agreed to be a supporter of the Bill—his name appears on the face of the Bill, he will be pleased to note. He raises an area of great concern, but it is something we will have to deal with in Committee; I am sure he will agree that it is not for Second Reading, so I will not go further into it now.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this Bill to the House, and I will of course support it. He mentions the modest investment in capital and resources needed to give effect to this when it has become law, but does he agree that by saving lives and making people healthy enough to play a full part in society, we will be increasing the ability of our country to succeed, and also—although this is obviously a secondary issue by comparison with the saving of life—we will be reducing the ridiculous amount of spend on just keeping people alive when they actually need organ donations?

[Mr Robinson]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for his intervention, but I would rather not go down the route of cost-benefit analysis; these are matters of life and death and are best left as such when we look at what we can do to save lives that we know can be saved.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I strongly support my hon. Friend’s Bill. Alongside this measure and a number of the other things he describes, does he agree that the most important thing we can do is have that conversation with our families and loved ones, to make it absolutely clear to them that when we are gone we wish whatever bits of us are still of any use to be given to others so they might continue to live? Is that not what we really need to do to make sure that, when that difficult conversation comes to be had over a loved one who has died on a hospital bed, as many people as possible know and the family can say, “Of course”?

[Mr Robinson]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I do not know whether he was in the Chamber when I remarked on the importance of family conversations, which are absolutely vital, and also the importance of public awareness. The Government consultation has contributed enormously to public awareness. We must ourselves now set the example in terms of being registered and not opt out—I certainly have no intention of even considering that.

The other great contribution that we can make in personal terms is to hold those conversations with our own families and encourage others to do so. Public awareness will not necessarily lead to that happening, yet we know that it is at that moment when families are confronted with the awful situation that they often back off, sometimes even overriding the wishes of the deceased who happens to be a registered donor. We can do no more important work than to hold those difficult family conversations and encourage others to do so.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a good point about making people aware of the difference this can make. Yesterday, I found out about the British transplant games, which involve live donors and people who have received an organ transplant. This wonderful event will take place in Birmingham on 2 August. I met a woman called Pat who had been a live donor, and she said that she was going to take part in the games with the person to whom she had donated an organ. I thought that was so wonderful. Obviously, no one wants to think about the worst thing happening to their family or anyone they love, but it would be wonderful to think that anything I could give when I have gone would help someone to live a fulfilling life that could even involve taking part in a sporting event like that. We should think about the future and the real difference that this can make for so many people. I am so proud to be standing here with my hon. Friend on this day and supporting his Bill.

[Mr Robinson]

I feel inclined to say that I rest my case, but I cannot quite do that just yet. I think I am okay for time, despite all the interventions. I will, however, proceed to a conclusion now, if I may.

I have quoted some disquieting statistics, including the 500 saveable lives—or avoidable deaths because of the unavailability of an organ—a year. To put it another way, if we continue with unchanged policies, some 500 of the 6,500 people on the present waiting list will, in effect, be on a life sentence and will die in the next year if no organ becomes available. I believe that the House will agree that that is simply not good enough. We can do better as a nation. We have shown that we can do that through the creation of the NHS, which is something that no other nation achieved. Here again, we can be pioneers in making transplantation more successful, principally through an increase in organ donation.

As I have said, I do not think that my Bill is the answer to all the questions—we have discussed many of the points that need addressing in the course of this debate—but my God, I am convinced that it is a necessary start if we are to regain the momentum and the impetus that we lost by moving to an opt-out system. After all, that is why this measure has been introduced in Wales, and that is why I am putting my proposal to the House today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) talked about the British transplant games. Last night’s reception, given by the Daily Mirror—very fortunately—in the Terrace Room, was very moving. I met Max’s mom, as she has come to be known—Mrs Emma Johnson—and she gave us the most up-to-date news on Max, who has become something of the face of the campaign. I make no excuse for being emotional about this, and I am sure that everyone will be delighted to know that Max is still doing well. He went back to school part time last September, and it is hoped that next year he will be back full time. The hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) represents the donor family—the Ball family, whose daughter, Keira, was killed in a terrible car crash; a most unfortunate incident—and he brought to my attention something about the Max story that I did not know. Keira gave her heart to give that young boy his life, and Max’s mom, Mrs Johnson, has said how much she is looking forward to meeting the family. She says she wonders how they will feel when they put their hand on Max’s heart and feel their daughter’s heart still beating. I had a call alerting me to the fact that the hon. Gentleman wanted to take part in the debate and to refer to this, and I said that that would be great. I am sure that he will catch your eye in due course, Mr Speaker.

There are many in this House who have been affected in one way or another. If I may, I would like to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), who was also at the reception last night. Her daughter, who unfortunately could not attend, has been on daily dialysis for 12 months now while waiting for a kidney. I know that my hon. Friend will also want to catch your eye if possible, Mr Speaker.

I hope that the party opposite will take it in the best spirit when I say that I would like to thank the Daily Mirror for its magnificent campaign on this issue. It shows just what a free press, fighting courageously, can achieve for a brave cause. It is, in that sense, the best of the best. I said that to their representatives very openly last night in thanking them for the campaign, and I know that they feel that they have achieved something—perhaps more than some newspapers achieve in 24 pages of exposure. The representative of the Daily Mirror told me that my thanks were welcome, but they were nothing compared with the happiness felt at the Mirror every time there was a successful transplant as a result of the campaign, especially among the young.

I have had many letters on this subject, although it is properly not appropriate for me to read from them now, as I was intending to. I shall just say that the House has an opportunity today that, while not unique, might not occur again for several years. We have the opportunity to introduce a Bill whose enactment we could achieve by the end of this year, if it receives its Second Reading today, and whose effect could begin to be felt in the following year. I believe that the House is in the mood to rise to the occasion, and I am sure that we will seize this opportunity to pass a Bill that will come to be regarded as an Act for life.

10:17

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

Thank you very much for calling me to speak so early in the debate, Mr Speaker. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) on the compassionate way in which he introduced his Bill, and on bringing it before the House. I hope that I am not assuming too much when I say that I think there is good support for it on both sides of the House. More importantly, I believe that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who will be speaking from the Front Bench today, will also be giving it her support. For me, this is a bit like déjà vu, because I went through all these arguments back in 2010 when the Welsh Assembly was looking at introducing what finally became the Human Transplantation (Wales) Act 2013, which took effect in 2015.

The permitting of a system involving deemed consent is quite a complex concept. To be truthful, it received many objections from a large number of people in Wales at the time, on a large number of grounds. I was approached by the Kidney Wales Federation, which did a fantastic job, along with a lot of other organisations, in lobbying politicians and explaining the position of families who were waiting for organs and families who had been approached to donate the organs of a deceased relative. The debate got quite heated at times, and it also gave rise to a lot of myths. Looking at the evidence, I have always found that the medical profession and others surrounding bereaved relatives, or those who are about to become bereaved, have handled these matters with great sensitivity and achieved good outcomes. Indeed, the legislation in Wales still permits families to withdraw the so-called deemed consent, which means that their views can be taken into consideration. That is extremely important.

One thing I looked at was the success rate of the 2008 organ donation taskforce, which helped to increase donation rates greatly in the five years of its operation. There was a 50% increase in donors and a 30.5% increase in transplants, which are impressive statistics. At the time, I was exceedingly worried that, by introducing controversial legislation, we might do damage to a campaign that was yielding positive results—that needs to be taken into consideration.

The truth is that there are more people on the donation list than there are organs available. For many people in this Chamber, and beyond, it is worth noting that there was a particular problem in the black and minority ethnic population because, in those days, 23% of the people waiting for organ donation were from the BME population and only 1.2% of the people on the register were from the BME community. That huge discrepancy and disparity caused a lot of aggravation.

I was unsure about the legislation in Wales, but I am pleased to stand here as a politician and openly admit that I have changed my mind. There is no disgrace in that—when the facts change, I change my mind, which is important. One reason why I changed my mind is that I have a dear friend who, for the purpose of this debate, I will call Jane. I have known her son since he was born, and I will call him John.

John has primary sclerosing cholangitis, a chronic liver disease whereby the bile ducts, the passages that carry bile from the liver to the intestines, become blocked and narrowed by inflammation, so scar tissue builds up and the liver itself stops functioning. The symptoms can include tiredness, aching, itching, pain in the abdomen, jaundice, chills and fevers. The progression of the disease, although highly variable, usually leads to one conclusion—that the patient needs a liver transplant.

John has been told that, because of the shortage of transplants, he has to be in cirrhosis before he can be put on the list, and then he will have to wait for a match. By that time, he may not be well enough to have a transplant. I am close to the family and have seen the effect on them. Jane wrote to me:

“This has obviously affected the whole family. John still lives with us at 25, and we are, in fact, his carers in some respects, as we know he will only get worse in time. We do not know how much time he has, and he cannot plan for his future. As well as physically, mentally it takes a great toll on him, as he does not know if he will get a transplant when he needs one. Organ donation would help a great deal in this.”

When you have a friend with a boy—he is now a man, and he is a highly intelligent and wonderful human being—in that position, you have to reconsider where you stand on such legislation.

The Bill will not be enough in itself, but it will do absolutely no harm and it will again stimulate a debate. If the Bill continues to be accompanied by campaigns to encourage people to register and to donate, it will help to raise awareness, which will help to increase the statistics, as we did in the first five years following the organ donation taskforce.

We are all living longer, and if we in this House can prolong the life, and improve the quality of life, of people such as John who suffer from rare diseases, we should do so. I will give this Bill a fair wind. Obviously the devil will be in the detail, and we will need to consider the Bill carefully. I would like us to consult, and to learn from the experience in Wales, because there will be a lot to learn—Wales has forged the way.

I do not want a hard system, as in Austria—that is not what I envisage. I want this whole area still to be surrounded by the care and consideration of the medical profession, and I want the latitude that allows families and people with genuine reasons not to participate, but I want to see increased numbers of people on the register. I want to see increased organ donation and more lives saved. I give the Bill a fair wind.

10:25

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) on his success in the private Members’ Bills ballot, which is no mean achievement, and on choosing this most important topic. I have always supported an opt-out system, as opposed to an opt-in system. What I will talk about today has not resulted in my decision that an opt-out system is right, but it has amplified the importance of my decision.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who has done so much good campaigning on this issue. I also pay tribute to the Daily Mirror, which has already been mentioned, for its campaign, and to the Prime Minister and the Government for their statement this week in support of the campaign—that is very important.

Today I will talk about my family’s story. I rarely talk about my family in public, because it is me, not them, who entered public life. There is nothing special or unusual about my family, and what has happened to us over the past 18 months could happen to anyone. Young or old, rich or poor, there is no differentiation when such things happen, and they highlight the reality of the need to change the law to deemed consent.

I have four grown-up children, all now either married or with long-term partners, and five wonderful grandchildren. We are a very close family, and I am lucky that we all live within two miles of each other in Sunderland—when I am not down here. My eldest daughter, Rebecca, is now 36. She is married and has a six-year-old daughter, and she was referred to the renal unit of the Freeman Hospital in Newcastle after routine blood tests showed a problem with her kidney function. That was in October 2016, so not that long ago.

After Rebecca spent a week or so in hospital, it became clear that she was quite ill with significantly reduced kidney function that could at some point lead to her needing a transplant. That was where we thought we were, which was a big enough shock in itself, but the medical team at the Freeman thought that they could stabilise her condition.

Rebecca had been reasonably okay until that point. She had had a few issues health-wise, but she was okay, so the diagnosis of chronic kidney disease came as a huge shock to her, to me and to our family and friends. To face the reality of the fragility of life is very hard at any time, but facing it for one of my children, although she is an adult, is one of the hardest things I have ever had to do.

My daughter had until recently been a healthy, happy young woman. She was quite a serious runner in her spare time, and she regularly ran half-marathons and, occasionally, marathons. In fact, in the weeks before she took ill in October 2016, she had gained a place at the 2017 London marathon—she did not run it, obviously. It is impossible to describe the shock of someone like that suddenly becoming so ill. I have to say that she did not get her fitness drive from her mother, who goes to watch her run but does not run herself.

Sadly, Rebecca’s condition deteriorated very quickly, and in June 2017 she had surgery to enable her to start dialysis. One of the few positive parts of the general election campaign for me was that I was at home for six weeks, so during the time when her health was deteriorating rapidly I was able to drop everything and get to the hospital quickly. It is a lot harder to do that when I am 300 miles away.

Rebecca started dialysis last July, and I want to talk a little about the daily reality of her life. In the two or three months leading up to her having surgery she became increasingly unwell, to a point where, daily during those last few weeks, she was just lying on the sofa after she got up and she was not eating particularly well, if at all. She had the odd slice of toast or bowl of cereal. One thing that happens when people have kidney failure is that they feel very sick and generally unwell, with no energy. She could not really walk to the end of the street and she certainly could not take part in all the things that her daughter did on a day-to-day basis.

When dialysis was first mentioned to us, it was a terrifying prospect, but its arrival has given Rebecca a quality of life again. She does PD—peritoneal dialysis. She has a machine at home and links on to it every night, and for eight hours her body dialyses on it. That means that she has got some quality of life back. She is back at work, but she does have restrictions. She has to have a restricted diet, which for her means no coffee, chocolate or cheese—three things she loves. She gets two of those from her mother, but I am a tea drinker, not a coffee drinker. She is here and she is alive. Whenever she has a bad day—she does have bad days emotionally, because this is a difficult thing to be dealing with—and she says, “I am sick of this dialysis”, I say, “Just think: what’s the alternative, Rebecca?” That quickly focuses the mind and she picks herself up.

As a family, and with close friends, we have all rallied round to support Rebecca and each other through this challenging time.

[Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)]

My heart goes out to the hon. Lady for what she has been going through, and I am sure everyone in the House today would say the same. She mentioned dialysis, and I am going to mention a constituent of mine, a very young girl. This Facebook post hits home:

“Today 1,608 days with total kidney failure. Today 19,296 Hours spent on Dialysis. Today waiting for the precious call, a match has been found.”

Does the hon. Lady agree that when we think of such children, and people like her daughter, it is very hard not to support the Bill today?

[Julie Elliott]

Absolutely. As I have said, this sort of illness strikes indiscriminately, and when we attend appointments—I attend just about every appointment with Rebecca—we see everyone from very young people through to older people; we see people from all walks of life. It is heartbreaking seeing people with this sort of illness. Every one of those people has a family, has a story and has loved ones, and it is very difficult.

I want to talk a little about the impact of this kind of illness on the wider family. As Rebecca’s health rapidly deteriorated, she had to be off work sick quite a lot. She has had some considerable time off sick. Even though she is now back at work, she still gets days when, as happened this week, she is not very well in the middle of the day and has to come home. Dialysis does not mean that someone is fit, well, healthy and leading an absolutely normal life. She has been very lucky, as her employers, True Solicitors of Newcastle, have been an amazing support to her. They have done everything they can to help her. They have done fundraisers for kidney charities—I am thinking particularly of her colleagues Kay and Lindsey. If I am trying to get to the hospital from wherever I am when Rebecca suddenly takes ill, they will take her to hospital from work and sit with her until one of the family can get there. I want to thank them publicly, because many people in this situation are not so lucky and face losing their jobs, with all the hardships and problems that creates. So it is important to say thank you to people who have been fantastic.

Next I want to mention the renal unit at the Freeman Hospital in Newcastle. Not only is that a world-class unit, but it has some of the most amazing and dedicated staff I have ever come across. From the time someone walks through the door at the out-patients unit, the receptionist, Ann, is always smiling, always welcoming and always looking after them, and the same is true of everyone right through to the most senior doctors. We have seen a lot of different doctors as this illness has progressed. The whole team are amazing, particularly the PD nurses who are looking after Rebecca’s dialysis. They look after Rebecca, but they also look after her family and they have got to know us all, because we have all been there with her at different stages. They are the essence of everything that is great about our health service. They are working under enormous pressures on their time and resources, but they always have time for us. I want to say a personal thank you to them.

I know that this is not a political debate as such, but I am a politician, so I hope Members will give me a moment’s licence. I am going to say that I think the health service staff need a pay rise and the NHS needs more investment, because they are such amazing people and they literally make the difference every day between people living and dying.

The impact on our family has been huge. You go through a period of shock, disbelief and anger as to, “Why Rebecca?” More than one doctor has said to us through that period that it should not be happening to her, as she has been a fit, healthy young woman who has done everything right in looking after her health. They cannot find the reason this has happened. The emotions and journey you go through are like a rollercoaster, because we have to deal not just with the direct impact of what is happening medically to Rebecca, but with the emotional impact of seeing that what is happening to her might mean that my daughter might not be there when I am still here. That is not something any parent ever wants to consider. Although all my children are grown up, they are having to deal with seeing their mother coping less than I normally do. I am a fairly strident, coping kind of woman normally. All of them are dealing with the idea that their sister might not be here. That is all very, very difficult. So we have rallied round and all supported each other, and we remain very positive. Rebecca is very lucky that she has a brother and sisters, my sister, her husband and a great mother-in-law, who have all played their role in supporting this journey we are on, and continue to do so.

It is very difficult being on call for a phone call. My phone is with me all the time. It is very difficult working 300 miles away when you are in this situation. As we all know, we sometimes travel out of this country in this job, so whenever I travel out of the country on business with Parliament, I have a plan of how I am going to get back. It is important to thank colleagues in this place, from all parts of the House, who have given me a huge amount of support. The Whips have been fantastic; they have basically said, “Just go. Text us and tell us you’ve gone.” There is a slight personal thing in that as well, because our Deputy Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), has known Rebecca since she was a child. As many Members will know, I was his agent in 1997 when he got elected to this place, and Rebecca, being my daughter, ran one of the committee rooms. The support has been really lovely. A lot of the time in this place the differences that we have are highlighted, but at the end of the day we are all people trying to do the best for our constituents and we all care about people.

For me, as a mother, my natural instinct has always been to make things better for my children—that is what we all do. Rebecca is always going to be the baby I gave birth to 36 years ago; you love that child instantly and unconditionally, and that never changes. It is terrible to be in a situation where I cannot fix something that has gone terribly wrong. But what I can do, from the privileged position I have of being a Member of this place, is raise awareness and campaign for a change in the law, to that of deemed consent. The change in the law needs to come, and I want to touch on the investment that needs to happen on the back of that change—this has been alluded to in a number of contributions today.

This issue needs to be discussed in schools and among families, so that transplantation becomes a normal part of the conversation of life. We also need investment in the health service to support what I believe will be an increase in the number of available donor organs.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I wish the hon. Lady and Rebecca all the very best for the future. The Bill is really important, which is why I am here to support it, but will she also acknowledge, as I am sure she will, those live donors who give an organ? My friend Jane has recently given a kidney to her nephew-in-law. That is an incredible thing to have done—for many of us, it is difficult to imagine it—and it has turned around the life of her nephew-in-law, in the same way that, I hope, Rebecca’s life will be turned around eventually. Although the Bill does not cover such people, they also deserve the House’s praise. Hopefully, another good thing that will come out of this debate is raised awareness of that possibility.

[Julie Elliott]

Absolutely. Five members of my family, including me, put ourselves forward to be donors, but none of us matched. Matching is really difficult. One family member is now entering a pool situation, which is a bit like a swap shop of organs, in case somebody has an organ that fits Rebecca and my family member’s fits somebody else. That is a marvellous thing to do and the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to it.

As has been mentioned, presumed consent does mean that people have the right to opt out of giving their organs, and some people will. It is very important for that to be in the legislation. I absolutely respect people’s decision to opt out, because it is not the right thing for everybody. That is as important as changing the law.

My final words are for the families of donors: your selflessness in donating your loved ones’ organs at a time of such personal grief, to save the lives of people you do not know, is such a wonderful thing. Everybody should be grateful for that and thank those people. The grief of having lost a loved one carries on forever, but I am sure that there is some comfort in the fact that their family has helped and their loved one’s organs have gone to help someone else. It is important to say thank you. As a family member of, hopefully one day, a recipient, I want to say thank you from the bottom of my heart. They are very special people.

Let us send the Bill to Committee and change the law to save more lives, for the thousands who are waiting for transplants. Today, we see Parliament at its best, overcoming political differences for something that just needs to change. It is a day we should be proud of.

10:42

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). We have all learned that her daughter Rebecca is just as strong and brave as her mother. I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) on bringing the Bill to the House and thank him for the compassionate and positive tone he has taken and for the collaborative way he is working across party lines to make sure that we drive this legislation forward.

The Bill is vital; we are talking about a genuinely life-or-death issue. It is a true tragedy that 456 adults and 14 children lost their lives last year while on the organ donation list. Every single day, somebody dies because they do not get the transplant that they desperately need. There are around 6,500 people waiting for organs who do not want to become a part of those statistics. This legislation is for them, and it is about saving lives. Organ donation does save lives: around 50,000 people in the UK are alive today because they have had an organ transplant. Some 80% of the population support organ transplants in principle and 25 million people are on the NHS organ donors list—including, I am proud to say, me. That number has risen by 75% over the past 10 years, and transplants are up 56%.

The Bill, as I am sure its author will agree, is about removing obstructions to donating while at the same time allowing anyone who does not wish to donate to opt out. As many colleagues have said, it is important that we do not attach any stigma to anybody who chooses to opt out for a variety of perfectly valid reasons.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) has identified a real issue that he supports, and I certainly have no intention of blocking his Bill. Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend share some people’s misgivings about the principle of the state presuming that people have consented to something when they have not, and the potential implications for public policy? Does he have any understanding of those misgivings about the state presuming that people have done something that they have not actually done?

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point that I am sure will be raised again in this debate, but we are talking about a matter of life and death. All the surveys show the large number of people willing to support organ donation in principle, so it is alarming that the number who are actually on the organ donation list is relatively low, despite the fact that it takes literally two minutes. In an ideal world, everybody would be completely educated and would voluntarily make their own choice, but that is not happening. Many such issues will be raised in Committee; I hope we will be able to find a reasonable alternative.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the past 10 years the number of organ donors has increased by 75% and the number of transplants by 56%? Is there really a need for the Bill?

[Nigel Huddleston]

There is indeed, because there is still a long way to go and people are still dying because they are not getting the donations or transplants that they need. There absolutely is a need to move forward with the Bill.

Let us look at the alternative systems around the world. The example of Spain is often mentioned. We are looking at the system there as some kind of model, although perhaps not an exact one. Spain leads the world with 43.4 deceased donors per million. It is joined at the top of the statistical league table by other opt-out systems in countries such as Croatia, Portugal, France and Italy. All these countries have better donor rates than England and all have opt-out rather than opt-in systems. Another advantage of such “soft” opt-out systems is that they do not deny or restrict the role of bereaved families, and they allow families to be consulted on the wishes of their loved ones. That is important.

One thing that surprised me about that 43.4 per million figure was how incredibly low it is. Half a million people die in the UK every year, yet just 1% of them die in circumstances or conditions that allow them even to be potential donors. It is important to note that just because someone is on the donor list, that does not mean that they will end up donating their organs, but we need to get the figure as high as possible to help as many people as we can.

We also need the supporting infrastructure to enable those who wish to donate actually to do so. We have all heard about people who have been willing to donate their organs but have, for example, passed away at the weekend in a hospital in which there is no capability to take the organs out of their bodies and transplant them. We need to look carefully at the supporting mechanisms for any changes that are introduced.

Quite a few colleagues have mentioned the need to raise overall awareness, which is linked to the need to encourage family consent. It is telling that in cases where a specialist nurse is involved, donation consent rates are 68.6%, whereas if a specialist nurse is not involved, consent rates plummet to 27.5%. That is clear statistical evidence that when people are provided with impartial but expert information about the possibility of donating, they are more likely to consent to donating their organs.

One problem is that there is still an awkwardness or queasiness about the idea of one’s body being examined and operated on post-death. We are often comfortable about that ourselves, but, in the horrible circumstances of someone passing away, particularly if the circumstances are tragic or the death unexpected, our families are particularly queasy about the idea. It is therefore vital that we continue to have these dialogues—that we all go home and have these conversations with our families, including our children, because of course children can also become donors. We must have informed conversations.

It is simply not right that 80% of people say that they would be willing to donate their organs, but only 36% actually register to do so. The number is increasing, but we need it to be much higher. In a well-publicised opt-out system, those figures could converge, and the 20% who are unwilling to donate would have a simple mechanism for making sure that they do not have to do so.

Many years ago, I was asked if I had a private Member’s Bill—I think it was during one of the selection processes—what would it be. It would be exactly this one. The hon. Member for Coventry North West should be in no doubt that I fully support this Bill, and I hope that many of, if not all, our colleagues will do so too.

10:50

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this very important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) on bringing this Bill forward in the Chamber and on raising our awareness of the issue. I also thank and congratulate my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), on her very emotional, personal and courageous contribution to the debate. I am quite confident that the public and Members will have taken note of it.

Others have spoken at length about the importance of raising donation rates. I have my own personal reasons for supporting the move: my younger brother has been waiting for more than five years for somebody, somewhere, to donate a kidney. He has dialysis four times a week. Another very close personal friend is also going through the same difficult times. Therefore, I have those reasons for supporting the Bill, as well as my own personal views, and a moral commitment to the cause.

As many colleagues have said, more than 6,000 people are still actively waiting for a transplant in the UK. Three people die every day because they cannot get the transplant that they need, ruining family lives across the country. Over the past 10 years, the number of donors has increased by 75%, which is fantastic and has saved countless lives, but there is still a great shortage both in the UK and—as we are a global community—internationally as well. If we go to any country, we are asked, “What are you doing in this field?” I am glad that, once again, Britain is leading in this field, so that the rest of the world can learn and pick up its ideas from here.

Only a third of eventual donors are registered to donate at the time of their death, and this number is even lower among the black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. BAME patients fare far worse than other patients. They will, on average, wait six months longer for a transplant than a white patient. I do apologise if my language is not politically correct, but for convenience, I will use black and white in this case. BAME people face the struggle of comparatively rare blood and tissue types and compatible organs. Although the overall number of donors has increased by 75%, BAME donations have only increased by less than 7%—a fraction of the rate for white people—and that has translated directly into deaths.

There is still a problem with public education and awareness. The families of minority populations are also less likely to consent to organ donation when asked after death: 64% of BAME families refuse permission for donation compared with only 43% for the rest of the population. An opt-out system rather than an opt-in system will increase the likelihood that donors of the same blood and tissue types are available to members of the BAME community. Increasing the number of compatible organs on the transplant list could save thousands of lives each year.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making some extremely important points in his speech, and they are ones that I am particularly conscious of and really want to tackle. Let me amplify some of his points: of the 6,400 people on the waiting list, more than a 1,000 are from Asian backgrounds and 800 are black. I just wish to endorse his point that, in terms of racial fairness, we really need to increase donation from those parts of the community.

[Mr Sharma]

I am glad and thankful for the Minister’s very positive intervention and for the information that she has provided to Members in the Chamber. Activist groups and campaigners, such as the National BAME Transplant Alliance, support the move to an opt-out system, because it will ultimately save more lives across our diverse country.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

I support everything that my hon. Friend has said. Like him, I represent a constituency with a very high proportion of people from BAME communities. There are not just fewer people consenting to donate their organs, but considerably higher rates of heart disease among these communities. Therefore, particularly for heart transplants, it is very important that we get as many people from BAME communities on to the list in future.

[Mr Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was going to raise that matter myself, so I am thankful that he both highlighted and supported it.

Issues such as diabetes, high blood pressure and hepatitis are more common in BAME communities, making their members more likely to need transplant organs. BAME patients make up a third of the kidney transplant waiting list and wait an average of a year longer for a transplant than their white counterparts. Just one person can save or improve up to nine lives. One tragic death can give life to so many through organ donation and even more if they donate tissues as well.

Although ethnic minorities constitute only 11% of the UK population, they make up nearly a quarter of transplant waiting lists, and only six out of every 100 people signed up to the NHS organ donor register are from BAME communities. Opt-out can and will save lives. It respects religious differences and takes away no freedom of expression or belief. Countless constituents of mine have written to urge me to come to the House today to support the Bill, and I am proud to do so and to lend my support to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West.

10:58

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

I am delighted to be here to support this Bill today. In doing so, I will not rehearse many of the arguments that have been so ably put already, not least by the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), whose speech on its own was enough to persuade, I hope, all Members to support this excellent measure today. I am here to tell one story; a story that was initially raised by the hon. Gentleman. It is the story of my constituent, young Keira Ball, and her family.

On Sunday morning, 30 July last year, there was a road traffic collision on the A361, the North Devon link road. It took place only about five miles from my home in North Devon on a stretch of road that is notorious for accidents and that we are working hard to improve.

Two vehicles were involved in the accident, one of which was a car carrying members of the Ball family: Keira Ball, her younger brother Brad and their mother Loanna. Their vehicle was in a collision with another. The paramedics, emergency services and all the NHS staff of the three separate hospitals to which those three people were taken undertook brilliant work. But young Keira Ball sadly passed away two days later, on the Tuesday afternoon. She was nine years old. Her mother and brother were very seriously injured. Immediately after Keira’s death, her father Joe took the agonising decision that he wanted his daughter’s death to give life to other people and that young Keira’s organs should be donated.

I have had contact this week with Joe and Loanna Ball, who live in Barnstaple in my constituency. In particular, I sought their permission to tell Keira’s full story today. I wanted to ensure that they were happy for me to do so, which indeed they were. They recognise, as I do, that this story could be an inspiration to others. It could ensure that others sign up for organ donation and will give strength to those who face similar circumstances.

Following the decision by Keira’s father, four people are alive today who otherwise would not be. Keira donated her kidneys, heart, liver and pancreas. One of her kidneys was given to a man in his 30s who had been on the waiting list for an organ for two and a half years. The other kidney was given to a woman in her 50s who had been on the waiting list for nine and a half years. A young boy received Keira’s pancreas and liver. Keira’s heart was given to a 10-year-old boy who has very much become the figurehead of this campaign and who has been mentioned during this debate: Max Johnson. It is Max who is in many ways at the forefront of this excellent campaign. Max is alive today. It was so good to hear from the hon. Member for Coventry North West and those who were at the reception last night that Max’s mum Emma is here to watch the debate and to hear that Keira’s family are so pleased to have given life to her little boy.

That is Keira’s story and it is Max’s story. It is a story of how a very brave—and, I am sure, very difficult—decision to allow Keira’s organs to be donated has given life to four other people who otherwise would probably not be here today. That is surely the best possible argument for supporting the Bill, which will ensure that more organs are available for donation. Keira’s and Max’s story demonstrates that more organs mean more saved lives.

I welcome and fully support the Bill. Many people deserve credit for getting it to this stage, including the hon. Member for Coventry North West, whose Bill this is; other hon. Members mentioned today who have pioneered similar legislation that has not reached this stage for various odd parliamentary reasons; the Government, who have said that they fully support the Bill; and the Minister for personally driving it forward. I also give credit to Her Majesty’s Opposition, and was delighted to hear their spokesperson ensuring the smooth passage of the Bill from the Dispatch Box. It is extremely significant that the names of right hon. and hon. Members from all seven parties represented in this House appear on the Bill.

I pay tribute to the campaign by the Daily Mirror that features Max, who has life because of young Keira Ball. It has really helped to push this issue forward. Many people deserve, quite rightly, to have a stake in what I sincerely hope will be the Bill’s success. As I support the Bill, which I will do at every stage, I will be thinking of Max and Keira. It is their Bill and it is thanks to the brave decision taken by Keira’s dad on that most difficult of days that four more people have life who might otherwise have not. That is the best argument for seeing this Bill reach the statute book.

09:30

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), who spoke most movingly about the incredibly contribution that his constituent Keira Ball and her family have made to this process. I pay tribute to the role that he has played in bringing that to our attention. He was also right to talk about the cross-party nature of this campaign because this is Parliament at its best. This is how the public expect us to serve in this place—to work co-operatively with others in order to make really important changes.

The House faces a clear choice today. We have the opportunity to make a change that will add huge value to our country and that will undoubtedly save people’s lives. It all boils down to whether we take the opportunity to save hundreds of lives over the coming years. I very much hope that we do not miss that opportunity and that we work together to make this change.

It has been a real privilege to be a part of the campaign that has got us to this point. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), who has provided real leadership through his promotion of the Bill. He and I have sat through many meetings—I have lost count of quite how many—and it is his focus and determination to lead us to this point that have meant that we have an opportunity to do something very worth while today. I also pay tribute to all the other Members who have provided such outstanding support, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), and other Members—too numerous to mention—right across the House and the political spectrum who have worked together to get us to this point.

It has been mentioned before in this debate, but I also want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Trinity Mirror. The Mirror Group has run a relentless and tireless campaign. Its contribution to this private Member’s Bill and the broader campaign has been massive. It has conducted itself in the very best traditions of a free British press. I know that I speak for all Members when I pay the organisation the largest compliment that I can. We are grateful for everything that it has done.

It is crucial today to pay tributes and to give credit where it is due. I am looking very firmly at the Minister, who has responded in the most brilliantly sensible, co-operative and constructive way. We have sat in a lot of meetings in different places over many months, and in my relatively short time in this House I have not found anybody who has been easier to deal with than she has. She has been a great pleasure to work with, and the leadership that she has shown has been instrumental in ensuring that we have the opportunity to pass this important Bill. I thank her and her officials, who have done an important job in getting us to this place. I urge all hon. Members to think of the common good and to act in a way that I firmly and passionately believe will save countless lives.

It is worth reflecting that of all the people who died in the UK last year, only about 1% died in circumstances that would have made donation possible, meaning that, even though hundreds of thousands of people across the country are registered as potential donors, only a small handful will ever be in a situation that would allow donation to take place. This is one of the main reasons why today in the UK more than 6,000 people are waiting for an organ donation and why nearly 500 people died last year while waiting. This loss of life is devastating but not inevitable.

Today we have a precious opportunity to do something about it, and we must not miss it. Moving to an opt-out system for organ donation will add thousands of names to the donor register, meaning that once the Bill is passed hundreds of lives will be saved. Let us be clear about what the Bill is not. It is not about the state taking control of people’s organs or shaming individuals into donating. If people want to opt out, that is absolutely fine, and I am hugely respectful of any decision people want to make. No questions will be asked; there will be no hard feelings. The Bill is about making it easier for those who might wish to donate to do so.

[Sandy Martin]

Mention has been made of religiously inclined Jewish people in this country. Some people will feel uncomfortable about the concept of donation. Does my hon. Friend agree that people from various religious traditions—not just one—might feel uncomfortable about this and that it is entirely right to give them the opportunity to opt out, if they wish to do so?

[Dan Jarvis]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. He makes an incredibly important point. This is absolutely not about shaming anybody into doing anything they do not want to do. If anybody, for whatever reason, decides they do not wish to be part of the scheme, they have the right to opt out. It is incredibly important that we be clear about that.

It is also worth reflecting on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn): the current system requires people to take the time to discuss this most serious and difficult matter with their loved ones in order to reach a judgment about whether, in the event of some tragedy occurring, they would want their organs to be donated. It is incredibly important, if people feel they can have that conversation with their loved ones, that they do so, but we understand that people lead busy lives, and many of us will be guilty of not having had these conversations and of putting these tasks on hold.

I believe, however, that we can no longer afford to ignore this issue. It is a matter of life and death for thousands of people around the country, which is why we must increase the number of people on our donor register and make sure we save as many lives as we can and that no more people die waiting for a transplant simply because a potential donor was not able to sign up.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech. We often think of donors as being younger people whose bodies and organs are in particularly good shape, but my beloved grandfather, when he died a few years ago—I think he was 96—was able to donate parts of his eyes and so give the gift of sight to other people. We received a letter from the hospital telling us how many people he had been able to help. Everyone has an opportunity, no matter how old they are, to offer that amazing gift to another after they have gone.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, as she always does. As others have said, the Bill is only a part of the way to increase the number of people, whatever their age or background, willing and able to contribute their organs. In concert with the Bill, however, we also need to have an open discussion in our communities about the importance of making a proactive contribution in this way.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) made a very important point about age. I have come here, as somebody of a certain age, with my donor card, which I have carried all my adult life. There is the thought that the organs of someone my age might not be in as good a state as a young person’s and therefore might be less likely to be used in transplants, but bodies can be used for medical research—perhaps into ageing, for example. I like to think that people of my age could still donate their bodies, even if they die from natural causes, and I will make sure that that is included in my will, so that my body could be used for medical research or perhaps for teaching medical students.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It reinforces the notion that, in addition to legislation, all of us who believe in the value of organ donation should ensure that as many people as possible register. The Bill will play an important role in that, but all of us, as leaders in our communities, have an absolute responsibility to get that message across to our constituents.

I do not intend to detain the House much longer, but I do want to make the point that we are lucky and privileged today to be joined by Emma Johnson. Emma is often referred to as “Max’s mom”, although I do not think she minds. As the hon. Member for North Devon mentioned, Max is the 10-year-old who fronted the Daily Mail’s campaign on organ donation. He was kept alive by a tiny metal pump that was in his chest for seven months. I am delighted to learn that, after finally receiving a heart transplant, Max is doing well. His story and that of the sacrifice made by Keira Ball, spoken of movingly by the hon. Gentleman, should serve as an inspiration to us all. We are here today to save lives like Max’s: those of the thousands of people who would benefit from the change set out in the Bill. We have a precious opportunity to make that change today. We have at our fingertips the opportunity to make a powerful, important and meaningful change.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

It is not entirely the same, but my son Max is alive today because he received a stem cell transplant. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do more to encourage people on to the stem cell register and that, as with transplants, we must get rid of the myths—in this case, that stem cell donation is painful and difficult and that they take part of your spine? None of that is true. It is a very simple process, and one by which many more lives could be saved.

[Dan Jarvis]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. None of these things should be particularly contentious. I understand that there are points of debate and that some hon. Members and people in the country have legitimate differences over these most sensitive of matters, but I am encouraged by the level of support today and heartened that we have the support of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. It is incredibly encouraging that the Minister is very supportive and that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson has given a clear commitment that they will support the Bill. There is overwhelming support for the measure in the House today. So far we have seen Parliament at its very best, and I am keeping my fingers crossed that we can maintain the consensus for the next couple of hours.

11:18

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

I support the Bill today. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I am not entirely comfortable with the principle of the state taking control of bodies without express permission, but I think that that option is far less bad than the situation whereby hundreds of lives are unnecessarily lost every year effectively through inertia. We know that action could be taken that most people would agree with. The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) referred to the massive gap between the number of people who agree with donation and would be willing to be donors and the far smaller number of people who actually register as donors.

None the less, a number of points have been raised with me by constituents that I hope the hon. Gentleman and the Minister will consider during the passage of the Bill to strengthen it further. First, we should strengthen the safeguards—I was reassured by the hon. Gentleman’s comments on this—to make sure that hospitals are absolutely sure whether people are on the register. It must not be a question of, if systems are down, hospitals taking a chance and operating anyway. If people have actively opted out, we need to have belt and braces to make sure that their choices are respected. Secondly, we need to strengthen the existing law in other areas to make sure that in no circumstances can organs be harvested to be sold, which would clearly be outside the scope and the intention of this Bill.

This is a very worthwhile and important Bill. My constituent Sam emailed me this morning to say:

“This important change in legislation will prevent the needless waste of usable healthy organs being sent for cremation when they could instead change many thousands of lives.”

11:20

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) for introducing this Bill, which speaks to our common humanity. To be in the Chamber today to support it is a great honour for me. Three people die daily in the UK because of the lack of available organs for transplant, and this Bill would increase the chance of an unwell person and a life-saving organ being united.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), who described very similar situations to those of a member of my family who was successful, in the end, in getting their transplant. She was a mother with a newly born third child. We did not know what was wrong with her. She had no energy, could not pick the other children up from school, was not eating, and was often going to the hospital. Eventually, after her husband took her to hospital, she was whisked off to Birmingham. Fortunately she got a kidney transplant while she was there, but unfortunately it was not successful, and we were told that it was highly unlikely that another suitable kidney would be found within the time when it was needed. Thankfully, we got that kidney, she lived, and three children still had their mum. The trauma that the family went through during that time was just unbelievable. We saw the care that the immediate family had to give those three children when she and her husband—my cousin—were in Birmingham. They took care of the children and did what they could. We have been the recipients of the saving of a family—a dear family.

This Bill will change individuals’ autonomy to choose what happens to their own body. Opt-out organ donation carries with it the weight of 80% public support, the support of the British Medical Association, and cross-party political support—all seven parties are represented among the Members who have sponsored the Bill. It also carries the support of past and present Prime Ministers.

I would like to talk about another case in the town that I represent. Last year, tragically, we lost a little girl aged four, Violet Grace, who was killed in an accident on her way home, with grandma, from the nursery. It was a criminal act, with a car going at 80 mph in a 30 mph zone. The parents of little Violet Grace took the brave decision to donate their four-year-old daughter’s organs. Today, we know that two lives were saved. The family tell me, and all the town, that they get great comfort from that. When her little brother asks about her, they try to explain that to him so that he can grow up with that knowledge.

The parents of Violet Grace have been joined by the widow of another person in my town, Steve Prescott, a former champion rugby league player. He had a multiple organ transplant that was successful, but unfortunately there were some other complications.

[Paula Sherriff]

Does my hon. Friend agree that although it can sometimes be a difficult conversation, these situations also bring about the opportunity for families, friends and loved ones to talk about what they want to happen after their death, including things like funeral arrangements? I knew from a very early age that when I went, I wanted to donate my organs. I still have my original organ donation card, which is over 30 years old now. Hopefully this debate will get the media attention that will encourage people to have that conversation with those they love.

[Ms Rimmer]

Yes, I do agree.

Steve Prescott’s widow, along with colleagues, friends and members of the community of St Helens, set up the Steve Prescott Foundation. She also approached the parents of Violet Grace to give comfort and support. They have set up a huge and very successful campaign in our town, urging us all to donate our organs. Steve died, unfortunately. The actual transplant—a multiple organ transplant—was a success, but it was other things that killed him. I pay tribute to the families involved, and to the parents of little Violet Grace for their bravery. This Bill would have saved them the trauma of making that decision at such an emotional time when their little girl was dying. It could save people a lot of trauma.

This is the moment to act. A move to opting out would save a predicted 500 lives a year. Done properly, with the right publicity, the right engagement and the right involvement of all communities, changing the law on organ donation should have the support of all of us. The support shown here today is really gratifying, and I pay tribute to the Daily Mirror, which has run a fantastic campaign. It has urged people sign up for donation even now, without waiting for the change.

I understand—perhaps the Minister could enlighten us on this—that the Government intend to go out to public consultation on how opt-out donation would be implemented sensitively. The proposal in the Bill to involve a person’s family in decisions, as a safeguard against any unregistered objection to donating, is an important protective measure that will reassure families who have concerns.

Only 5,000 people a year in the UK die in circumstances where they can successfully donate, while 6,500 people are currently waiting for life-saving donations. None of us ever expects, or perhaps even thinks about the possibility, that we or someone we love may need an organ from someone else to survive, but many Members have pointed out how it can suddenly happen in our own families. However, there is a gulf between the supply of organs and the urgent need for them, and it is time that we made a conscious decision to take affirmative action. The time is right—80% of the public support organ donation, but only 36% are on the register. That needs to be addressed.

In the first six months since Wales adopted the opt-out, 60 organs donated by 31 people have been transplanted. Consent had been received from 50% of those people. Those are the latest facts from Wales. An opt-out system has therefore been proven to work, even in its infancy. I urge the House to back deemed consent as a proven, popular policy.

The British Medical Association makes a point that goes to the heart of this debate. As a result of this Bill, the choice for the individual about what should happen with their own body will remain the same—to donate, or not to donate—but a change in the law means a switch of the default position, towards donation and towards saving more lives. I urge the House to support the Bill.

00:00

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) on getting this Bill here today. I echo the support for the Bill that Members throughout the House have expressed.

When three people die a day because of a lack of organs, while eight out of 10 people say they would be willing to be an organ donor but are not formally on the register, it is time that we take action. I can only begin to imagine the emotional rollercoaster that families and people waiting for organs must go through in the long and trying wait, which can be years. I appreciate the personal stories that Members have shared today, which must be quite distressing. I think we have all gained greater insight.

I do not want to reiterate the merits of the Bill, because we all seem to be very much in favour of it. I want to talk briefly about how we can make sure that the Bill is as successful as it can be. As I alluded to in my intervention, I think that it is only part of the solution and not the complete answer. It is the essential building block, and it is important that we are now laying that building block, but I want us to make sure that we build the house.

One key issue is fostering a culture and making sure that we educate people from a very young age, so that they see organ donation as a positive thing that they want to do. That will counter the argument about people potentially seeing it as the state owning or seizing our organs. It needs to be seen as people giving their organs to help other people.

We need to spread the message that families should have a conversation about organ donation. It should not be something that we do not like to talk about. We should actively promote a conversation so that when the time comes, people are aware of their children’s or spouse’s decision. That will prevent any possible overriding of the decision, as we see in Spain. At the moment, it is estimated that only half of all families have that conversation.

Fostering a culture in which people want to donate their organs is achievable. At the moment we have one of the lowest donation consent rates in Europe. However, we have one of the highest rates in Europe for donating living kidneys. That implies that it is not against British culture to donate organs, but that we are doing something fundamentally wrong.

One way to achieve that culture is to ensure that there is absolutely no stigma around opting out. While some of us might be organ donors, that does not mean that everybody has to be, and we need to appreciate people’s religious cultures, customs and beliefs. I hope that people will be able to opt out of donating certain organs. I know that people of some religions, including even some denominations of the Christian faith, do not want to donate their heart, so it is very important that we do not exclude people from this process.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

About 10% of people who are signed up to the organ donor register have excluded donating their eyes, sometimes because they are a bit squeamish and sometimes because of the thought of someone else looking through their eyes in the future. Does the hon. Lady agree that in registering as many people as we can to donate, we should preserve people’s ability to opt out of donating organs that they do not wish to donate?

[Michelle Donelan]

I agree. Choice is the key to making the Bill as successful as possible, as is education. Some people might donate those organs if they knew how the process would work, but there needs to be an element of personal choice. It is our body, at the end of the day, and we should be encouraging people to help others rather than forcing them, which will not be successful.

Members have made the point—I do not want to labour it, but it is important—about reaching out to all communities, including those from ethnic minorities, among whom the number of donors is particularly low at the moment. In fact, shockingly, in March 2017 there were 634 people from the black community in need of organs, and only 72 people on the donor list died and were suitable organ donors. That is a really small proportion.

[Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. Our community is experiencing what is called a silent crisis, because of the lack of knowledge and willingness to discuss organ donation with family members and concerns about the integration of the body after death. I take on board what she says—we must be mindful that there is a lack of knowledge among our community, and the Bill would improve that.

[Michelle Donelan]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.

Only 1% of people a year die in circumstances suitable to allow their organs to be donated. It is important that we have an honest conversation today and do not say that the Bill is the panacea that will solve the problem, and that if someone is on the organ register, they will automatically get a donation. That would give people false hope. That statistic also means that we should potentially review the current regulations on age restrictions for the donation of certain organs. For example, heart valve donations have an age restriction of 60, whereas countries such as Spain just look at the quality of the organ.

The most important mechanism for ensuring that the Bill is as effective as possible is transport infrastructure and investment in staffing. It is no good unless we have enough helicopters, bikes, trained staff and support workers to facilitate the Bill. We must ensure that it does not just help people who live in urban areas. My constituency is very rural in parts, and some areas are harder to get to, but that does not mean that people there should be any less likely to benefit from donations. Other countries that have introduced Bills such as this, including France, Sweden and Bulgaria, have seen a reduction in their organ donation rates partly because of a lack of investment in infrastructure, so that is crucial.

We should be quite bold in reviewing this issue. Some countries have adopted a policy that I admit I was originally very uneasy about, whereby someone who is an organ donor and has not opted out of the system is higher on the priority list to receive a donation. I now think that that is quite fair, because if someone is prepared to give a donation, they should be more likely to receive one.

The UK has one of the lowest donation consent rates in the world, and that is really not good enough. I am hugely supportive of the Bill, but I echo the caution that it depends on the infrastructure, education and support that we give people, so that we can ensure that the Bill is as successful as possible.

11:37

[Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) for introducing this important private Member’s Bill.

The NHS has just reached the historic milestone of 70 years. As a country and as a society, we are proud of the landmark advances we have made within that time. Because of advances in organ donation and transplantation, 50,000 people are alive today. Most people are willing to donate their organs after they die, but only 36% of the population are on the organ donation register. Organ donation is increasing gradually, but sadly it is not keeping pace with the number of people on the transplant waiting list.

The British Heart Foundation highlights the fact that an average of three people per day die in need of an organ. As someone who was a cardiac nurse in a previous job, I am only too aware of how desperate a patient can become when waiting for an organ to become available. I saw at first hand the distress that people suffered while waiting for a heart transplant or for another organ.

In Spain and Belgium, a softer opt-out approach has facilitated a cultural change that has generated higher donor rates. That is why I am here today supporting my hon. Friend’s Bill, which will address this bleak statistic and bring the discussion of organ donation back to the dinner tables of families across the UK. I also express my sincere thanks to the Daily Mirror for its campaign in support of the Bill, which has shown the public the gift of life that is given by those who donate organs.

One organ donor can transform as many as nine people’s lives. As has been mentioned, the UK has one of the lowest family consent rates in Europe. In Wales, the Welsh Government bravely introduced deemed consent. The rate at which Welsh families are approving rather than refusing the donation of their loved ones’ organs is showing a marked increase compared with the rest of the UK. The latest Welsh organ donation and transplantation statistics display a 72% consent rate, putting Wales above other UK countries.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend gives the excellent example of how Wales is leading the way in changing the emphasis on organ donation. Does she share my dismay that no one from the Scottish National party has joined the debate today? This is a cross-border issue, and the SNP blocked a private Member’s Bill by Anne McTaggart MSP in the Scottish Parliament. Why has the SNP not led the way on this issue?

[Karen Lee]

I share that concern, and I had hoped that today we could have cross-party consensus. This issue is something on which we can all come together.

I represent Lincoln in the east midlands, where organ donation is the lowest in the UK. In a year, there were just 74 organ donors in the whole of the east midlands. In my constituency, there are around 40,000 registered organ donors. I am one of them—my card is in my bag. I am proud of the people of Lincoln, but even though that number represents a pool of opportunity, only a small number of people on the register pass away in such a way that allows their organs to be donated. In the last five years, only 10 deceased donors in Lincoln have been able to donate their organs.

Passing this Bill could save 500 lives a year. We need sensitive dialogue with those suffering from serious illnesses about the possible lifesaving capacity that their donation could have, should the worst occur. Conversations with grieving families can often be crucial in that process.

Yesterday, I spoke about the loss of my daughter, and when any family member is lost it is a terrible, terrible thing that stays with you forever. However, if someone can donate an organ and turn a negative into a positive, how much better is that? How much better would it be to salvage some positivity out of the situation? The Government have announced a consultation on opt-out consent on organ donation, which closes on 6 March, and the success of this private Member’s Bill might be the vehicle for that change. I hope that the Bill achieves cross-party support and makes progress today.

11:41

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) on promoting the Bill, and I know that it will make progress today. As many people have said, 80% of British society support organ donation, but 20% do not. I want to speak on behalf of that 20% to ensure that they are carried along with the debate, rather than left behind.

A gentleman in my constituency, Vijay Patel, was recently unnecessarily killed, and his family took great comfort from the fact that his organs were used to help other people. For me, that is such a gift, and I commend anyone who donates, and their families, for allowing the donation to take place. Many people prepare themselves to be organ donors after they die, and their families are an integral part of that process. Within that wider framework, the crucial role of the donor’s family must be understood, because their role regarding the ownership of the body after a person dies, and their duties towards it, is a central aspect of the grieving process.

There has recently been a lot of concern about a north London coroner who refused to release bodies, which is causing a great deal of concern to my constituents. It therefore follows logically that the family must be involved in organ donation, and I believe that their consent is paramount at the crucial time. Those families need reassurance along their pathway towards consent.

It has been said that there are religious differences on donation, but that is incorrect. Both Islam and Judaism allow organ transplants from live and deceased patients in order to continue and save lives. One factor that perhaps some are not aware of, and that might influence the decision-making process of some families, is how the point of death is decided. Some people regard death as defined by cardiovascular criteria, which is when the heart ceases to function. Others use cessation of brain function—brain stem death—as their criterion. Those two distinctions sometimes make people uncomfortable with donation.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recognised both definitions of death when it formulated the NICE guidelines that explain how healthcare professionals should support a bereaved family when discussing organ donation. There is one pathway for those who accept only cardiovascular death, and another for those who accept brain stem death. As a result, families are helped to understand how they might be able to combine deceased organ donation in a way that does not interfere with some religious traditions.

Enabling someone accessible to guide a family through the donation process is a humane, sensible and constructive proposal. A properly trained and resourced transplant co-ordinator should be able to do that, as it is the most important way in which families can be supported at a terrible time in their lives. In practice, however, under the system proposed, there would be less institutional incentive for health services to employ such people.

The Government are aware of the issues around transplantation, and they cannot plead ignorance in that our religious communities are being unresponsive to human need. In 2013, leading Muslim and Jewish groups wrote jointly to the Government suggesting a way forward in which an enhanced and improved opt-in system could be introduced that would alleviate their concerns. Improvements would include a Government-backed statement that Jews and Muslims could sign, which would enable them to donate organs in a manner compatible with their beliefs. If that approach were to be adopted, it would enable the two communities to be even more supportive of an opt-in system than they have been in the past. That proposal has been raised on several occasions, but I am afraid it has been ignored. The hon. Member for Coventry North West mentioned former Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, who he said opposed such measures. As I understand it, however, the current Chief Rabbi, Rabbi Mirvis, is in favour of the proposal I have just outlined.

Life, and indeed death, has changed for many people. More people want, understandably, to spend their final months at home. If they die at home, organ donation is much less likely. Healthcare professionals who need to secure consent for donation must have a conversation with organ donors, and their loved ones, about why they are best placed to give the gift of life if they remain in hospital. That conversation is a natural feature of an opt-in service. Under an opt-out service, there will be little incentive to have that complex discussion with potential donors and their families. The result could be that patients might drift to spend their last months in hospital.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I ask my hon. Friend, as a doctor, how quickly the medical profession can assess whether someone who has died is the right sort of person for a donation? So few people are the right fit for a donation—1%, as I understand.

[Dr Offord]

I cannot mislead the House, because unfortunately I am not a medical doctor and I am not able to answer that question. I am certainly content to talk about socio-economic deprivation in places such as Cornwall, which was part of my PhD thesis, but I will leave the issue raised by my hon. Friend alone. He mentioned the 1%, but other potential donors and their families could be intimidated by clinical settings, have problems with language skills or be too emotionally distraught actively to engage with a system that lacked incentives to ensure professional support throughout their decision-making process. Such potential donors and families could find their rights eroded in that practice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made a point that I wish to echo. The underlying question raised by some considerations is whether public services should treat patients and their families as citizens whose active consent must be sought as a legal duty, or as subjects whose ability to choose whether to donate or not depends on the goodwill of well-meaning but overstretched professionals. Ultimately, an opt-in system that harnesses the role of both religious and civil society to increase organ donation from deceased donors is, for me, the best way forward to maximise organ donation while defending not only religious freedoms, but the rights of all potential donors and families.

11:48

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I will keep my remarks brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I too support the Bill and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson)—my hon. Friend; I have known him for a number of years—has used this slot for this very noble cause.

I would like to mention the Bright Green Stars campaign in Torbay. Four years ago, the Bright Green Star Man hung up stars across various points in the bay to encourage more people to think about organ donation. When his daughter Lottie was three, she was one of the lucky ones to receive a transplant very quickly.

The safeguards in the Bill provide an option for those who strongly object to the idea of organ donation, and the ability for families to provide evidence that someone would have objected, on reasonable grounds, if they had known about the opt-out system. Let us be clear: I do not see my body as a piece of property that my relatives will inherit on my death. I see it as something very special, and if there is something we can do to help people to continue to live after our life on this earth has finished, I think that is totally noble. One way I can help is not just by registering to be an organ donor, but by supporting the Bill today. It will save lives in Torbay and across the country. I hope the Bill receives its Second Reading.

11:49

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) for securing this very important debate, for introducing this very important Bill and for his powerful and moving opening speech. I would also like to thank the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), the hon. Members for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), for Dudley South (Mike Wood), for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) and for Hendon (Dr Offord), and my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and for Lincoln (Karen Lee) for their excellent speeches.

In particular, I pay huge tribute to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). She spoke so bravely and movingly about her daughter Rebecca, who as we heard has been on dialysis for a year awaiting a kidney transplant. I hope from the bottom of my heart—I am sure we all do—that her wait is over very soon and she is successful in receiving that gift of life from a wonderful donor.

This has been an excellent debate and an example of this House at its best, as it often is on Fridays during debates on private Members’ Bills. I would like to thank hon. Members who have previously brought this issue to our attention over the past decade or so, including my hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and for Barnsley Central.

I commend the Daily Mirror for its fantastic campaign to raise awareness of organ donation since the case of Max Johnson, who we have all heard so much about this morning. He was then a nine-year-old boy in need of a new heart. I understand he is now 10, which is fantastic. I want to thank the hon. Member for North Devon for telling us all about Keira Ball, Max’s donor, who I understand saved four lives. I thank her very, very brave family for taking that brave decision on that most awful of days. I also thank the more than 13,000 people who have now signed the Change.org petition.

I also commend the scriptwriters of “Coronation Street”—of which, it has to be said, I am a huge fan as a northerner—for covering this issue so well. I note that the character Carla Connor this week received a kidney from her half-brother and that all is going well. At their best, soaps can play a huge part in helping to inform the public on such issues. I hope the storyline will touch on the importance of being on the organ donation register. Finally, I pay tribute to the thousands of people who have already participated in the Government’s public consultation on organ donation. I encourage others to do so, if they have not done so already, to let their voices be heard.

The topic of organ donation is understandably an emotional one, but I am pleased that so many people are now engaging in this debate and that we have the opportunity to discuss it in the House today. This debate and the publicity around it may encourage families up and down the country to have that important discussion about organ donation before the inevitable happens. There is no doubt that these discussions need to be had and that we need more organ donors in England. Almost 25 million people are on the organ donation register, but according to the NHS blood and transplant service, 7,000 people are waiting on the list for new organs. For them, it really is a life or death situation, so it is important that as many people as possible sign up to the organ donation register.

Over the past five years, almost 5 million people have joined the register, and in 2016-17 we saw the highest ever deceased donor rates in England. More than 50,000 people are living with a functioning transplant—Max is one of them—thanks to organ donation and transplantation in the UK. These are welcome developments, but we still have a long way to go. We currently lag behind other western countries. Tragically, around 1,000 people die every year—that is three a day—while waiting for a transplant. To save those lives, we need more people on the organ donation register making those decisions with their family’s knowledge, so that when the time comes, more lives can be saved.

[Mr Sweeney]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent case by citing statistics in England, but this is a cross-border issue as well. A great strength of our national health service is that no matter what part of the UK someone comes from, they can benefit from an organ transplant. If someone in Dumfries needs a kidney donation and the donor is from Carlisle, there will be no barrier or border on the route to getting access to that transplant. That is why MPs from all parts of the UK should support organ donation changes in all parts of the UK. That includes the Scottish National party; it is just a shame that SNP Members are not here today. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Mrs Hodgson]

Yes, and I had not noticed that nobody from the Scottish National party is here. I do not know what the situation is in Scotland, but we still want people there to be organ donors. I am sure that Rebecca, the daughter of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central, would not refuse a kidney, whether from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or anywhere, so that is a very good point.

[Mr Sweeney]

Will my hon. Friend recognise the great strides that the Labour party in Scotland has made in trying to bring in legislation on opt-out organ donation there? It is unfortunate that the Scottish National party blocked the progress of a Bill from Anne McTaggart MSP in the last session of the Parliament, but there is still hope, because a private Member’s Bill is progressing through the Scottish Parliament. We hope to have Labour and cross-party support to see such legislation progress in Scotland, as well as in Wales and England.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Excellent. I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for updating us all on the situation in Scotland because, as I said, I was not aware of it. I commend that Bill and hope that our SNP friends up in Scotland will act on and progress it as soon as possible.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to colleagues in Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) and colleagues from across the country. We heard very moving stories from colleagues from North Devon and other parts. We as a House have demonstrated the ability to work together today, and that is so important. One of the great strengths of the debate has been the way that we have focused on families and listened to their stories. For me, that has been a deeply moving experience. I commend to colleagues the importance of continuing to listen to families as the campaign goes forward.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Families are at the heart of this, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West, who is promoting the Bill, made clear, and I am sure that the Minister will as well. It is important that families’ voices are taken into consideration when these discussions take place.

I know that I am not alone in this House in carrying a donor card and being on the register. Like many other organ donors, I signed myself up because of a direct family experience. My Aunty Ella, who is sadly no longer with us, was one of the first patients to receive a kidney transplant at the fantastic Freeman Hospital in Newcastle way back in 1967. It was pioneering surgery back then, and it is great to hear my fellow Sunderland MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central, also commending the work of the fantastic renal team at the Freeman Hospital who are currently treating and supporting her daughter Rebecca so well. My Aunty Ella lived a full life because of her transplant. In those days, it was perhaps not as long as she would have liked, but she was able to see her children Norman and Stephen —my cousins—grow up to get married. All she wanted to do was to see them grow up, but she lived on to see them give her grandchildren. That is what organ donation is all about: it gives people a future. Just one donor can save up to nine people—as we heard, Keira Ball saved four—and it can give those nine people a future with their loved ones, which is why it is so important.

Of course, there are some concerns among some religious communities. We heard about that earlier from the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, has met representatives of one particular Jewish community to discuss their concerns. There are also concerns among black and minority-ethnic communities, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). Although they are more susceptible to illnesses such as diabetes, hypertension and even heart disease, only 35% of black and Asian people in the UK—where the population average is 63%—agreed to organ donation last year.

[Mark Tami]

The same applies to stem cell transplants, which I raised earlier. It simply is not acceptable that those who happen to be white probably have an 80% to 90% chance of finding a possible match, whereas for those who come from a certain ethnic background the figure could be as low as 30%. I do not think we would accept that in any other walk of life.

[Mrs Hodgson]

My hon. Friend has made exactly the right point. This does not apply only to, for instance, kidney and heart transplants; it applies to the whole donor register. The Government must listen to the concerns of black and Asian communities, not just during the consultation but beyond, so that we can develop a solution to this problem.

[Eleanor Smith]

I hope that the Bill succeeds and that there will be consultation with members of the BME community to ensure the successful delivery of a public education programme to increase awareness.

[Mrs Hodgson]

That is precisely the point. It is a question of education and public awareness as well as the acceptance of the sensitivities that exist among all people, not just members of particular religious or ethnic-minority communities.

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend while she is making such a strong point. One of my constituents rang me after my speech to suggest first that Members of Parliament could run roadshows, along with members of their local voluntary sectors, to raise awareness and to encourage people to register as donors and secondly that we could encourage the local education system to enable schools and parents’ associations to run awareness sessions. Would that not be the best way of both raising awareness and engaging with communities?

[Mrs Hodgson]

Absolutely. I think that schools are an ideal forum for a number of public health awareness messages on a host of issues to be delivered to young people.

Perhaps the solution to all these concerns has been developed in the two countries where the opt-out system is working well, Wales and Spain. In Wales, the system came into force in 2015. The law sets out that those who live and die there will be deemed to have given consent for their organs to be used unless they have explicitly said otherwise. Before that change in the law came into effect, a public awareness campaign alone resulted in an increase in the number of organs transplanted from 120 to 160. That was not huge, but it was a definite start. NHS organ donation statistics show an 11.8% increase between 2014-15 and 2016-17 in the number of people in Wales opting to donate their organs. That was the highest increase among England, Wales and Scotland. Although there has not been a notable change since the law came into effect, it is worth remembering that—as we heard earlier—Spain took almost 10 years to increase organ donation rates significantly.

Spain has had a soft opt-out system for 39 years. It is considered to be the world leader in organ donation and currently has the highest organ donation rates in the world. In Spain, consent is presumed in the absence of any known objection by the deceased, but family consent is still sought, as it would be here, we hope. In the immediate aftermath of this change in law, there was only a small increase in the number of organ donations and transplants, but there was a dramatic increase after 1989, when the Spanish Government made a big push to reorganise organ donation, as a result of which there was a medically trained transplant co-ordinator in every hospital by 1999.

It is unlikely that we here in the UK will have an identical opt-out system to Spain’s, but these are just two examples showing how an opt-out system can work and improve the lives of thousands of people waiting for an organ transplant. This also gives us the opportunity to learn from past experiences, to ensure we get it right in this country, which I am sure we all seek to do. I know the Government will be working to ensure that that is what happens, and the Opposition are passionate about world-class health services, but, as the NHS Blood and Transplant service made clear, we

“will never have a world-class donation and transplantation service if more than 4 out of every 10 families say no to donation.”

Some 90% of people surveyed by the British Heart Foundation say they support organ donation, but just 33% of those surveyed are on the NHS organ donor register. It is clear from what we have heard today that more people need to be on the organ donor register, and these difficult conversations must be encouraged, so that more lives can be saved.

[Luke Pollard]

During this debate, I went on to my phone and signed up as a full organ donor. Previously, I was a bit squeamish about giving my eyes, but I have been convinced by the arguments. Signing up only took two minutes; it was simple to do, and every Member could be encouraging our constituents to do so, too, by just going on to their phone and registering now, so we can get more donors before this Bill becomes law.

[Mrs Hodgson]

That would be great. Even the most technophobe of us should be able to manage doing that if it takes only two minutes, and maybe there could be one of those clever apps to make it even easier for all the young people to do this.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I have no knowledge of apps, but I do have my donor card here, held proudly in my hand, which I got by telephoning. When I introduced my Bill on this subject many years ago, I was accused, as were the supporters—including Dr Evan Harris, who brought in the Bill with me—of being Aztecs. Does my hon. Friend agree that the tide is now flowing in our favour and this is a piece of legislation whose need has been proven, but whose time is now?

[Mrs Hodgson]

Yes, very good, and I must apologise for not commending my hon. Friend for his Bill when I listed the people who had done work on this over the years. That makes us realise how many people have been pushing for this, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West is successful today, his great achievement will be following in many other Members’ footsteps.

Whether it is clever people with their apps or people carrying the old-fashioned donor card, we in the Opposition and nearly all of us, or perhaps all of us unanimously, across the House this morning are in favour of a change to the organ donation law, to ensure that everybody whose life could be saved by organ transplant can have the gift of life. I therefore urge the Minister today to take the necessary steps to increase the number of people on the organ donor register, and I am sure this Bill will be a great asset in helping her to achieve that goal.

12:08

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)]

I thank the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) for bringing this Bill to the House; he has secured his fortunate position in the ballot and used it constructively. I am therefore grateful to him and confirm that the Government will give his Bill our wholehearted support. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with him and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and to get to the place we are in now, having a Bill we can all support. The reason why we are here, in a relatively painless way given our discussions, is that we were all focused on the shared objective of saving lives and securing the availability of more organs for donation. I am extremely grateful to him, and I wish the Bill Godspeed and hope that it gets on to the statute book as soon as possible.

We have heard some moving stories today, and I want to make particular reference to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), who talked about the bravery of Keira Ball, who has saved four lives. I shall say a little more about that later. I also want to thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), who spoke movingly about her daughter. The real thing about this subject is that once we hear the human stories about people who have given organs, consented to their relatives doing so when they have been bereaved, witnessed family members needing an organ or indeed been a live donor, we cannot fail to be touched by their experiences. It is certainly with considerable commitment that I will do my bit to ensure that more organs become available for donation.

[Mark Tami]

I have spoken briefly about my own experience with my son, who was able to get a stem cell donor. We were in hospital for quite some time, and I saw many parents who did not find a donor. That was very difficult, and, to be frank, I felt a degree of guilt because we were fortunate and I knew that I was looking at someone whose child was going to die. That is a heartbreaking situation, and we need to do whatever we can to ensure that more people get on to the register and donate organs.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

The hon. Gentleman puts that as well as it could possibly be expressed. That is entirely the motivation behind the Bill. We are losing too many people each year because they need organs, and it would be a poor Health Minister who did not do their best to remedy that. He is absolutely right to describe the very real impact when we see people in that situation. I have been on my own journey with my constituent, who has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). My constituent painfully lost her daughter, who was waiting for a transplant, and she has used that experience to campaign for this important cause. She has also taken the step of becoming an altruistic donor herself. Who could fail to be inspired by such a story? I am pleased to be able to deliver on the promise that I made to Patricia, when she came to see me for the first time, that I would do everything I could to secure more organ donations. And here we are today, delivering that.

Last October, the Prime Minister pledged her personal support to change the law on organ donation and, in doing so, to help more people across the country to achieve an organ transplant. We should also remember the contribution of Max Johnson, whose struggle was embraced by the nation and who has done so much to highlight this important cause. As a consequence, we in the Government will be referring to this legislation as Max’s law, and we will do everything we can to ensure its passage. In that regard, I am grateful for the Opposition’s support, which will ensure that it has a speedy passage. With such cross-party commitment, we should not fail. As Max, his family and families all over the country who have experienced life on the transplant waiting list know, organ donation is a precious gift, and the family of Keira Ball deserve our special tribute. The fact that she has saved four lives is incredibly inspirational.

I want to echo the tributes that have been paid to the Daily Mirror. We do not often talk about national newspapers in a complimentary way in this House, but the Daily Mirror has done a fantastic job of highlighting this cause. This illustrates what the press can achieve when it puts its mind to something positive. I echo the tribute paid to “Coronation Street” by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). Like her, I am pretty addicted to the soaps, and we should not leave out “EastEnders”, which highlighted live liver transplantation last year. She was right to say that the soap operas have also been good at highlighting mental health, but it is particularly apposite that we have seen the organ donation story this week. I commend “Coronation Street” for tweeting a link to the Government consultation in the immediate wake of that programme, which I think is a first. It would be helpful if soap operas highlighted future Government consultations, but I do not think it will be common.

I will be fairly brief in addressing some of the points that have been raised. A number of Members expressed concern about moving from an opt-in system to an opt-out system, and I reassure them that the concept of organ donation being a gift voluntarily given by the donor remains central to the Bill’s principles. There can be no question of the state taking control of organs, which is why the ability to opt out is central to the Bill. Opting out will have to be made extremely easy, and people will have to be able to continually revisit their decision if they wish to change their mind.

It is also central to the Bill that family consent is respected. The circumstance in which someone is able to donate their organs is clearly traumatic and difficult. In considering the whole period at the end of life and the struggle that surgeons are undertaking to save lives, it is important that we are sensitive about that time. We need to be sure that, once someone has lost the capacity to give consent, their family, as next of kin, have their rights protected. I have no doubt that we will explore some of those issues in Committee.

I put on record the representations I have had from the medical establishment, which would feel uncomfortable if consent were not sought from the family. In developing a regime that secures more organs but is also sensitive to everybody’s views, we are able to strike the right balance in the Bill.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

I entirely support the Bill. Has the Department given any early thought to public engagement, so that people are aware of any changes coming into force and of what those changes mean?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

My hon. Friend will be aware that we are consulting on the principles enshrined in this Bill. That consultation will end on 6 March, and we will reflect on those representations. As we have already heard, we are seeing an unprecedented response to the consultation, and there is a substantial degree of support. The consultation will inform our communications.

We have also heard a lot about the high incidence of people from Asian and black backgrounds on the waiting list, and again that is a priority for the Government. The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) said MPs should show leadership. We are leaders, and it is certainly something that I want to do. I have a large black African community in my constituency that I am engaging with on this issue. With that in mind, I have tasked NHS Blood and Transplant to develop MP toolkits that we can all use to go out into the community to sell the concept of organ donation. As and when those toolkits are available, I hope to have support from many Members in rolling out that communication.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I would like to make progress, so I will take no more interventions.

As I have made clear, we support the Bill and are determined to secure more organs for transplant, because we are concerned that we are losing lives unnecessarily. People have referred to the experience in Wales and whether the learning from that will achieve a material difference. At this stage, it is too early to draw any conclusions about the number of organs that the change in Wales has secured, but we have seen an increase in consent and opting on to the register. Our best estimates are that the change will secure an additional 100 donors a year, which could lead to the saving of 200 extra lives.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I will take no more interventions.

On the basis that we could save 200 lives, we wholeheartedly support the Bill. I look forward to working with all Members to secure Royal Assent.

12:19

[Mr Robinson]

I do not much like self-congratulation, and moments when the House gets self-congratulatory can be embarrassing, but on this occasion I am delighted to say that we have seen the House at its best. I say that because we have had a debate where not only have high standards of rational argument been deployed, but deep emotions—we all feel them—have not been kept from us. That unique combination today has enabled us to have the cross-party consensus of the size we have achieved, on a Second Reading of a Bill that is, perhaps, contentious in nature in some respects. I note that the Secretary of State for Health has just arrived and so, while plaudits are being awarded, may I just say that his support from the very beginning has given great encouragement to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis)?

This is a great moment for us. I hope that there will not be a Division, but I am sure that if there is one, we will win it. I am sure that we will be able to go out of the Chamber knowing that the Bill has passed its hurdle of Second Reading, that we are going into Committee and that with any fair wind from the Government by the end of the year we will have the Act—Max’s Act, as we should call it—on the statute book. I look forward to that moment and to saying that, at least in this Parliament, we did pass an Act for life, and I am delighted, on that note, to be able to conclude the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

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

Overseas Electors Bill

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 23rd February 2018 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

12:22

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

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

I wish to say at the start, as an organ donation activist for more than 25 years, how excellent I thought the first debate today was. Although I did not agree with everything that was said, I thought it showed the UK Parliament excelling and at its very best, as the Bill’s promoter told us.

My Bill is about extending the capacity of UK citizens to participate in British democracy, of which we have seen such a wonderful example today. Let me begin by setting the scene by providing what I see as the most relevant statistics. According to the Office for National Statistics, there are 4.9 million British citizens of voting age who have lived in the UK at some point in their lives but are now overseas.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Glyn Davies]

I will, because he is such an honourable friend.

[Paul Flynn]

I want to thank my hon. Friend—I have been calling him that for many years now—for the support he has given to a Bill that we could be debating after this one. My appeal to him is on the basis of the powerful reasons why this House should pass the Legalisation of Cannabis (Medicinal Purposes) Bill: the absurdity of the current law and the suffering that has resulted. I know he will not speak for very long, as his speeches are always brief but potent. I ask him to encourage his fellow supporters of his Bill to allow time for the cannabis Bill to be debated.

[Glyn Davies]

I have always so admired my hon. Friend’s brass neck that I am probably going to accede to his request. I was intending to do this, so while pointing out to the Chamber why I am intending to keep my comments brief, let me say that giving him the opportunity to put his Bill forward later this afternoon is something I rather approve of.

Now then, where did I get to? I was starting off with the relevant statistics. Only an estimated 1.4 million of the 4.9 million British citizens of voting age who live overseas are eligible to vote in UK elections, because a British citizen who has lived overseas for more than 15 years is not allowed to vote in British elections. As at June 2017, only 285,000 of those 1.4 million were actually registered to vote. That is another important issue that will probably need to be addressed, but it is outside the scope of my Bill.

I thank colleagues from the Government and Opposition Benches who have contacted me in support of the Bill. I have had good advice from the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who has been a big help, and my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) has also been a great help. Several other Members have written to me to offer their support.

This debate touches on so many issues that I could speak for a long time, but there are a number of reasons why I shall not. I want to give as many Members the chance to contribute as possible and I want the debate to reach its conclusion today, if at all possible, so I shall speak probably for no more than five minutes. Of course, I also want to accede to the request that the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) just made.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill. I hope that, despite the protestations of the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), he will not cut short his remarks, because this is an important matter. Does he agree that as the United Kingdom is now leaving the European Union, it is even more important that we re-establish and firm up our relationships with British citizens, wherever they may live around the world? That is what makes the Bill so important.

[Glyn Davies]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention on a point to which I shall come later.

Of the three points on which I shall concentrate, the first is fairness to UK citizens who live abroad and who have moved around for various reasons but want to remain part of our democratic process and not have their involvement cut short after 15 years.

Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) just said, a benefit flows to the UK through the soft power of British citizens around the world retaining a close involvement in what happens in this country and promoting our interests in the country to which they have moved. The last thing we need is to make their involvement in this country less relevant.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I assume that if a British citizen has lived abroad for, say, 30 years, their children will be British. Under my hon. Friend’s Bill, would those British children be allowed to vote as well?

[Glyn Davies]

That is another issue to which I shall refer later. As I build the three points I wish to make, that will be very much part of the first.

My third point is about why it is right to revisit an issue—the restriction of overseas UK citizens’ ability to vote—that Parliament has considered previously. What has changed?

On my first point, fairness, many British citizens who have moved overseas have a legitimate ongoing interest in the UK’s public affairs and politics. Many spent all their working lives in the UK, paying their taxes and national insurance, and continue to have a direct interest in their pension rights and particularly in the future of their families in the UK. Many moved to work and did not have much choice, but will eventually return home to the UK on their retirement. Many have family connections that they wish to retain, and many want to retain those communications through these unseen processes that maintain British influence all over the world.

Our ambition, I think, is to extend the franchise to everybody who has a legitimate interest and are desperately keen to be part of our democracy.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

rose—

[Glyn Davies]

I will give way after I have made one point.

This is something that was quite dramatic for me. About three weeks ago, a gentleman named Harry Shindler—some Members here may have met him—came all the way from Italy to Britain to talk to me about this Bill. Harry Shindler is an incredible man. He is 97 years old and the longest-serving member of the Labour party. He is still an activist—in fact, he left the deputy leader of the Labour party unable to speak for about half an hour in the Tea Room, which is quite an achievement. He came all the way to talk to me because the one thing that he wants to do before he dies is to vote again in a British election. That is how important it is to some UK citizens living overseas to be able to vote in our elections.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Glyn Davies]

I will; I have already mentioned the hon. Gentleman in my speech.

[Mike Gapes]

I am very sorry that I was slightly late for this debate. I was in the Library and did not notice the screen, showing that the previous debate had finished. My friend—I can call him that for various reasons—mentioned Harry Shindler. He knows that I was also at the meeting with Harry Shindler. I have known Harry Shindler for many years. He has taken legal action against the Government, taken the issue to the European Court and has resolutely done so because he represents not just people in the Labour party, but the whole community of people with British heritage who are living all over the world.

[Glyn Davies]

I thank my friend for that intervention, and I agree absolutely with his point. If everybody in this House were to meet and talk to Harry Shindler, there would not be a single person who was not a supporter of my Bill.

[Jack Lopresti]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Glyn Davies]

Oh, I am sorry, yes. I had promised to give way previously.

[Jack Lopresti]

On a purely practical point, obviously some of our people are scattered far and wide in remote areas without access to a reliable postal service. Is there provision in the Bill—by the way, I congratulate my hon. Friend on presenting it—to use our consulates and embassies as polling stations to collect ballot papers and return them in diplomatic pouches to the UK?

[Glyn Davies]

A lot of detail will be involved in this Bill. That matter will probably be dealt with in Committee —I just hope that it will go through to Committee so that we can deal with that then. The Minister who is responding later will have picked up on that point.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I wholly support this measure. Does he agree that, actually, many people were very hurt when this Parliament reduced the period from 20 to 15 years, quite gratuitously, giving overseas voters the impression that they were not valued? There is a marked contrast between the way we deal with this matter in this country and how it is dealt with in many other countries, such as France, which embraces its overseas voters, wishes them to maintain the link, sees them as valued, and makes every effort to ensure that they can participate in the national political life of the country.

[Glyn Davies]

That is another intervention that I greatly welcome and that accords totally with my thinking. It is damaging, yes. We have moved away from the principle of having any restriction at all, which is sensible. I want to come on to that point, but, first, I will take another intervention.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and echo the congratulations of many in this Chamber to him on bringing forward this very, very important Bill. I just wanted to respond to his reply to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) about how the voting might happen. As one of the original co-authors of this Bill when it was being done by the Government in the Cabinet Office, I can say that we looked at it very closely and concluded that if we have a multi-constituency election, it is incredibly complicated to have different ballot papers for every single constituency in the local post in whichever country it might be. Superficially, it is possibly an attractive idea, but at the time, we felt that it was very, very difficult. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether opinions have changed.

[Glyn Davies]

I am sure that the Minister will clarify that point because not only have I invited her to do so, but my hon. Friend has too.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Glyn Davies]

May I make just one brief point?

I just want to emphasise how many people—people unknown to me—who have written to me from overseas just to thank me for this Bill. Their level of appreciation is huge, as is the importance they attach to being able to vote in a British election because they are British citizens; it really is overwhelming. I am sure that other hon. Members have had exactly the same communications.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I offer my sincere congratulations to my hon. Friend on bringing this Bill forward. I have had a long involvement with the matter. Does he agree with me that in this centenary year of Emmeline Pankhurst’s efforts to get women the vote in this country, the same thing must apply to voters of over 15 years’ longevity abroad? This could open up the franchise to another 1 million people. It must be the correct thing to do.

[Glyn Davies]

I agree. In fact, I will later make reference to that very point.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I am struggling to understand why there is such support from the Government Benches for extending the franchise, with mention of 1 million more being able to vote, yet 16 and 17-year-olds are being denied the vote in elections here at the very same time. Will the hon. Gentleman deal with that point?

[Glyn Davies]

That is a perfectly valid point, but it is not a part of this Bill. It could easily be part of another Bill and there could then be a debate about it. The hon. Lady will know that the Welsh Government plan to have such a debate, which is fair enough; I think that there will be different views on that Bill within the governing party. The subject is not, however, included in this Bill. If it were, it would distract from the intention of the measures that I am proposing.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this Bill. Many areas of our constitution are controversial and partisan, but when I was a Minister in the Cabinet Office I was struck by the fact that Members of Parliament from all parties, particularly the Labour party, wrote to me on behalf of their constituents every single week to ask when the Government would deliver on this manifesto commitment. This is a non-partisan Bill that the House would be wise to take forward in a non-partisan approach. My hon. Friend mentioned the example of 97-year-old Labour voter and activist Harry Shindler, who fought in the Battle of Anzio in 1944. People like him gave so much for this country; we should pass this Bill and give them back their vote in return.

[Glyn Davies]

It is important—certainly to me—that this is a non-partisan Bill. I have brought it forward because it will deliver justice to UK citizens living abroad. There are supporters on the Conservative Benches because I have asked them all to come. I am overwhelmed by their personal support, but I know they also think this is an important issue.

My second general point is on the importance of the Bill to British soft power across the world. We live in an increasingly interdependent world. The success and influence of British citizens overseas become ever more important, particularly as we leave the European Union. In Europe and across the wider world, our British interests are well served by the presence of UK citizens who are actively involved in civic society, businesses and diplomatic activity in the countries in which they now live. It is a hugely important way in which the British voice can use its presence overseas to the great benefit and interest of Britain. The absolutely last thing we should do in promoting the interests of Britain across the world is to discriminate against our own citizens who have moved overseas by taking away their right to vote after 15 years. It is a huge mistake.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of these Brits living abroad are also working for British companies whose revenues often fund public services here in this country?

[Glyn Davies]

Indeed I do. Britain’s soft power—that important exercise of British influence throughout the world—is greatly benefited by British citizens in British businesses overseas being active in British politics through voting for Members of this House, who then develop their views, opinions and influence.

My third point concerns what has changed. We have heard reference already to changing the 20-year limit to a 15-year limit. There used to be a five-year limit, so there is legislative uncertainty. In addition, what has changed is the advent of the internet and the ability to keep in touch. The rationale for having any limit is that after a while people lose their connections. It is thought that after 15 years they will have lost touch with what is happening in Britain and will no longer have that connection with family and so on, but the internet has completely changed that. People have not just that ease of connection —through Facebook, Skype and everything else—but access to much cheaper flights and travel. The ability to connect across the world now is such that it no longer makes sense to have any limit at all. It is no longer relevant. It might have been 15 years ago, but it certainly is not now.

The Bill would extend the franchise, whenever it was reasonable to do so, to British citizens. We have already had reference to 100 years ago, and that is what we have been doing for the last 100 years, step by step. This is the centenary of one of the biggest extensions of the franchise in our history. I genuinely believe that it is right to extend the franchise by removing the limit on residency abroad. If they are British citizens, they should be able to vote in a UK parliamentary election. This is a wonderful Parliament—the debate earlier made me realise just how wonderful—and we are all privileged to serve in it. I hope that through the Bill we can ensure that UK citizens abroad who still care deeply about Britain and feel deeply British, as Harry Shindler does, can participate in our parliamentary democracy.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I am extremely interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I am intrigued by proposed new section 1A, which refers to the constituency linkage. The Bill proposes that if somebody lived in a property that has subsequently been demolished—it might be a hole in the ground or a sheep farm in north Wales, for all I know—they should still have a vote in respect of that constituency. This sounds a little like rotten boroughs. Is he absolutely confident and secure about a property that no longer exists remaining the basis for someone having a vote—and, if the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is correct, for their grandchildren, great grandchildren and so on, in perpetuity, also having a vote?

[Glyn Davies]

If someone is a UK citizen, they should, in my view, have a right to vote in a UK general election. It is as simple as that. An arbitrary time limit, be it 15, 20 or five years, is no longer appropriate and only means that it will have to come back to us in the future for further debate. Let us get rid of it altogether and make it straightforward: UK citizens can vote in UK elections—and let that be it.

12:44

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

The 13 North American colonies south of the Great Lakes fought a bloody war of independence from the jurisdiction of this place largely on the basis of the slogan, “No taxation without representation”. That was a very good point—a fundamental constitutional point. It was wrong that they should have been forced to pay taxes but have absolutely no say in what those taxes should be. Perhaps, if the voices of reason in Britain at the time had been listened to, the Americans might not have felt the need to leave British jurisdiction. Perhaps, if the American colonists—and, by extension, as our political and social awareness progressed in the 20th century, the native Americans as well—had been allowed to vote for parliamentary representatives and send them to this place, and that pattern had been followed in other British colonies around the world, our country might have been able to found a worldwide commonwealth of nations based on democracy and equality, and work steadily away from a world based on warfare between nations and racial resentments.

Leaving aside the thought that the world might have been a very much better place if that war of independence had never been fought, I would like to suggest that the slogan, “No taxation without representation”, works perfectly well the other way round: “No representation without taxation”.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

I may be misunderstanding the hon. Gentleman, but is he suggesting that paying income tax should be a qualification for the franchise?

[Sandy Martin]

No, I am not suggesting that: I am suggesting that if someone lives within a polity in which a taxation level is being set, they should have the opportunity to make decisions about how it is set. I will come to that point later on.

[Mike Gapes]

Is my hon. Friend saying that somebody who has worked and contributed taxation in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, and who then retires abroad and lives there for the next 20 or 30 years, is somehow disenfranchised even though they have paid taxes here?

[Sandy Martin]

I am saying something fairly similar, yes. If someone is living, paying taxes and working in a country, they are also accruing pension rights and contributing to the society in which they live, and that society then has some obligations towards them if they decide to move abroad. That is a very good point, and I will come on to it later. However, I am not prepared to accept that somebody living in a country other than the country that they are making decisions for can set a level of taxation in the country that they are not living in.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I am interpreting the hon. Gentleman’s remarks to mean that far from seeking to remove the restriction on the duration within which people can vote, he is seeking to tighten it, and arguing that there should be no right to vote for any British citizens living abroad. Is that really what he is saying?

[Sandy Martin]

I will reach that point in my speech at some stage—I have got through only one paragraph so far. I wish to make a large number of points, and I cannot make them all instantaneously. I can address them in a random order depending on when Conservative Members want to raise them, or I can address them in the order in which I have written them down. It is entirely up to them which way they want me to take them.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Would he care to comment on the several million UK citizens who pay no tax in this country yet have a perfect right to vote? Would he also care to comment on people who are overseas for more than 15 years and have no right to vote on how their pension, their health service and a number of other UK taxpayer services are provided?

[Sandy Martin]

I will be delighted to address the points about pensions and people who do not currently pay taxes later on in my speech. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He has mentioned some very sensible points that I assure him I will address.

I return to “no representation without taxation”. I do not know who said that taxes are how we pay for a civilised society, but it is certainly as true today as it was when it was said. None of us can imagine a society with no police force, no health service, no education, no courts, no transport systems, no mechanism for adjudication between those of different views—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) want me to give way, or is he just chuntering?

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Carry on, I’m enjoying every minute!

[Sandy Martin]

If the hon. Gentleman were to listen, he might hear how wonderful it was.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Can we not have this dialogue across the Chamber? We need to listen to what Sandy Martin has to say and not have so much chuntering.

[Sandy Martin]

Thank you very much for your adjudication, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wholeheartedly concur.

None of us can imagine a society where none of the services that we currently pay taxes for operate. Those services would not be available if we did not have a taxation system that enables us to pay for them. The country would not be governable, and it would not be governed in any meaningful sense of the word. In fact, there would be complete anarchy.

When we vote, we are voting for a system of government that enables us to play a part in decisions about how much tax to levy, who and what to levy taxes on, what to spend those taxes on and how to make sure that no person in our society is ignored, and in which we all have a say on the taxes and expenditure that will have a direct impact on our lives.

We go to some lengths in this House to ensure that hon. Members from Scotland do not vote on decisions that affect only England and Wales, including how the taxes raised from people in England and Wales are spent on services in England and Wales. It is not relevant whether a Member for a Scottish seat happens to have been born in England. If an issue before us affects only people living in England, it is wrong for a Member from Scotland or any of their constituents to make decisions that affect a polity that is inhabited by others and do not affect their own polity.

[Chris Skidmore]

The hon. Gentleman is raising quite an important point; there is a big difference between elected representatives and their constituents, but there will be roughly 3 million British expats watching this debate on their news channels across the world. Is he really saying that the Labour party is now telling all those British expats that they have made and are making no contribution to British life and to our British state?

[Sandy Martin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but no, I am not saying any such thing.

[Stephen Pound]

The clue is in the word “private”.

[Sandy Martin]

First, I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, this is a private Member’s Bill. It is not about the Labour party position. Secondly, I am not in any way seeking to remove the right to vote from people who already have it. There is a sensible cut-off point, but, as I will say later, I do not believe that extending that cut-off point ad infinitum is necessarily a sensible way forward. Thirdly, as I will also come to, not all people who have lived in this country and contributed to the economy of this country have the means or, in many cases, the right to vote.

[Paul Flynn]

I have the great pleasure of sitting on two Select Committees with my hon. Friend, and I greatly enjoy his contributions, but may I urge him to limit his contribution today in the light of the important Bill that is coming next, so that we have a chance to deal with it?

[Sandy Martin]

I hear my hon. Friend, but unfortunately I do not agree—I think that whether or not this Bill proceeds is more important than whether we get to the next Bill. I am sorry.

When someone in this country votes to elect an MP who will share their views on taxes and services in this country, and who will seek to put into practice an overarching political philosophy with which they agree, the issue is not whether any particular tax is levied on a voter or whether an individual will benefit from any particular public service. It is whether the voter lives within the jurisdiction in which those decisions on tax and spending hold sway.

When I was unemployed and in receipt of benefits, I was legitimately able to vote for a political party that sought to levy a proper level of taxation on those who earned well above the average, on the understanding that I was living within the polity affected. I held perfectly legitimate views about how wealth should be distributed within that polity, and knew it was entirely possible that I would eventually become a taxpayer myself. I have not changed my views on benefit or taxation rates now that I earn significantly more in a single year—even after taxation, national insurance, pension contributions and so on—than I received in benefits in all the time that I claimed.

I believe that I ought to be paying considerably more in taxation—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) intervenes from a sedentary position, so I will take the liberty of answering him. I did not want to make this part of my speech, because I do not want to blow my own trumpet, but I have made a conscious and public decision to donate part of my income to good causes in Ipswich, simply because I do not believe that I am paying as much tax as I ought to pay. I am sure that other hon. Members do exactly the same.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that if he wants to pay more tax he is perfectly entitled to. People can make arrangements with HMRC to pay more tax, and if he believes that he is not paying enough, he should by all means go ahead and pay more.

[Sandy Martin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I am in my own way already doing such a thing, although not via HMRC.

[Stephen Pound]

I am slightly concerned that we seem to be meandering down some sort of byway, rather than concentrating specifically on the Bill. As a passionate pro-European remainer, I wish that more people who live overseas had been able to vote, as I am sure they would have voted to do the sensible, right and logical thing and remain in the European Union. This may seem a philosophical point, although it is a practical one, but if someone lives in another country, should they not integrate within the polity of that country? By all means they should have 15 years to continue to vote for the motherland, but after that should they not become involved and concerned with the politics of the country in which they live? If they want to live in another country, should they not concentrate their vote there, rather than in the country in which they used to live at least 15 years ago?

[Sandy Martin]

My hon. Friend makes precisely the point that lies at the centre of my argument.

[Stephen Pound]

I am sorry; I did not mean to.

[Sandy Martin]

No, I apologise for not having made that point as clearly as I ought to have done, but that is the point I am seeking to make.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan]

I sit on the same Select Committee as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). I detect that there may be some length to the remarks that the hon. Member for Ipswich is making, which will hold up our reaching the very important Bill promoted by his hon. Friend.

What about skilled engineers and other skilled people who go to work abroad, leaving their families in this country? After 15 years of working abroad, does the hon. Gentleman think they should have no right to vote in this country if they come home only to visit? Should they be excluded? If people spread the skills and expertise of British workmanship, science and so on, should we remove their right to vote?

[Sandy Martin]

I think the right hon. Lady is mistaken. I hesitate to say that, because I know she has been a Member of the House for much longer than I, and she has a wealth of experience that I do not have. However, I believe that if somebody has family in this country and is resident here but travels abroad for the majority of the year, they remain a voter and resident in this country.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan]

I am giving the example of where somebody might be a resident in another country because of a long-term contract. Effectively, the hon. Gentleman is saying that such a person would have the right removed after 15 years—if he is even happy to leave it at 15 years.

[Sandy Martin]

If somebody has entered into a contract that lasts for more than 15 years, involving them taking their family with them and living in another country for all that period, it is overwhelmingly likely that they are going to stay in that other country. Even if they were not going to stay in that other country, it would be quite difficult to make a meaningful distinction between moving to another country with the family for more than 15 years and emigration. I cannot see that there is a significant difference between the two. Clearly, British citizens who lived in another country for more than 15 years and, after 17 years, decided to move back to this country, would regain their voting rights once they had moved back to this country.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman’s speech is confusing for the ex-pat community, because it is factually incorrect. For instance, in 2006, Spain signed a double taxation treaty with the UK, which means that residents can choose whether they pay their taxes to the UK or to Spain. A great number of ex-pats pay their tax to the UK, which makes the core of his argument null and void. I suggest that he allow the rest of the Members in the Chamber to discuss the merits of this very important Bill, which will enfranchise thousands, if not millions, of potential voters around the world.

[Sandy Martin]

I doubt there are 3 million British expatriates living in Spain who pay taxes to the British Treasury. The vast majority of people who would be affected by the Bill are not those who pay taxes to Britain while living in Spain. If there were a particular statutory instrument or a move to change the situation for people living in Spain, that would be a different matter.

[Michelle Donelan]

The hon. Gentleman is oversimplifying the issue. Those people might have pensions that are still being taxed at source in the UK. In fact, the majority are of pensionable age and do just that, so the argument is completely oversimplified. He is trying to base his argument on linking voting to taxation, which is impossible to do.

[Sandy Martin]

That is an interesting point and I am sure we could have a very long discussion about it across a table. I would be very interested to be educated in all those matters by the hon. Lady, but the Bill is itself extremely simple. It would extend the franchise to every British citizen everywhere in the world for ever. I think that that is fairly simplified and certainly not particularly nuanced towards the individual cases she is talking about.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend not find it a strange paradox that a party that has made registration in this country as difficult as it can make it, and which is against votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, is in favour of extending the franchise to everyone throughout the world?

[Sandy Martin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is clearly an issue. There is a certain amount of double standards going on here. I will come to that issue later.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to that point, does my hon. Friend not think it rather strange that we still do not give the vote to EU citizens who have might have lived here for many, many years? The Conservative party seems to have no inclination to want to help people who live here, pay taxes here and contribute to this country to be able to vote. They should be our first priority, rather than trying to reach out to people who do not necessarily contribute to this country anymore.

[Sandy Martin]

There is a very important and powerful point here. As part of the European Union, we have had a very good arrangement with other EU countries in that, where people are voting in local elections, they vote in the local election where they live. Clearly, if someone lives in and votes in a particular borough or district, they are receiving services from that borough or district and are paying the council tax level that they have voted for. I think that arrangement works extremely well.

I have always found it a little odd that French or Italian citizens who have been living in this country for years should vote in French or Italian elections—for example, if they have been living here for 20 years and are clearly not taking part in French or Italian society. A sensible move would be towards people voting, at every level, for the polity in which they live.

A central part of what I am trying to get to is that when we vote, we are voting on things that affect us. When we vote as MPs in this place, we vote on things that affect our constituents. We should not be voting for things that do not affect our constituents, and in general, people should not be voting for things that will never affect them and will not affect the shape of the society in which they live.

I had legitimate views about how wealth should be distributed where I was living, even when I was unpaid, and I have not changed those views. As I was about to say before the various interventions were made, my view that I should be paying more taxation is not my party’s policy. I am being a bit more radical than my party leadership, because our taxation proposals in the manifesto that we put to British voters last year did not increase personal taxation for anyone on an income under £80,000. Be that as it may, I live in this polity. I voted for representatives in the past; I am now able to take my place and represent others who wish me to secure a well-regulated country that pays its taxes and provides its services, and which I am intimately and personally involved in.

The issue of 15 years is clearly crucial. If, as she intimated, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) were to travel to another country for two years on sabbatical to show them, for instance, how it would be sensible for them to set up a bicameral parliamentary system, I am sure they would be extremely grateful for her expertise in that area, and as citizens of the world who want to see other countries being properly governed and regulated, I am sure that we would all be delighted that she had gone to show them that expertise. It would be entirely unreasonable, if a general election were to happen during those two years, for her not to be allowed to vote in that general election—unless she happened to have been elevated to the other House in the meantime. As long as she is a Member of this House, she, like the rest of us, will be able to vote in the next general election, whether she is in this country or abroad.

However, there is a point at which we have to ask whether people are living in this country. If someone is going abroad for more than 15 years and has family, I venture to suppose that they would want to take their immediate family with them. Anybody who decides that they are going to live permanently and completely abroad for 15 years and does not take their family with them obviously does not want to stay with their family anyway.

The idea that someone should be able to vote for a Government they think would be better for their family, although they do not want their family with them, is a bit bizarre. Clearly, if somebody lives abroad for more than 15 years and takes their family with them, the overwhelming assumption—the clear picture that gives to people out there who are looking at what others are doing—is that they have decided to live in another country and that they have emigrated. This country has a proud history of emigration. People have emigrated to Canada, South America, South Africa and Australia, and they have helped to build thriving societies in all parts of the globe. All of them—or almost all—vote for the Governments of those countries, and rightly so.

When Canada, Australia and South Africa were dominions of this country, they voted for the Governments of those dominions, and rightly so. That was a sensible approach to representative and electoral rights, because they were voting for people who had power to make decisions about the lives that they were leading in those countries.

If this Bill had been passed in 1850, and we had given people who moved abroad the right to vote in the last constituency in which they had happened to be before emigrating for the rest of their lives, how could we have set up thriving and independent political bodies in those other parts of the world? How could we possibly have expected the people of this country, who were still living in this country, to be happy with circumstances in which every time there was a general election, all the people who had decided to move to Canada, Australia or South Africa, and their descendants, had more of an electoral say over how this country was governed than those who had stayed here and lived here?

If we gave the right to vote in British general elections to British citizens for the rest of their lives, irrespective of whether they were living in this country, that would presumably extend to their children, if their children were British citizens, although the children were not living in this country. If we did the same for the children of those children, where would it end? If Ireland had gone down that route, there might well have been far more people in New York voting in Irish general elections than in Ireland. The clear point is that if people are going to vote in an election, they need to be affected by that vote.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Is it not bizarre when, in other countries, the right to vote in elections is extended to generation after generation, and a large proportion of the electorate are outside the country where the election is taking place? When I was in Buenos Aires the other year, the campaign that was taking place on the streets concerned not an Argentinian but an Italian election. There were posters in the streets, and politicians were flying over from Italy. It is bizarre that the Italians should have to start fighting elections in other countries to win them in Italy. Surely the Bill would undermine the concept of ruling Britain for the sake of the British, and ultimately there would be foreign influences in this Parliament. Would that not be a rather bizarre situation?

[Sandy Martin]

I entirely agree. In 2016, we had a vote—it did not go in exactly the direction that I would have supported, but it was a vote none the less—on taking back control of our own country. I do not think that when people were voting to take back control of their own country, they were voting to allow someone who had lived in the Caribbean, Australia or South Africa, and who intended to continue to live there, and who had been there for more than 15 years, to take back control of this country. I think that the majority of the population of this country would not believe that people who clearly would not be living in this country in the future should vote in elections in this country.

As I said earlier, if a British citizen moves abroad for two, three or four years and will then be coming back, it makes perfect sense to allow that person to vote in elections for a national Government who will affect their lives when they do come back. There has to be a cut-off point, and I note that the cut-off point is currently 15 years. That is not necessarily the cut-off point that I would choose, but given that all these arguments were gone through at the time when it was set, it would probably make sense to keep it that way.

There is a clear sense among those on the Conservative Benches that the Bill is designed to deal with an injustice, so let me now address the idea of injustice and, in particular, the idea of injustice in respect of pensions. This relates to part of what was said earlier by my hon. Friend sitting behind me, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). If somebody has worked for the majority of their life in this country and has contributed to our economy and society and in particular has contributed through the national insurance system, it is perfectly legitimate and right that they should collect the same pension irrespective of whether they happen to be living in this country or another country.

We have a deeply unjust situation about the level of pensions people can collect across the world. Most people, apart from the people who live in those countries, do not realise how unjust the situation is. I am sure that Conservative Members will accuse me of simplifying or being simplistic about this, but it basically boils down to the fact that if people have retired to a Commonwealth country, the value of their pension diminishes away to almost nothing, whereas if they have retired to the United States or several other non-Commonwealth countries, their pension continues to be upgraded to match what it would have been if they had stayed in this country.

I will repeat that for those who did not hear it the first time or think I might have got it the wrong way around, because it is so counterintuitive and so clearly and manifestly unjust that it deserves repetition. If somebody moves to a Commonwealth country, the value of their pension diminishes away to nothing, whereas if they move to the US or some other non-Commonwealth countries, the value of the pension continues to grow alongside the value of pensions in this country. That is manifestly unjust; it is clearly discriminatory against other members of the Commonwealth. It is a bizarre situation, and I have no idea how it arose. It should have been dealt with years ago, and it is time that it is dealt with now. Why is that not the issue being addressed by this Bill? Why is this Bill addressing a manufactured injustice about voting rights, when it should be addressing an injustice about the pensions people ought to receive when they live in other countries?

[Mike Gapes]

May I say as honorary president of Labour International that Labour party members all over the world will be outraged that my hon. Friend is referring to this as a manufactured injustice? It is an injustice, and there might well be other injustices, many of which he is referring to, but it is wrong to say this is a manufactured issue.

[Sandy Martin]

I apologise if I have upset my hon. Friend, who has done a lot of work with Labour voters and potential Labour voters in other countries. Clearly, if people are living in other countries for limited periods, it makes perfect sense to enable those who are allowed to vote up to the time limit—at present, we have a 15-year cut-off—to vote for the party they want to vote for, and I honour and applaud the work my hon. Friend has done in encouraging those who are eligible to vote within that 15-year period to vote.

However, there must be a cut-off point. It does not make sense—it would not do so if there was a Labour or Conservative Government or a Labour or Conservative voter, and if they were living in Spain or South Africa—for us to assume that once somebody has moved abroad and it appears likely that they will live in another country for the rest of their lives, they should continue to vote in this country until the end of their life.

For example, a doctor who might have come to this country from Jamaica and has worked all her life and put an enormous amount of money into her pension who then decides on retiring to move back to be with her family in Jamaica will see the value of her pension dwindling into nothing, whereas someone who retires to Florida with a large sum of money of their own will see the value of their pension uprated year on year in line with pensions in this country. If there were any injustice that needed to be addressed, this is surely one that should be addressed first.

We also need to consider the security of the poll. The Government want people to show security ID when they go to vote, and that makes a lot of sense, although I would like them to do more to ensure that everyone who goes to vote is enabled, encouraged and shown how to carry that ID. We want to ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote is able to do so. However, I fail to see how we can ensure that anyone living in another country does not register or vote more than once. Also, how can we ensure that they show their ID if they are not actually in this country? If we are to ensure security of the poll, we need to ensure that all the polling districts and electoral authorities are joined together on a central register, to ensure that there is no double voting by overseas voters.

[Jo Stevens]

On the security of the register and ensuring that everyone who is eligible is on the register and leaving aside the 15-year rule for overseas voters, there will be an opportunity for the Government to support my Automatic Electoral Registration (No. 2) Bill when it comes before the House on 27 April. Does my hon. Friend agree that that might address some of his concerns?

[Sandy Martin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to pursue all possible means of ensuring not only that the poll is safe but that everyone feels comfortable and able to use it. Her proposals have a great deal of merit.

Let us look at where these British citizens living abroad actually vote. Those still eligible to vote here have all lived abroad for less than 15 years, but if the Bill were to go through, they would be eligible to vote here for the rest of their lives. The City of London has 6,000 overseas electors; that is nearly 3% of the voters in that area. In Kensington and Chelsea, 2.5% of the voters live overseas, and in Oxford, the figure is 2.1%. In Westminster, it is 2.2%. Those figures represent a substantial number of people. For instance, there are 2,600 overseas voters registered in Westminster, and 3,300 in Camden, which is 2.37% of the electorate there. That is enough to make a difference on who is elected as Member of Parliament in those constituencies.

Let us look, however, at a constituency with fewer voters who live in other countries. Rotherham has 474 registered overseas voters, which is just 0.24% of the electorate in that constituency. I am not an expert on the demographics of Rotherham, but I believe I am right in saying that a large number of people from British Commonwealth nations have chosen to make their lives there, and I would be surprised if a large number of them had not decided to move back to the countries where their families came from or, in some cases, where they came from. However, those people are not registered as overseas voters. If we look at this, we can see that the people who choose to register as overseas voters tend to be people who are capable, professional, accomplished and, in many cases, encouraged to do so by the Conservative party.

I do not think the demographic of people living abroad is at all reflected by the people who are actually registered as overseas voters. Again, I applaud and encourage the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South to try to get people who have lived abroad for less than 15 years and who would be likely to vote Labour to register, but that does not alter the fact that the vast majority of people registered as overseas voters are not from Rotherham, Middlesbrough, Stoke-on-Trent or any of these other places with substantial new Commonwealth populations and where we would expect larger numbers of people to register to vote when they move back to the country in which the rest of their family live.

This is not a politically equivalent or politically balanced measure. It is not a measure that will treat voters, or potential voters, who might want to support one party similarly to voters who might want to vote for another party. I suggest that some people decide to move to another country precisely because taxation in this country is higher than elsewhere. If someone decides to move to Bermuda because they would pay less tax in Bermuda than they do in this country, the overwhelming likelihood is that they have a significant amount of money, otherwise they would not be able to afford to move to Bermuda in the first place.

[Mark Tami]

Certain countries, such as Portugal, give people the incentive of not paying tax for a period if they move a certain amount of their wealth over there.

[Sandy Martin]

My hon. Friend makes the point that we are not just talking about people moving to other countries. We are talking about significant amounts of wealth moving to other countries, too, and mostly moving to countries where taxation is paid at very low rates or, indeed, not at all.

Why should people who have decided to move to another country so that they do not pay taxes in this country, so that they do not support services in this country, have a say not only on tax and services in this country but on whether the Government of this country do something through our relationship with those countries and overseas territories to ensure that such people do pay their taxes? We have a situation where people who are deliberately avoiding paying taxes in this country—I think “avoiding” is parliamentary and the other one is non-parliamentary—are making decisions about who will represent them, who will govern our country and who will make decisions about how easy it is for them to avoid those taxes.

Conservative Members have also raised the issue of voting on behalf of our children. When people move abroad, their children often do not move with them—their adult children may well have families of their own, and they may well be making lives of their own in this country. It is a point, but not a very good one. If I had a child living in Scotland, I would not expect to be able to vote in a Scottish election in the constituency in which my child lives, as well as voting in my own constituency. I would not expect my vote to count towards the polity in which my child lives, and I see no good reason why people who have decided to live in another country should expect to be able to vote in elections in this country to reinforce the value of the votes of their adult children. When people vote, they should be voting for themselves, they should be voting for the services that they get, they should be voting for the taxes that they pay and they should be voting for the society in which they live—the society that levies those taxes and delivers those services.

I understand that the substance of this Bill, although it is a private Member’s Bill, was indicated by a promise made by the Conservative party in its 2017 general election manifesto. I surmise that there are people within the leadership of the Government who do not particularly want this to be a Government Bill, because it might be a little embarrassing to show that they are giving the vote to people who have chosen not to pay their taxes in this country, so they have decided that it should be a private Member’s Bill instead.

Quite a lot of other issues addressed in that manifesto last year have also not come up and show no indication of coming up in the next year or two, such as the dementia tax, the vote on foxhunting and reintroducing grammar schools. It is a little disingenuous of the Government to urge their Back Benchers to introduce Back-Bench Bills that they have previously promised in their manifesto but which they have now decided are too embarrassing to introduce themselves. I hope we do not get more of these embarrassment Bills. I have not looked through the list of all private Members’ Bills, so I do not know whether it contains one on bringing back foxhunting, on reintroducing grammar schools or on introducing the dementia tax. I suspect it does not, but this would not be beyond the bounds of possibility. I hope that any such Bill would be dealt with by a House that has already shown and an electorate who have already shown this House that they did not have any truck with such proposals.

The Bill’s promoter said in summing up that he wanted British citizens who had made a decision to live abroad and had been living abroad for more than 15 years and their children to be able to continue to vote until “whenever it is reasonable to do so”. I suggest to him that there has to be a cut-off point and that “reasonable to do so” is, to a certain extent, a qualitative decision, whereas 15 years is a very reasonable amount of time. I cannot believe there are many places where it makes sense for somebody to not do something for more than 15 years and still have the same rights over that thing as the people who have been doing it constantly. If I were to walk out of this House for 15 years and not come back, I would not expect to be able to speak in such a debate in the way that I have. I would dearly love to be able to go on for 15 years, but, unfortunately, I have pretty much run out of things to say.

In conclusion, I do not believe there is any justification for a Bill that encourages people to move to other countries, to stop paying taxes in this country and no longer to have any interest in whether or not services are delivered in this country and that yet allows them to vote for the Government who levy those taxes and deliver those services. Any reasonable person looking at it from that point of view—from the point of view of practicality and the argument of what a vote is for, which is to create a Government and a polity that govern taxes and services—would say, “Yes, it doesn’t make sense.” I can only guess that certain powerful and wealthy people desperately want the Government to give them the right to vote forever more—we should resist it.

13:33

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

This morning, we heard a dignified debate about organ donation and Bill that was named “Max’s Bill” This Bill could be “Shindler’s Bill”. I hope the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin), having spoken for three quarters of an hour, will find the time to meet Harry Shindler. I am very proud to be allowed to call Harry Shindler a friend. He is 97 years old. He fought at Anzio. He returned to the United Kingdom, raised his family and worked here. He retired to Italy, where some of his family were living. He has deliberately avoided taking Italian citizenship, although he could most certainly have done so, because he regards himself, proudly and until his last breath, as British. He could have fraudulently registered in the United Kingdom—he has enough family and friends here to pull out an address and vote—but he is honest, and he is honestly British. He has fought tooth and nail, as the oldest living member of the Labour party, for his right to vote in Britain.

Just for the record, while Harry Shindler has been doing that, he has also spent his energy and his waking hours searching for the remains of British servicemen and women who fell in Italy, identifying them, and making sure that they are properly remembered and recorded. I do not think we could find anybody more British or with more right to vote than Harry Shindler. I hope that the hon. Member for Ipswich will have the courage to look Harry in the eye and tell him why he wants to deny that old man the right to vote again in Britain before he dies.

Harry will have heard that and, to take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), so will the millions of expat United Kingdom citizens living around the world who are not tax exiles. Many of them do pay taxes in the United Kingdom—many have taxed pensions and other taxed incomes in the United Kingdom—but after 15 years they are denied the right to vote. That is taxation without representation. Had the hon. Member for Ipswich read the Bill, he would have discovered that, notwithstanding the fact that the Bill will go to Committee—if we are allowed to get there—it already contains provisions to make sure that those who have not been resident in the United Kingdom cannot vote.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) left the Chamber some time ago. He mentioned bombed or demolished buildings and asked how an address might be used. The Bill is clear that the address has to be the last known address in the United Kingdom, wherever that was. The idea that the hon. Member for Ipswich put forward—that somehow that will load the balance of power and deliver Members of Parliament in relatively few clustered constituencies—is complete nonsense. Frankly, it is a discourtesy to the millions of people who live overseas and want the right to vote and to his own colleagues on the Opposition Benches—

[Sandy Martin]

rose—

[Sir Roger Gale]

No. The hon. Gentleman spoke for far too long; I shall not give way an inch. The idea that he put forward is a discourtesy to many of his colleagues who support this cause, including the hon. Member for Ilford North, whose constituency he apparently could not remember.

[Mike Gapes]

South.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes)—I could not remember, either. We are all fallible.

The hon. Member for Ipswich referred to the fact that people who live in Commonwealth countries did not have their pensions uprated. I happen to be the chairman of the all-party group on frozen British pensions. I do not recall the hon. Gentleman attending any one of the meetings we have held to try to redress the injustice to which he referred—and yes, it is an injustice. Had he attended, he would have got his facts right, because there are Commonwealth countries—of which Jamaica is one, to pluck an example out of the sky—in which pensions are uprated. We want to see them uprated across the board. I mention that not to score points but to demonstrate how very wrong the hon. Gentleman was in virtually everything that he said.

I do not need to say any more. I want Harry Shindler, and the millions of expats like him who are proudly British, who take a keen interest in this country and regard it as their mother country, who have children and grandchildren living here, and who may well want to return to vote but wish to vote while they are overseas as well, to have that right. I do not believe that any part of this House will find any favour, not only with those people but with their very many UK-resident family members, by disagreeing with that. I hope the House will remember that, if and when we get the chance to vote on the Bill. It is a good measure that redresses an injustice and its time has come. We should let it pass.

13:39

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on this Bill, which I wholeheartedly support. The core of it is not just about enfranchisement but about identity, and that, I am afraid, is the point that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) has not entirely appreciated.

I am an example of someone who comes from a family that has been affected by the 15-year limit. My father went to work for the European Commission when I was one. We left this country at that point, as proud Brits, at a time when, if one wanted to change the world, one went to work for one of these great organisations—that is what one did. Over the years, we were lucky enough to be able to come back so that my father could proudly vote for me to become a Member of Parliament. However, for so many of his colleagues in Brussels and across the world, whom we have met as expats moving from country to country while my father pursued his role as an ambassador, they are every bit as British as the people in this Chamber. They have made incredible contributions as Brits across the world, and so many of them have lost their voice because they have lost their vote as a result of this outdated notion that we need to be sitting on a piece of land in order to love it. We know full well that that is not what it means to be British, and, at its heart, that is what this Bill is about.

Let me take a moment to give voice to some of my electors and constituents who are abroad, but also to a few who are about to not be abroad and who, hopefully, will once again become electors in Oxford West and Abingdon, which, incidentally, is probably one of the constituencies with tiny majorities that the hon. Member for Ipswich was talking about where these people do make a difference—and boy, were they happy to be able to do so.

Ruth in Spain says:

“I have lived in Spain for 14 years and so am lucky enough to still (just!) be entitled to vote in the UK.”

Here she makes an important point, and highlights where I think this Bill could have gone further. I understand—I am happy to accept an intervention if I am wrong—that this Bill would not extend the franchise to referendums. It is clear that many have registered to vote from abroad as a result of the Brexit turmoil. Every single email that I have had from constituents has been about this point. I would be interested to know from the Minister today whether that is part of the plan.

[Chris Skidmore]

Having briefly been a Minister for the constitution with responsibility for the franchise, I would like to enlighten the hon. Lady. When it comes to referendums, the franchise is set individually by a referendum Act. Each referendum is described and detailed by its own separate piece of legislation. Even if my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) wanted to add this to his Bill, he would not be able to because referendums are discretely contained in how they define the franchise, which is why the franchise was slightly different for the Scottish referendum in 2014.

[Layla Moran]

I am very grateful for that intervention. I was not aware of that. I would also have presumed that, had they not been on the register at all, we certainly could not have included them. At least this perhaps gives us the constitutional option.

[Mike Gapes]

For the hon. Lady’s information, some of us tried to extend the franchise for the European referendum to the local government base, but we were defeated. Unfortunately, it was therefore simply based on those eligible to vote in a general election.

[Layla Moran]

I am grateful for that intervention. As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, the Liberal Democrats would have supported that, because we believe that European citizens, as this affected them, should have had a say in that referendum.

Ruth in Spain goes on to say:

“Recent events obviously highlighted the injustice of the current situation, in that many were denied a vote in the EU referendum—and also last year’s general election (an election largely based around Brexit)—the outcome having life-changing ramifications for British citizens who had chosen to move from one part of the EU to another on the basis that their rights to freedom of movement and all that this entailed were guaranteed.”

That was the basis of so many emails, but it is not just that.

Julian, who is a foreign correspondent, has lived in many countries as a Brit, and the soft power mentioned by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is very clear in his career. Julian contacted me some months ago, saying:

“Expatriates are not all pensioners sipping cocktails on the Costa del Sol. Many of them are useful contributors to the British economy and to the image of Britain abroad. Only this month, for example, a French food magazine chose a rural bistro in the Auvergne owned and run by a British chef as its cafe of the year. Britons abroad are often popular and useful members of their adopted communities.”

I agree that expatriates should be allowed to vote in some elections in their current countries of residence, just as it is right for us to continue to allow EU citizens to vote in local elections here.

We live in an increasingly globalised world. It is ridiculous to suggest that some families even have a choice to move back. House prices in some parts of the UK are expensive not just for the UK, but compared with house prices across the world. Ian in Canada says:

“Sadly, I’m retraining as an MD after a career as a neuroscientist, and have been out of the UK since 2004. I say ‘sadly’, because as you’ll be aware, that means the period under which I’m able to cast votes in UK elections is drawing to a close under the current 15 year rule…I may not have been able to afford to continue living in the UK on a post-doctoral scientist’s salary”—

that is why he had to move—

“but I haven’t given up on the old country yet, and would like to continue trying to shape things for the better.”

[Sandy Martin]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Layla Moran]

Very briefly and only once.

[Sandy Martin]

Does the hon. Lady accept that, although the case she mentions is clearly of somebody who has contributed immensely—not only to this country, but to the world—it must be quite difficult for her to be able to make decisions in Oxford West and Abingdon that affect his life in Canada?

[Layla Moran]

I do not quite understand. If Ian wanted to affect his life in Canada, he would be able to find ways of doing so there. I also think he would very much be able to affect some decisions made at this level of politics. I do not think that this provision should necessarily be extended to local elections and issues, such as bin collections in Oxford West and Abingdon. However, the recent general elections have been about major issues such as the direction of this country and the flavour that this country puts out to the rest of the world. It is entirely right that people who feel British, are British and are born into a British family have the right to vote on such matters.

I am half Palestinian and I regret that I am not at all able to engage with the country in which my mother grew up—she was actually born in Tripoli, but grew up in Jerusalem. I very keenly feel that just because I have never lived in Palestine does not make me any less Palestinian. Equally, those who have spent a lot of their life abroad have a lot to say about being British. Being British is more than just being on this land. It is loving this land and feeling that we are from this land.

I will soon draw my remarks to a close because I am keen to hear the next Bill, of which I am a sponsor. I just want to ask why we have not really considered having a constituency of overseas electors in the way that France does. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the Government will look into that. One reason that people do not register to vote from abroad is that it is incredibly bureaucratic and hard, and they might well live in countries where the postal system does not work very well. I therefore wholeheartedly agree with finding a way to make it much easier. As the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) mentioned, it would be an excellent idea to give people the ability to return their vote to the embassy or the consulate, rather than having to get it back to the local authority.

It is an extraordinary privilege to be British. As a new Member of Parliament, it strikes me how much Members across the House all love this country. This Bill demonstrates—as is also shown by the numerous constituents who I am sure have contacted us all from abroad—that people do not have to be on this land to love it. The Liberal Democrats and I wholeheartedly back this Bill. I sincerely hope that the House votes in favour of it today.

13:49

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I am grateful to have caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I start by paying a sincere tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) for bringing forward the Bill. He did not say it, but, contrary to what the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) insinuated, it was entirely his wish to bring it forward, because he, like me and my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), believes that it is the right thing to do. This should not be considered a political issue. In the centenary of Emmeline Pankhurst’s campaign to get women the vote in this country, fought often in difficult and violent circumstances, it is a disgrace for certain Labour Members to try to deny the vote to women who have lived overseas for longer than 15 years.

[Jo Stevens]

What makes a 16-year-old woman in this country any less valuable than a 70-year-old woman living in Spain who is a British national? That woman has a vote, but the 16-year-old woman does not.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I entirely respect the sincerity with which the hon. Lady holds the view that 16-year-olds should have the vote. It is a legitimate debate, but it has nothing to do with the Bill. If she wishes to introduce a private Member’s Bill, a ten-minute rule Bill or a Bill through any other procedure, she is more than able to do so and speak in support of it, but that has nothing to do with this Bill.

One or two falsehoods have been peddled in this debate. It has been said several times that children of those living overseas for more than 15 years will be eligible to vote. I have read the Bill and can see nothing in it that would make those children eligible to vote. Indeed, the Bill is very specific as to the qualifications somebody would have to meet to be eligible.

I gave the House some figures in a debate in 2012. At that time, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research, 5.6 million British citizens were living abroad, but the shocking truth was that although as of December 2011 about 4.4 million were of voting age, only about 23,000 had registered to vote. I am delighted to say that that number had increased to a huge 285,000 by the time of the 2017 general election—as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) indicated, it might have had something to do with the EU referendum. If we believe that British citizens have the right to vote for up to 15 years, it must be right to remove the arbitrary limit whereby the day after 15 years they have no right to vote. It is right on every ground, especially that of extending the franchise, that we do that.

Totally contrary to what the hon. Member for Ipswich said in his overly long remarks, most overseas citizens have a real interest in how this country is governed. They watch BBC World, they listen to the BBC World Service, and they often get British newspapers in the countries in which they reside.

[Sandy Martin]

rose—

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I will give way once and briefly to the hon. Gentleman, and that is it.

[Sandy Martin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I have a real interest in what happens in Scotland, India and Spain—I was watching the news from Barcelona very closely—but that does not give me the right to vote for people in those countries or for how they raise their taxes and deliver their services.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The hon. Gentleman’s argument is totally wrong. British citizens have every right to British taxpayer-provided services, as I said in an intervention on him earlier, yet, if they have lived abroad for more than 15 years, they have no right to vote for how those services are provided. How can that be correct? His whole argument was totally fallacious. Some 1.8 million students do not pay council tax, but nobody would ever suggest that they should be denied the vote on the grounds that they do not pay council tax. That would be a nonsensical argument.

Moving on from the hon. Gentleman, let us look at some international comparisons. According to my research, the only countries that have stricter rules on overseas voting are Ireland, Greece and Malta: paragons, I would say, of democratic values—or not. The countries that have real democratic values—the US, France, Japan, South Africa, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Italy—all have no limits on when their citizens living overseas can vote. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon said, with the advent of Brexit and the UK leaving the European Union, it is surely more imperative than ever that we embrace all our citizens living overseas, wherever they are, but particularly within the European Union, so that they feel part of this country, and surely the way to do that is to give them the vote.

I suggest to the hon. Member for Ipswich and the House that the expat vote has never been more important. It is our combined duty to further consolidate the British influence over those citizens and make them feel part of the British family. Despite what the hon. Gentleman says, they are soft power for this country—ambassadors for this country around the world. They gain this country a lot of influence, whether it be cultural, diplomatic, or purely in terms of imports, exports and inward investment into this country.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire gets this Bill through today. It is absolutely the right thing to do, and it is not a political issue. A number of us have campaigned very hard on it for a number of years. I hope that Labour Members will find it in their hearts, just as they wanted women to get the vote and just as they want votes at 16, to give our expats the same rights so that they can vote in our elections and have a say on how politics in this country is run.

13:56

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will try to be brief, because I want this Bill to get through.

I believe that there is an injustice in the arbitrary 15-year rule, but there are also many other injustices in the way many British citizens living overseas are treated. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) was right to highlight some of them. What is not right, however, is whataboutery and the best being the enemy of the good. What is not right is using false hares and arguments in order to discredit this Bill and imply that all the people supporting it are against, for example, votes at 16. I voted for the private Member’s Bill that proposed that, and it will come. Within our parliamentary procedure, we cannot have an all-encompassing electoral reform Bill. Our only opportunity to deal with this injustice is to support the Second Reading of this Bill to allow it to make progress. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) has done an excellent job in bringing it forward.

For some months, I have been pressing the Government, on behalf of Labour International and in response to communications I have had with Harry Shindler, who has already been mentioned, on why they were not bringing forward the commitment they made in their manifesto. When I asked questions about that last October, I was referred to answers given in September to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who had also been raising this issue from the Labour Benches. There is a bipartisan interest—in fact, a cross-Parliament, all-party interest—in these matters. All of us, even those who have only a few constituents who have gone to live in other countries, will have had communications about them from people in Spain, France, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada or wherever.

There are international organisations within the political parties that represent our party members living abroad. I have the honour of being the honorary president of Labour International, and I want to convey a few words from an email from Lorraine Hardy. She was not registered to vote in Oxford or Westminster, but was a Labour party activist in Leeds before she went to live in Alicante with her husband many years ago. She says:

“‘Votes for Life’ will be even more important post Brexit, as we will have no opportunity to vote for a national representative in the UK nor in our country of residence as there will no longer be an option to vote for an MEP.”

Frankly, it is an outrage that a large number of British people whose future in Europe was affected by the referendum were not able to vote in that referendum because they had been living abroad in a European Union country for more than 15 years. That democratic outrage was not manufactured; it was a fact. This is an opportunity to make sure that we remedy that outrage and take a small step towards allowing those people to express their views at the next general election on whether their parliamentary representatives were right to damage their position in Europe. I think that many of them might have some things to say about that. I will not get into that, but the view that this is one-sided is completely and utterly wrong. None of us knows what the views are of people living in other countries who have not expressed positions and are not registered to vote. That idea is just made up and manufactured.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Gapes]

I will take one intervention and then I will conclude, because I want this debate to end.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the opinions of people in a country such as Canada or America could inform our political discourse? Those countries have service animal protection—something I am calling for—and people there could inform our debate, so that we can see how well it works there.

[Mike Gapes]

Given that we have Skype, WhatsApp, Facebook and all the other means of communication, those people already inform the debate in many ways.

There is a democratic principle here. We should recognise what the Labour International co-ordinating committee said in the motion that it passed, which it asked me to bring to the attention of the House:

“Many of the concerns about voting are related to fears and anger about the loss of rights normally associated with citizenship such as pensions, health care and the right to family life. This should be dealt with by the government allocating these issues to…a…minister and by establishing a forum for the concerns of overseas UK citizens.”

Reference has been made to France. There are Senators in the French system who represent overseas French territories, and there are Members of the Assemblée Nationale who represent French citizens living in other countries in Europe. We need to address that issue as part of the wider question of the reform of our second Chamber, but that is not for today. Today is to remedy problems, to right an injustice and to say to British people, wherever they are in the world: you have equal rights in our democracy.

14:03

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on introducing the Bill and doing so much work to bring it to this point. I hope that it will command the cross-party support that it deserves, alongside the firm support of the Government for my hon. Friend and his work.

[Jo Stevens]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chloe Smith]

I will not. I need to continue helping the Bill on its path, and a very important Bill is coming next, which I wish to have the respect that it deserves.

In brief, British citizens who live overseas can find themselves abruptly disenfranchised after they have lived abroad for 15 years. That happens even when they still feel closely connected to our country and should have every right to take part in elections that can affect them like they affect any other citizen. To many, that is a terrible injustice.

The changes have the Government’s support and are part of a wider ambition to strengthen our democracy by ensuring that every voice within it can be heard. Under existing laws, British expats are estimated to have among the lowest levels of voter registration of any group—only about 20% of eligible expats registered to vote for the June 2017 general election. We think that figure is too low, and we hope that more people will be encouraged to register by our proceedings today.

We have already introduced online electoral registration, which, contrary to some negative points raised during the debate, makes it easier for people overseas—and indeed, in this country—to register to vote. We are interested in making it easier for people to vote and encouraging them to do so. Participation in our democracy is a fundamental part of being British, no matter how far someone has travelled from the UK. Since the House last discussed this topic it has become easier for someone to stay in touch with their home country, whether through cheap flights, the internet, or the soft power that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire began the debate by talking about.

Soft power is important to this country, and we should be welcoming to our citizens around the world. Mr Harry Shindler is foremost among them, and I am delighted to have heard his case put so eloquently in the Chamber today. Over the years Mr Shindler, and others like him, have asked with dignity and passion for this rule to be changed, and today we have the opportunity to deliver that change for them.

[Jo Stevens]

rose—

[Chloe Smith]

I will not give way; it is important that we finish our discussions on this Bill and move on to the Bill that follows it.

I am proud to do my small part on behalf of the Government to welcome the Bill and give it our support. It will allow campaigners who feel an abrupt sense of injustice when they are disenfranchised after 15 years to continue to contribute, not only in their interests, as represented by the Government of the country that they love—that point was put well by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran)—but to help promote Britain, this great country, around the world.

14:07

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) for promoting this Bill so that we can debate the extension of voting rights to overseas electors. As a modern, progressive, socialist party, we are committed to building a truly global Britain, and to championing our core values of equality, social justice and opportunity for all. Globalisation has led to a broad section of British citizens living around the world, and despite settling in all corners of the globe, overseas electors make a contribution to British society.

As the hon. Gentleman said, under the current system, British citizens who have moved abroad can register to vote as an overseas elector in the last constituency in which they were entered on an electoral register. British citizens who have lived overseas for more than 15 years cannot register to become an overseas voter. The Opposition are committed to taking radical steps to ensure that all eligible voters are registered and able to use their vote. The issue of extending voting rights for overseas electors is important and must be considered properly.

There has been a significant rise in the number of overseas electors registered to vote, and that number now stands at a record high of 285,000. As has been said, this is the centenary of the start of suffrage for women and many working-class men. That has encouraged many Members across the House to reflect on that journey towards equal and wider suffrage.

The extension of overseas voting rights has come a long way since 1985, when British citizens living outside the UK were unable to register to vote in any elections. The Representation of the People Act 1985 introduced new provisions to allow British citizens living overseas to qualify as electors in the constituency where they were last registered to vote before moving, with a time limit in 1985 of just five years. In 1989, that was extended to 20 years before being reduced again to 15 years in 2002. In the 2015 and 2017 general elections, the Conservative party made a manifesto commitment to abolish the 15-year rule and allow British citizens a “vote for life” in parliamentary elections.

[Jo Stevens]

I do not understand why, if it was in the Conservative party manifesto to introduce this legislation, we are here today debating a private Member’s Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could have taken the opportunityto have an all-encompassing electoral reform Bill to include automatic voter registration, votes at 16 and online voting, as well as extending the lifetime of ex-pat voting?

[Cat Smith]

I fully support my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill. I hope that Members across the House who want a more inclusive democracy where every eligible voter is on the electoral roll will continue to support her Bill. She raises an interesting point about why this matter is before us on a Friday as a private Member’s Bill. It is deeply concerning that this measure has been put into a private Member’s Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, that is being used to push Government business.

Private Members’ Bills serve an important function in our parliamentary process by enabling Back-Bench Members of Parliament, rather than the Government of the day, to initiate legislation. Indeed, private Members’ Bills have made significant changes to the law over the years—for example, the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965 and the Abortion Act 1967. However, with limited time available for consideration of private Members’ Bills, we cannot allow the Government to disrespect an important part of the parliamentary process and an important power that our Back Benchers have.

The Opposition are committed to building a political franchise that works for the many, not the few. However, it is also vital that we maintain the integrity of the electoral process. Unfortunately, it has been undermined by the Government, who have pushed local authority election teams to the absolute limit, damaging their ability to deliver elections effectively. The introduction of individual electoral registration added significant cost pressures by making it more expensive to compile the register. Election administrators have criticised the Government for massively underestimating the scale of the task at hand.

[Mark Tami]

My hon. Friend is making an important case on registration. Experience, particularly that from Northern Ireland, has shown that it is poorer areas where registration drops by the largest amount.

[Cat Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. That is the context of local government funding being reduced significantly over the years, which has forced local authorities to review their electoral services. That has led to significant reductions in core service funding and staffing levels, with a growing number of skilled professionals leaving local authority elections teams.

The impact of austerity was recently evidenced by the University of East Anglia, which found that 43% of local authorities experienced real-terms funding cuts to their budget for running elections from 2010-11 to 2015-16. According to survey responses from 254 local electoral authorities administrating the EU referendum, only a quarter of electoral officials said they had enough funding to support their work on the electoral register.

[Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

The Electoral Commission’s report on the 2017 general election warns of risks to the administration of well-run elections, which are becoming increasingly apparent due to reduced resources and a growing number of skilled professionals leaving local authority election teams. Does my hon. Friend agree that cuts to local government will affect this service?

[Cat Smith]

The report that my hon. Friend raises is very worrying and should be of concern to Members across the House. When 43% of local authorities agree that they do not have sufficient funds to administer a poll, we should all be worried about the integrity of our electoral system. The Government fail to understand that cuts to public services can have devastating consequences.

Last year, the Electoral Commission report on the general election warned of

“wider risks to the administration of well-run elections,”

which it stated were “becoming increasingly apparent.” Problems in some places have caused some voters to receive an inadequate service. That was evidenced most recently in Newcastle-under-Lyme, where two council officials were suspended after almost 1,500 people were unable to vote in last year’s general election.

[Mark Tami]

It has been estimated that probably more than 7 million people in this country are not registered to vote. Should we not be concentrating on them and making sure that they are on the register, rather than what we are talking about today—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has intervened several times. He must talk about the Bill, not about other matters.

[Cat Smith]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend’s intervention was particularly about the capacity of local elections offices. Were the Bill to be successful, the impact on local elections offices in councils up and down the country would be huge, because the process of registering an overseas elector can take around two hours. If those offices were to see a huge increase in the number of overseas electors registering at a time when local councils have had huge funding cuts, the pressure would be absolutely huge.

There was further evidence in June about how under-resourced election staff are. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) described the issues on polling day as “a shambles”. Significant issues also occurred in Plymouth, with hundreds of voters unable to cast their votes in the June general election. An independent investigation found that 35,000 postal vote holders had received two polling cards—a postal vote polling card and a polling station card. In addition, 331 people who received a polling card that was issued on 5 May were removed from the register after that point.

These failings clearly illustrate that more action must be taken now to deal with the increasing challenges that returning officers face in delivering elections effectively. Those concerns have been raised on multiple occasions by the Association of Electoral Administrators, which has called on the Government for a

“full and thorough review of the funding of the delivery of electoral services…as a matter of urgency”.

Not only is that impacting on voters, but it might also be having a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of electoral administrators and the public servants who work in local elections offices. Following the 2017 general election, the Association of Electoral Administrators wrote that

“we have collectively been concerned for the health and well-being of…our members”.

As a result, the AEA contracted the Hospital and Medical Care Association to provide members with free-of-charge access to confidential counselling services. That is not an indication of healthy elections offices up and down the country.

In the context of austerity, we cannot allow the Government to dismantle our electoral system any further. The existing provision of checking registration against electoral registration officer records within 15 years is already a challenging and resource-intensive process. Some applications contain vague or incorrect previous addresses, which can cause problems in checking the register—so much so that the Association of Electoral Administrators has estimated that it takes roughly two hours to register one overseas elector. Because overseas electors fall off the register after 12 months, the vast majority of registration applications occur immediately ahead of a general election, when the pressure on electoral administrators is at its most intense.

Abolishing the 15-year rule, and therefore presumably increasing the number of British citizens overseas who can register to vote, would completely overstretch electoral administrators, who are already being pushed to the limit. In addition, the requirement to keep copies of previous revisions of registers for more than 15 years, whether in data or in paper format, will have a resource implication in the form of increased ICT server capacity or physical storage area.

In the light of those concerns—

[Paul Flynn]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As we appear to have passed the point at which it would have been possible to consider the next Bill, I want the House to know that there will be a public demonstration outside in which democracy will work, and we will have a debate on the cruel effects of the present law on young children and those in serious health difficulties, including a young boy who is suffering, and whose parents are suffering, in a terrible way. What has happened here today has been a filibuster organised by one party, and I am ashamed to say that I am a member of that party—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to make a point of order about his Bill—although he knows that it was not a point of order—because I appreciated that he had a point to make, and I allowed him to make it. However, I will not take from him criticism of the Chair through the use of the word “filibuster”.

[Cat Smith]

Let me return to the Bill. I want to ask the Government three questions. Have they any indication of how many of the estimated 5 million Britons living abroad would apply to be overseas electors in the run-up to a UK parliamentary election or national referendum if the 15-year rule were removed? How do they intend to fund EROs for the additional costs incurred by these proposals? What steps will they take to ensure that election teams have the resources and the capacity to manage the increased volume of electors?

The devil is also in the detail, which the Government have failed to provide. According to the Bill, an overseas voter will qualify as a resident if

“the person has at some time in the past been entered in an electoral register in respect of an address at a place that is situated within the constituency”.

However, many questions remain unanswered.

If an overseas elector was registered at a previous address but then moved to a different address before leaving the UK where they did not register, at which address should they register to vote? As time goes by, potentially over several decades, it could be very difficult for EROs to check previous revisions of registers owing to ever-changing localities. Problems include local government reorganisation, polling district and ward boundary reviews, the demolition or redevelopment of properties, street renaming, house renumbering, and limited availability of local authority records. Can we seriously expect someone who has not lived in this country for 40 years to remember the exact date on which they were last registered to vote, and the precise address at which they lived? I think not.

I also question whether the current deadline to apply to register as an overseas elector and make absent voting arrangements is sufficient, in the context of abolition of the 15-year rule. The Association of Electoral Administrators has urged the Government to consider bringing forward the voter registration deadline for overseas electors to allow sufficient time to process and check previous revisions of registers. What steps will the Government take to address those concerns?

Not only is the likelihood of error extremely high, but we are leaving our democracy wide open to potential fraudulent activity. In response to the Cabinet Office policy statement about overseas voters, the Association of Electoral Administrators warned that scrapping the 15-year rule would increase the potential for electoral fraud. Under the Government’s proposals, applicants who cannot provide a national insurance number or UK passport could have their identity verified by another registered overseas elector using an attestation. That would be a signed written statement from another British citizen who was registered to vote in the UK. Can we honestly expect this to be sufficient security to prevent fraudulent applications? When the attester as well as the applicant live abroad, what is the likelihood of a false declaration resulting in prosecution proceedings? My guess is, very low.

There is also no way of checking whether an overseas voter is living at the stated address abroad. Overseas voters who owned and lived in more than one home could register more than once and we would have no way of knowing whether people were registered multiple times.

[Mark Tami]

If there was a concern, would there be people in Spain or whatever country who would go to see whether those addresses existed?

[Cat Smith]

Given the overstretched nature of elections offices up and down the country, I suspect there would not be the capacity for such a check. Given that the Government are this May planning to trial requiring ID at polling stations, it seems that the requirements to prove the identity of an elector living in the UK are far greater than—

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36)

Question put.

A Division was called; Dame Cheryl Gillan and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Members being appointed Tellers for the Noes, the Deputy Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I will, unusually, delay for a moment to see whether the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who was in the Chamber until just a few minutes ago, is in the vicinity. I make it clear to the House that I am not creating a precedent in so doing, but I am aware that the hon. Gentleman was in a wheelchair and it might therefore take him a little longer to reach the Chamber.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask your advice? It is obvious that there was an enormous weight of opinion in favour of the Bill that has just gone through on Second Reading, but some Members—particularly those on the other side—sought to shout against the Bill but then failed to put in Tellers. Will you advise me on whether that is good practice in this House? Surely, when a body of people shouts no, Tellers would normally be put in position by those Members shouting no.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I understand the point that the right hon. Lady makes, but it is perfectly proper for those who oppose a Bill not to put in tellers and not to see the matter through to a Division. It is not a question of whether that is bad or good practice; the practice is in order, and that is my consideration.

Petition

Friday 23rd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

[Tom Pursglove]

Business without Debate

Friday 23rd February 2018 Commons Chamber

LEGALISATION OF CANNABIS (MEDICINAL PURPOSES) BILL

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

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 July.

REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE (NO. 2) BILL

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

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March.

SERVICE ANIMALS (OFFENCES) BILL

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

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March.

TYRES (BUSES AND COACHES) BILL

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

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April.

VOTER REGISTRATION (NO. 2) BILL

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

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March.

KEW GARDENS (LEASES) (NO. 2) BILL

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

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March.

Raunds Library

Friday 23rd February 2018 Commons Chamber

14:31

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

I am presenting this petition on the future of Raunds library on behalf of the pupils of St Peter’s School in Raunds, who are very concerned that the library might close. The petition declares that the pupils of St Peter’s School want Raunds library to remain open. A similar petition—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Hon. Members who are not listening to the petition should go outside to chat. This is not fair to Mr Pursglove.

[Tom Pursglove]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the pupils of St Peter’s School will be watching that discipline with interest. You are absolutely right to make that point.

A similar petition has received 241 signatures, and it has been superbly organised by the pupils of the school, including Mason and Alex Bandy.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that Raunds Library should remain open.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to compel Northamptonshire County Council to ensure that Raunds Library remains open.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P002114]

Eider Duck: Marine Conservation Zones

Friday 23rd February 2018 Commons Chamber

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

14:34

[Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

After all that excitement, I hope now to take the House in a slightly different direction.

We might think of St Francis of Assisi as the original saintly animal conservationist but, although St Francis preached to the birds, Northumberland’s own St Cuthbert is popularly believed to have taken steps way back in the 8th century to ensure that some of Northumberland’s eider duck population enjoyed his personal protection.

There are a number of animal stories attached to St Cuthbert. A famous episode in Bede’s “Life of St Cuthbert” involved Cuthbert standing neck-deep in the sea and praying, after which two otters came and dried his feet with their fur. The animals were rewarded with a blessing and went on their way.

Perhaps the animal most associated with St Cuthbert today is the eider duck, or Cuddy duck—Cuddy being a shortened form of Cuthbert. The first we hear of their association with Cuthbert is in the 12th century, some 500 years after his death. The monks had a small cell and chapel on the island of Inner Farne, one of the beautiful Farne islands in my constituency that are now visited by hundreds of thousands of visitors every year. The monks shared this island home with a large nesting population of eider ducks. Cuthbert is said to have tamed the ducks so well that they would nest everywhere, even next to the chapel altar, without fear.

Cuthbert also placed the ducks under his protective grace, so that no one should eat or even disturb them. Every spring, on the many Farne islands and on Coquet island, all in my constituency, Mrs Eider and her babies can be found snuggled into a shallow hole in the ground, safe from predators thanks to island life and the careful and diligent work of the RSPB and the National Trust rangers who look after the island reserves.

The ducks cannot have remained entirely undisturbed by the monks, as we note the appearance in inventories made of Cuthbert’s shrine at Durham of cushions made of “Cuthbert doun”—downy feathers from St Cuthbert’s eider ducks on Farne. Perhaps the sacred purpose of the plucked feathers excused the necessary disturbance to the ducks. Certainly, other monks who had eaten or harassed Farne’s eiders were struck down by Cuthbert’s curse, with one even dying after mocking the saint’s protection.

So it is that the association with place is very strong and that I have the great privilege of being the eider duck’s advocate today. In St Cuthbert’s time, only the Cuddy ducks of Inner Farne were protected; the eider ducks on the other islands were not protected. Today, in modern protection terms, many other species of our spectacular island birdlife are protected but not the eider duck.

The creation in recent years of 50 marine conservation zones by this Government, with more planned, would no doubt receive the approval of St Cuthbert, as the delineated zones along my constituency’s unique coastline provide protection for wildlife and our marine environment. The MCZs have been created to protect important marine wildlife and their habitats, and they form part of what is now popularly known as the “blue belt.”

Our spectacular Northumberland coast is teeming with wildlife, from seabirds as rare as the roseate tern to my personal favourite, the delightful and slightly ungainly puffin—she flies like a fast jet—to porpoises, grey seals, dolphins and even the occasional whale. And that is just what can be glimpsed from above the water. Below the surface, Northumberland’s blue belt is a bustling city of crustaceans and molluscs, alongside an extensive and healthy fish population.

It is wonderful that the creation of MCZs means that our rich and diverse sea life will now be further protected from the effects of dredging and trawling, so that many more future generations can enjoy, explore and learn about nature’s world under the waves. But St Cuthbert would be disappointed to discover that within the Coquet to St Mary’s MCZ lies the uninhabited—by humans, at least—Coquet island, which does not yet include the eider duck among its protected species.

The common eider is a large sea-duck that is distributed over the northern coasts of Europe, North America and all the way to eastern Siberia. It breeds in Arctic and some northern temperate regions, but winters farther south, in temperate zones, when it can form large flocks on coastal waters. Our Cuddy duck can fly at speeds of up to 70 mph. The eider’s nest is built close to the sea and is lined with eiderdown, plucked from the female’s breast. This soft and warm lining has long been harvested for filling pillows and quilts. Although eiderdown pillows or quilts are now a rarity, eiderdown harvesting continues and is sustainable, when it is done after the ducklings leave the nest with no harm to the birds.

The common eider is both the largest of the four eider species and the largest duck found in Europe and in North America. The male is unmistakable, with his black and white plumage and green nape. The female is a brown bird, but can still be readily distinguished from all ducks. This species dives for crustaceans and molluscs, with mussels being a favourite food. The eider will eat mussels by swallowing them whole; the shells are then crushed in the gizzard and excreted. When eating a crab, the eider will remove all its claws and legs, and then eat the body in a similar fashion.

Eiders are colonial breeders. They nest on coastal islands in colonies ranging in size from as little as 100 to up to 10,000 in some parts of the world. Female eiders frequently exhibit a high degree of natal philopatry, returning to breed on the same island where they were hatched. This can lead to a high degree of relatedness between individuals nesting on the same island, so I feel that those eider ducks from Coquet island and from the Farnes are very much part of our family. Breeding eider fly from Coquet island and across the sea to use the mudflats adjacent to the Coquet estuary as a feeding ground for their young. Eider is a true sea-duck and is rarely found away from coasts. Throughout the year, breeding eider from Coquet feed in the intertidal zone of the Northumberland Shore SSSI—site of special scientific interest—and later in the year non-breeding eider also migrate here to feed during the winter months.

Although sea-bird and sea-duck colonies benefit from protection provided by the SSSI, these sites provide protection only on land. The site was designated in 1980 for about 500 nests, but by 2015 estimates of this number had dropped to about 300. The site is now being managed to address this long-term decline. The area is also an important winter feeding area for migrating eider from across Europe. Eider is a species listed as “near threatened” globally and “vulnerable” in Europe by the International Union for Conservation of Nature; a vulnerable species is one that has been categorised by the IUCN as likely to become endangered unless the circumstances that are threatening its survival and reproduction improve. These declines are thought to be driven by a range of threats, including the overharvesting of aquatic resources, pollution, disturbance and hunting.

In Britain, eider are currently classified as “amber” on the birds of conservation concern in the United Kingdom list. Disturbance is the primary threat to our eider; it results in a loss of access to feeding areas and increased predation at breeding grounds. There are several studies considering the common eider in relation to human disturbances. The study of the effects of human disturbance at breeding sites found that when disturbed, some or all ducklings and sometimes the mother dived, and the breeding colony was temporarily dispersed. During this disturbance, attacks by predators such as greater black-backed gulls and herring gulls increased. The study found that predation of chicks by gull attacks was more than 200 times higher on disturbed breeding colonies than on undisturbed ones, and this resulted in significantly lower numbers of chicks fledging each year.

The excellent Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 seeks to address management issues, such as disturbance, by creating marine conservation zones—MCZs. MCZs can be used to protect biodiversity in UK seas and are intended to allow a wide spectrum of protection. They form a key part of a wider suite of management measures including marine planning, ecosystem objectives, licensing and fisheries management. However, the designation of protected areas is the best means of securing the necessary commitment from marine managers and sea users to ensure that activities can be restricted, where necessary, to protect biodiversity.

Although the area used by eider around Coquet island and the Northumbria coast overlaps with an existing European marine site—EMS—eider do not receive any legal protection from the existing designation within the new MCZ. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has asked the Government to add the eider duck to the Coquet to St Mary’s MCZ list of protected species. Our friendly Cuddies reside within this zone all year round, yet are not covered by the existing legislation. Our Northumberland coast’s resident eider populations have continued to decline steadily over the last few decades, so protection of their sea-based feeding and wintering habitats is essential.

Across Europe, hunting, pollution and land disturbance means that other colonies are also in decline. The Coquet island colony is therefore all the more in need of protection. In so doing, the Minister would be allowing protection and management for these special birds to be put into place. Adding eider to the existing Coquet to St. Mary’s MCZ would enable proactive management to reduce and manage the threat of disturbance. The management requirements would be to carry out formal disturbance monitoring, management and enforcement, where necessary, such as by imposing speed restrictions or limiting boat traffic in sensitive areas.

The publication of codes of conduct increases public awareness of species of interest in an area, which may increase local tourism with benefits to the economy, so the proposals should include education and awareness of conduct in the MCZ.

Are the Government willing to include eider ducks in the Coquet to St Mary’s MCZ? Will they go further and commit to giving them protection across the Farne islands, too, as these unique islands and surrounding waters become incorporated into the MCZ as it reaches further north in the months ahead? I understand that informal conversations are already taking place and urge the Minister to drive them forward, so that my constituency’s extraordinary coastline and her feathered residents, whom I consider constituents worthy of representation just as much as the human ones, can live in a place of safety and protection and so that their long-term future is assured.

14:45

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) on securing this debate. It is a nice, uplifting debate on which to finish after several rather fractious points of order during the last private Member’s Bill debate.

As my hon. Friend said, the common eider ranges widely across the Arctic and northern Europe, but is listed as “near threatened” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. As she pointed out, the eider duck has a long-established association with the county of Northumberland, where it was the subject of one of the first acts of conservation. She said that it was in the 8th century that St Cuthbert took action to protect this wonderful species, but I am reliably informed by my Department that St Cuthbert is recorded to have established protection laws—the very first wildlife protection laws we had in this country—for Northumberland’s eiders as early as 676. That shows how important a species it is.

As St Cuthbert is the patron saint of Northumberland, it was natural that the eider should be chosen as the county’s emblem bird, and eiders are still often called Cuddy ducks in the area, with Cuddy being the familiar form of Cuthbert. A stained-glass window in St Cuthbert’s church in Amble commemorates this long-held association. Around 5,000 eiders—approximately one third of the English eider population—are still to be found in Northumberland.

The collection of eider down for use in quilts is recorded as far back as the 14th century. The practice almost led to the eider’s extinction in the 19th century. These days, the greatest threats to eider ducks are nest predation and the degradation of nesting habitats. Adults can also be disturbed by boat traffic at sea, which disrupts their feeding, as my hon. Friend pointed out. Eider ducks are already protected off the Northumberland coast in the Farne islands and Coquet island sites of special scientific interest, and in the Lindisfarne special protection area. They are also included in other designated sites in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

As a wild bird, common eider are also protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Land-based conservation measures are currently implemented to protect eider colonies on the Coquet and Farne islands. Principal activities involve vegetation management to ensure the continuation of suitable nesting habitat, biosecurity checks, and lethal control measures for rats and gulls, where necessary.

Marine conservation is important to protect our seas, preserve underwater habitats and help sea life to flourish. Oceans are our greatest natural asset and must be protected for the health of our planet and for the prosperity of future generations. In the 25-year environment plan that we published last month, we set out how we will fulfil our ambition to leave the environment in a better state than we found it, building on existing strategies and identifying key areas of focus. We want even cleaner air and water, richer habitats for more wildlife, and an approach to fishing, agriculture and land use that puts the environment first.

Plastic in the seas is of course a hazard for our seabirds. We have regulated for the world’s toughest ban so far against plastic microbeads in cosmetics and personal care products. We must reduce the global reliance on plastics, as well as incentivise the recycling processes to improve waste management, and promote maritime practices that prevent harmful materials from entering the seas.

The UK is at the forefront in establishing marine protected areas. We are committed to delivering a well-managed blue belt around our coasts. We currently have nearly 300 sites protecting 23% of UK waters, 133 of which cover 35% of English inshore and offshore waters. We have 50 marine conservation zones already, protecting a range of marine animals and plants and the seabed habitats on which they depend.

The UK is particularly blessed with seabirds. The UK hosts more than half the seabirds in the EU during the breeding season, with approximately 3.5 million pairs across 26 species. Our seabirds are principally protected by sites of special scientific interest, set up under domestic legislation, and by special protection areas, set up under the birds directive. Across the UK, we now have 106 marine special protection areas, protecting birds and 18,000 square kilometres of the marine habitats on which they depend.

Through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, we will make sure that marine protected areas set up under European directives will continue to be effectively protected after we have left the EU. We aim to complete our blue belt, and our contribution to the international ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas, with the third and final tranche of marine conservation zones. This will also fulfil our domestic obligation to form a network of sites that protect the range of features in our seas.

The third tranche of marine conservation zones will be consulted on this summer, with designations taking place in 2019. It is at this point, that I will turn to the specific proposal from my hon. Friend relating to the MCZ in Coquet to St Mary’s. Our general view has always been that MCZs are best suited to protecting features rather than highly mobile species—but not exclusively. Indeed, a number of years ago, we established some criteria against which we could judge where it is appropriate for MCZs to be used to protect birds.

As part of this third tranche, we do now have an opportunity to include some designations for highly mobile species, and that could include, for instance, eider ducks, where this is supported by evidence that their conservation would benefit from site-based protection measures. This is likely to be, as I have said, the exception rather than the rule. To that end, we gave the opportunity to conservation charities to propose a number of sites to us. We had 21 proposals for sites that were recommended by non-governmental organisations, which claimed that they fitted the criteria that we had set out. Eleven of those sites were from the RSPB, and that does include one relating to eider ducks, which I will return to a little later.

A couple of years ago, as I have said, we established some criteria against which we would judge where it is appropriate to use the MCZ process to protect mobile species. First, we need to be sure that area-based protection will be the most effective approach to protecting highly mobile species, compared with other conservation measures that could be applied more widely. This is likely to be the case where the highly mobile species use a specific area for part of their life cycle. That could include nesting and feeding areas, which is why we already have protection for many seabird breeding colonies, and the adjacent foraging areas that they use.

Other criteria that are important in our consideration of the proposals are the year-on-year presence of the species within the site in significant numbers and the suitability of the size of that site. In selecting which sites may be suitable as marine conservation zones, we are also looking very carefully at what it will mean in terms of possible restrictions on people who use the area to make their living, or who use it for recreation. We aim to strike the right balance and achieve our ambitious marine conservation aims, but doing so in a way that has the least impact on sea users.

The RSPB has specifically proposed that eider ducks are added as a protected feature to the existing Coquet to St Mary’s marine conservation zone, principally to protect them while foraging. We are considering that proposal very carefully, and the comments that my hon. Friend made in highlighting that in this debate today were well made. I will ensure that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who leads on this issue, and the officials dealing with the MCZ process, are informed of the points that have been made.

In our consultation this summer we will set out which marine conservation zones we are proposing for inclusion in the third tranche. We will explain why they are important for protecting our sea life, and the likely impacts on sea users. I hope that hon. Members will all urge their constituents to take part in that important consultation on a large range of new marine conservation zones.

Of course, it is not enough just to set up marine protected areas; we also need to ensure that they are well managed. So far, 29 new byelaws and 17 voluntary measures have been implemented in marine protected areas specifically for marine conservation purposes. A further 21 byelaws are expected before the end of this year. As we complete our network of marine protected areas we will make sure that the new sites are well managed.

If eider ducks are included in the Coquet to St Mary’s marine conservation zone, management is likely principally to focus on reducing boat disturbance of eider ducks while they are foraging, giving them a better chance to survive and breed successfully. I am informed that one of the key concerns is that, because these are large and heavy ducks, frequent disturbance—by speedboats and the like—when they are trying to forage can cause them to expend a lot of energy, which can affect their survival.

We have had a good debate. My hon. Friend raised some important points. I hope she will understand that I am not able to say today exactly what the conclusion or shape of the consultation will be, but I hope I have reassured her that my Department is much sighted on the issue. We are passionate about the importance of the eider duck. I assure her that her proposal is receiving very close attention indeed.

Question put and agreed to.

09:30

House adjourned.

Petition

Friday 23rd February 2018 Petitions

Friday 23 February 2018

Family re-unification for refugee children: St Patricks Primary, Troon and Symington Primary

Friday 23rd February 2018 Petitions

The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that the Government must do more to protect the rights of refugee children, in particular their right to protection and to be reunited with their family in the United Kingdom; and further that it is vital that the law is altered to recognised the broader range of individuals as family, and that in addition to parents, children’s siblings, aunts, uncles and grandparents are also acknowledged as family members.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to extend the current definition of family relation to unaccompanied child refugees entering the United Kingdom.

And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Dr Philippa Whitford , Official Report, 24 January 2018; Vol. 365, c. 376 .]

[P002100]

Observations from the Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes):

In considering the request to broaden the definition of family members for refugee family reunion, the Government have noted the concerns of both parliamentarians and members of the public about this issue. This is a complex area and the Government are keen to ensure that we do not create unintended consequences through the widening of the current definition of family members.

The Government have noted the call for refugee children to be able to sponsor their family members. Children who claim asylum here will be offered protection where they need it but there is a good reason why they cannot sponsor relatives to join them. Allowing children to sponsor other relatives would create incentives for them to be encouraged, or even forced, to leave their family and risk hazardous journeys to the UK to sponsor relatives.

But it is important that we note the very significant contribution the Government have made, not only in recent years, to support the global migration challenges. The UK is one of the leading contributors to the Syrian conflict, pledging £2.46 billion of aid to date and a further £175 million to the Mediterranean migration crisis. This support has provided life-saving assistance, including protection for the most vulnerable migrants and refugees and helped build capacity of host Governments to manage migration so that it is safe and orderly. The significant support the Government have provided in the regions means that families do not need to become separated.

By the end of 2016 our assistance delivered:

1.5 million relief items to people affected by the Mediterranean migration crisis;

More than 1.9 million meals for vulnerable refugees and migrants in Europe;

Over 1.6 million emergency interventions such as psychosocial support for refugees and migrants travelling to and within Europe.

Furthermore, by 2020 we will have resettled 20,000 refugees from Syria and a further 3,000 children and families from the wider MENA. This is in addition to the 18,427 refugees resettled under our resettlement programmes since 2004, and the 24,000 family reunion visas issued for refugees and 43,727 people provided with protection status in the UK since 2010 who are entitled to apply for their qualifying family members to join them.

The Government’s objective is to ensure that our policies support those in greatest need of our protection, who cannot remain in their country or region of origin. Extending the definition would go far beyond those in conflict regions or dangerous situations and could lead to this policy being used by significantly more people—who have no protection needs or who are not necessarily in precarious positions.

This Government strongly support the principle of family unity. We therefore have a comprehensive approach to refugee family reunion which is set out in the Immigration Rules and our family reunion policy. This policy reflects a decision-making framework that includes discretion and compelling circumstances. Additionally, there are clear Rules for non-refugees who look to bring non-EEA spouses and dependants. Officials regularly review and monitor the operation of existing policies.

Those recognised by UNHCR as refugees may also be able to join close family members here in the UK through the existing Gateway and Mandate refugee schemes. We need to ensure existing schemes are used to full effect to benefit family members living in regions of conflict and the Government continue to work with NGOs on the application of the current rules and the approach as part of our wider asylum and resettlement strategy.

Taking these factors into account, the Government continue to believe that the current definition of family member for the purposes of refugee family reunion set within a comprehensive framework providing safe and legal routes for families to reunite here already exists and should not be extended or defined further by primary legislation.

Written Statements

Friday 23rd February 2018 Written Statements

Friday 23 February 2018

Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitors

Friday 23rd February 2018 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)]

The Council of Europe’s convention on the manipulation of sports competitions seeks to combat the threat of match fixing and protect the integrity of sport. The EU wishes to become a party to the convention and has published two draft Council decisions to conclude the convention, one of which relates to justice and home affairs matters.

The Government have decided not to opt in to the justice and home affairs provision set out in the draft EU Council decision to conclude, on behalf of the EU, the Council of Europe convention on the manipulation of sports competitions with regard to matters related to substantive criminal law and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. This decision cites a title V legal base and therefore the opt-in applies.

The convention requires that EU member states have provisions in place to regulate the act of sports betting and to combat the manipulation of sports competitions in relation to sports betting—including provisions to make those acts criminal offences—and to apply those provisions extraterritorially (which can be derogated).

Only one discussion has taken place on this draft decision, in September 2017, during Estonia’s presidency of the EU Council, with no further negotiations having been scheduled, and with no timetable presented for adoption. The Government placed a scrutiny reservation on this decision at that discussion which remains in place.

A draft EU Council decision with regard to matters related to substantive criminal law and judicial co-operation in criminal matters was published in 2015 for the EU to sign the convention and, at that time, the Government decided to not opt in to the justice and home affairs provision. That decision was also not taken forward for adoption.

While there remains uncertainty as to how the EU might participate in the convention, the Government have taken the decision to maintain their position and not opt in to the justice and home affairs provision in order to preserve the UK’s ability to implement the convention according to national needs, and in particular to preserve the ability to exercise the right of derogation under article 19 of the convention (the extraterritorial application of offences)—preventing the EU from exercising competence on behalf of the UK.

Protecting the integrity of sport is taken seriously by the Government and we view the convention as an important tool in the fight against match fixing. We therefore intend for the UK to become a signatory to the convention later this year.

[HCWS481]

Official Journal of the European Union

Friday 23rd February 2018 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)]

Lord Callanan, Minister of State for Exiting the European Union, has made the following statement:

I confirm that an exemption in accordance with Section 8(5) of the European Union Act 2011 (EU Act 2011) applies to the European Commission’s proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 (COM(2017)87). The proposed regulation refers to the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union.

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to introduce the authentication of a document by an electronic seal. This option is offered by Regulation No 910/2014. This proposed amendment is purely technical and there are no policy implications for the UK. The legislative change is needed as the change in electronic seal alters the legal status in the publication.

The legal base of the proposal is Article 352 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Under Section 8 of the EU Act 2011, decisions under this require an Act of Parliament to approve the measure, unless both Houses agree to a motion that a decision is urgent or an exemption applies.

In this case Section 8(6)(a) of the EU Act 2011 provides an exemption to make provision equivalent to that made by a measure previously adopted under Article 352 TFEU. The proposal is to make a provision equivalent to that made by Council Regulation (EU) No. 216/2013, which was previously adopted under Article 352 TFEU on 7 March 2013. This proposal has the same substance matter. It relates to the electronic authentication of the Official Journal. As such, all that has altered is the specific form the authentication is to take. Therefore this proposal does not require an Act of Parliament for the UK to approve the measure.

[HCWS480]

Foreign Affairs Council

Friday 23rd February 2018 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

My right Hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Field) will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 26 February. The Foreign Affairs Council will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union (EU) for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini. The meeting will be held in Brussels.

Prior to the FAC there will be an informal meeting, over breakfast, of the European Action Group for the Republic of Moldova with the Foreign Minister of Moldova. The FAC will then discuss Moldova, Venezuela and the middle east peace process (MEPP). There will be a lunch with the Secretary General of the Arab League and some Arab Foreign Ministers.

Moldova

Ministers will have a substantive discussion of the key challenges facing the Republic of Moldova, including its implementation of the association agreement and its Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA), and engagement by the EU and member states. The UK remains fully engaged in the reform process in Moldova, and will focus on the need to encourage the Republic of Moldova to maintain progress in this process.

Venezuela

The FAC will discuss the political and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, following the announcement that presidential elections will take place on 22 April. The FAC will consider the recent breakdown in political dialogue between the Government and Opposition, what conditions would constitute a credible election, and what more can be done to address the humanitarian situation.

Middle East Peace Process

Ministers will discuss the latest developments in the MEPP ahead of a lunch with the Secretary General of the Arab League and Foreign Ministers from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Egypt and Jordan to discuss prospects for the MEPP, including long-standing EU support for a negotiated two-state solution.

Council Conclusions

The FAC is expected to adopt conclusions on Burma, Cambodia, Moldova, the Maldives, climate diplomacy and the Special Report on EU Support to the Fight to End Human Trafficking in South and South East Asia.

[HCWS482]

EU Foreign Ministers: Informal Meeting (Gymnich)

Friday 23rd February 2018 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the biannual informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers (known as the Gymnich) on 15-16 February in Sofia, Bulgaria. The Gymnich was hosted by Deputy Prime Minister for Judicial Reform and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Bulgaria, Ekaterina Zaharieva and was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini. Discussion centred on Syria, the western Balkans and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

EU Foreign Ministers met Foreign Ministers of the candidate countries over dinner on 15 February and on the morning of 16 February.

The format of the Gymnich is designed to allow EU Foreign Ministers to engage in informal discussion on a number of issues. In contrast to the Foreign Affairs Council (the next of which will be held on 26 February), Ministers do not take formal decisions or agree conclusions at the Gymnich.

Gymnich discussion

Syria

Ministers expressed concern about the security situation. My right hon. Friend spoke about the importance of the Geneva peace talks and maintaining pressure on the Syrian regime.

Western Balkans

Ministers discussed the strategy, recently published by the Commission, and agreed the importance of remaining engaged in the region.

DPRK

Ministers briefly discussed the DPRK. They welcomed renewed engagement between the DPRK and the Republic of Korea while emphasising the importance of maintaining pressure, including through the full implementation of sanctions.

[HCWS483]

House of Lords

Friday 23rd February 2018 Lords Chamber

Friday 23 February 2018

10:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Winchester.

Ecumenical Marriage Bill [HL]

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 23rd February 2018 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

10:06

Moved by

[Lord Deben]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, quite by accident, I experienced last Tuesday one of the most emotional occasions of my life. We are a very small village, and a man of 57, who had always been at the centre of village life, died. It was his funeral on Tuesday. He had been born, brought up, and died within a stone’s throw of the parish church. The funeral was held in the church, attended by so many people that they were standing in the tower place, in the open doors of the vestry, behind the altar rail and in the rain outside. It was very moving. But he had been a regular attender at the nonconformist church in the next village, and the service was entirely taken by the minister of that church. It was an uplifting experience. There we all were—Anglicans, Catholics, nonconformists, those only just believers, or those not believing at all—to say thank you for somebody whom we will miss and whom I shall miss every day of my life.

I reflected then on how generous it was of the established Church to make it possible for any of these services to take place in the parish church. Any of these services—except marriage. A year ago—I declare an interest in this—my daughter got married and wanted to get married in the church in which her grandparents are buried. We are one of a very small number of families who help to keep the roof on, although we are Catholics; another family that keeps the roof on is also Catholic, but that is part of what we think we should do in the village. I discovered that she could not be married by a Catholic priest. She wanted to be married by her chaplain from school, somebody whom she loved and who had helped their marriage to start, not least in the difficulties of today, when very often husband and wife are not necessarily from the same denominational background. The excellent Anglican bishop explained to me that, first, the Church of England’s canon, which had been changed to cover these other services, did not cover marriage, and secondly, that in any case it could not be done because of the state’s law.

At this point I have to try to explain this. It is quite difficult to explain, because I have had to explain it so much to lawyers who have not understood the basis of all this. During the passage of the Marriage Act 1949 the then Government did not want to upset the Church of England and thought it would be much better if they had a simple way of excluding it from their tidying-up process. The Marriage Act works in two halves. The first half refers to parish churches of the Church of England and says that they are automatically licensed for marriage,

“according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England”.

If they had not put that bit in, there would be no problem. The second part explains that all other denominations have to get their churches licensed—they have to register—and then they can have marriages of any kind they like, including marriages according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. This was, therefore, an easy way of stopping a great deal of bureaucracy. I have no objection to that; it seems perfectly reasonable. But there was a mistake. Some say—I think the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester is one—that the Church of England could do this if it wanted to without this change in the law. That is a disputed argument—I can vouch for that, because I know the people who dispute it. So that is the first bit.

The second reason is something that I am sure your Lordships understand but I raise it in case anyone has not thought about it recently. We in Britain are the most wonderful exponents of the fudge, and our marriage system is a fudge. Instead of the French system of going to the mayor and having a civil marriage and then going to the church and having a religious marriage, we give clergymen of all denominations the duty of being a registrar. Therefore, when you have what in my view is that awfully embarrassing bit in the service when somebody has to make sure that the organist has a long enough piece to play while mother, father, grandmother, great aunt, the woman you cannot leave out and all the rest of them go into the vestry to sign, or witness the signing of, the register, that is—although the music gives it a certain religious awe—a non-religious activity which does the state’s bit.

I emphasise that that is done by any denomination. You can be a strict Baptist—the local nonconformist church in my area—or a Catholic and you do precisely the same thing: you fill in and sign the form, and you can do it because you are a registered clergyman of a denomination which has a church in which you can hold marriages. You would have thought that anybody who was allowed to do so could do that bit. However—I have had an enjoyable time finding out about all this—when most legal authorities find out about that, they look it up and tell me that I am right: that the Church of England could not do that if it wanted to unless we changed the Marriage Act 1949.

The proposition in the Bill before your Lordships is extremely simple. It does not require the Church of England to make a change. In that sense, we have disestablished the Church of England. It has its own synod making its own decisions, so the Bill does not insist that the Church of England makes the change. However, it would remove any impediment that there may be so that the Church of England could make that change. It might not want to do so. I thought that there would be no difficulty with this, because it did not seem to me that in a world of ecumenism the Church of England would want to stop such things happening.

Perhaps I may sum that up. When I rang my Anglican bishop and told him what I wanted, he said, “Well, John, you can have the mass but you can’t have the nuptial bit”. There is nothing that divides the churches more than the mass, but if the bishop, the vicar and the parochial church council agree, the Church of England will, in its generosity, allow me to celebrate a birthday by having a mass in my parish church—which, after all, was built at a time when it would always have been the mass, although I shall leave that on one side. Those are the circumstances.

The Bill takes every precaution. It makes sure that it cannot be used for some other purpose. That is why the details come directly from the Church of England’s rules relating to allowing a Methodist minister to have a Methodist service in an Anglican church. Nothing in the Bill extends that. Anybody here who thinks that it might open the door to gay marriage or result in the solemnisation of Wicca can rest assured because it does not. It merely says that a parish, its vicar and the bishop can together allow a marriage to take place according to somebody else’s Christian denomination’s marriage service.

Perhaps I may explain the four reasons why I believe this to be really important. First, marriage is the one sacrament made between two people, not by the priest or clergyman. Many people, particularly those who want a church wedding, come to marriage with the help of the clergy upon whom they depend. There is no doubt that it is a moment when most people want to choose somebody with whom they have a real connection. Very often it is the person who has helped them to get over particular problems. A friend of mine who is a priest is helping another friend of mine who wants to marry someone who does not have any religious understanding at all, whereas she cares about religion deeply. He is helping those two to get together. He happens to be a Catholic priest and will not be able to marry her in the church in which the boy has at least some connection. Quite simply, I want that not to stop their proceeding in the way they wish.

Secondly, we live in an ecumenical world, and we have to come to terms with that in many villages and, I am sure, many parishes in towns. There is the question of how two Christian parents bring up their children in the faith, and that starts with the promises that they make in marriage. It is important for people to have a service that ties them into the family and into all the forces that might help them live their lives together. Very often it happens in their home parish, whereas they now live somewhere entirely different. It is very important for them to be able to do that and I want that choice to be open to all.

My third reason for wanting to bring about this change is to deal with the fudges that otherwise take place. Let us not kid ourselves—people get round it. There are two well-known ways of getting round it. In our chapel here, all noble Lords can have their children baptised and can have a service of any kind—every Wednesday, we Catholics go to mass; the United Reform Church has a special service; and the Church of Scotland has a special service. You can have all that. But no one, unless they are an Anglican, can get married there unless they are prepared to have an Anglican clergyman and the Anglican rites and ceremonies—even though that is peculiar. I will tell noble Lords what the two fudges are. One fudge is that the couple get married in the Catholic church round the corner and then come and have exactly the same service in the chapel downstairs, to which they invite their guests, and call it “a blessing”. They know which was the service at which they were actually married. Is the fudge to meet the requirements of the Church of England? I hope not. Rather, it is to meet the requirements of the law of the land. That is the distinction that I am trying to make

The other way is much less of a fudge. When an Anglican clergyman is decent enough to understand what this means to the couple, he and the Catholic priest, Methodist minister or Baptist minister will do the whole service together without anybody doing one bit or the other. The law can then decide which of them actually married the couple.

I do not like fudges. I hope the House knows that, in all my political life and certainly in all my life in this House, I have gone against fudges. I want truth. I do not see why we should be put in this position by the 1949 Act.

The last point is rather more challenging. I almost remember the beginning of the ecumenical movement at its great conference in the Netherlands in 1948, which my father attended as an Anglican clergyman. It depends for its continuation and extent upon generosity and learning to live together. In a small village community, births, marriages and deaths are what mark our timetable—we are much closer to that, happily; it keeps us sane, frankly, and is what matters to us. We want to celebrate those things together. Here, I want the Church of England to be challenged and to decide for itself whether it is prepared to make this step towards a more ecumenical society. In discussing this with those who oppose it, I have discovered one rather serious thing: many of them do not want the Act changed because then they would have to face the choice. They would have to ask: will we in the Church of England continue to stop it? The Church would no longer be able to excuse it, because the law would make that impossible.

This is where I have to say something which may hurt. It is funny looking back: I was on the General Synod and a very active member, but when I became a Catholic I found three fascinating things. The first and less helpful thing is that the hymns in the Catholic Church are ghastly. There is a woman called Estelle White, who I believe will have the longest period in purgatory of anyone because she knew neither how to rhyme nor how to do metre, nor could she choose tunes, and she is theologically largely inaccurate—otherwise, she is all right. The second thing I discovered is that, for the first time, I went to a church that was filled with people of every possible colour and social status, from the person who swept the roads to the local squire. I had not realised quite how middle class the Church of England had become. I just wish to say that that had a remarkable effect on me.

The third thing I discovered, less happily, is that there was a tendency always for the Church of England to insist upon its position. So in a village that is largely strict Baptist, you could almost see the Baptist minister being edged out. I can think of one village, where there was no Anglican church, but still the Anglican clergyman took the lead at the war memorial, as he thought was right. I also remember when, for the first time since the Reformation, the mayor of Aldeburgh—the first woman mayor, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, came from Aldeburgh—who was a Catholic, appointed a Catholic priest as his chaplain. I remember going to the established church for the service. The chaplain was hidden as far as possible and the service went through as if there were no chaplain—but it was perfectly all right to have the Freemasons dressed up and sitting in two rows of the church.

I do not think that that is what the Church of England ought to be like, and I do not believe it really is like that. That is why I say this to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester: please, take the simple point that the Church of England may have the powers—I think he thinks it has—but let us make sure it does have the powers and then let it argue the case, if there is a case, to deny this hospitality and restrict ecumenism. But do not say that we do not need this, because that is constantly used as the excuse. Sometimes, we need a challenge. I challenge the right reverend Prelate to explain to me how, in the words of the prayers we have just heard, it can possibly be charitable to say to a young couple who live in a village, “You can come here and we will allow your priest to say mass, but he can’t marry you”. That seems to me not to be charitable. I would like the Church of England to show itself to be not only charitable but generous. Its established position depends on that. Without that, it is very difficult to argue that it should remain established in a country where there are many more Christians of other denominations—let alone anybody else—who would like to share in our common heritage.

10:28

[The Lord Bishop of Winchester]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for giving us the opportunity to speak about issues of such importance to this Bench as the celebration of marriage and our ecumenical relationships. I first acknowledge the personal and pastoral issues raised by the noble Lord and the way that he has so succinctly put those in his four concluding points about sacraments, the ecumenical world, the fudges and the ecumenical movement.

I am, therefore, rather embarrassed to start with something slightly more dry and technical. However, I begin by addressing what I believe to be the key issue here, which is constitutional in nature. There is a long-standing constitutional convention, with which noble Lords will be very familiar, that the Church of England makes its own legislation by synodical process. That legislation comes before Parliament for approval, having first been considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee. This Bill represents a departure from that convention.

As many will be aware, ecumenical relations are governed by Measure. The Church of England (Ecumenical Relations) Measure 1988 and the use of Church of England buildings by other Christian denominations is governed by Canon B43, what is known as the ecumenical canon. There are already structures which give expression to the valuable relationships that we have with our ecumenical partners. Indeed, members of the Church of England are convinced that Christian Churches should work, pray and witness together in a growing unity. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, underlined, our prayers this morning reminded us of that—that we might live together in true charitable love.

With regard to the participation by ministers of other denominations in Church of England weddings, Canon B43 already offers considerable flexibility, with the result that Church of England weddings regularly involve ministers of other denominations. There are even provisions for the sharing of church buildings in certain circumstances. However, these practical arrangements flow from the relationships between Churches of different denominations which, as I have said, involve dialogue on many levels, not least the doctrinal one.

The current arrangement is not a result of the unintentional effects of the wording of the Marriage Act 1949. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, will appreciate, practical arrangements flow from the progress made on ecumenical dialogue rather than the other way around, and it is no more appropriate for Parliament to prescribe to the Church of England or any Church how it carries out its ecumenical relationships than it would be to legislate on any other questions of doctrine.

[Lord Deben]

The right reverend Prelate uses the word “prescribe”. This Bill prescribes nothing; it permits. Earlier he said that in this House we have a long tradition of leaving law to the Church of England. That is what this Bill does. It removes the power of this House to stop the Church of England doing something. It is the removal of an impediment; it is not a prescription. If one uses those two words, it would be a different Bill, and I have specifically avoided either of them.

[The Lord Bishop of Winchester]

The noble Lord makes his points clearly on these matters, but I hope that he will listen to what else I have to say and see if I have responded to the questions that he has raised.

In my understanding, the Roman Catholic Bishops’ Conference, with which I am pleased to say we have very good ecumenical relationships, is not supportive of the Bill. I am also advised that the Church in Wales is likewise unsupportive.

I turn to the text of the Bill. Here I may have to go into a little detail and I may not quite say what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, thinks is my position. Clause 1 defines:

“Christian denominations other than the Church of England”,


as,

“any denominations whose ministers and churches can be licensed for the solemnization of marriage under the Marriage Act 1949”.

This is in the first place erroneous in that it is the building and not the minister that is licensed. More importantly, that Act makes provision for places of worship of many faiths to be licensed. The result here is to leave undefined the question of what a Christian denomination is and affords potential legal rights to the use of churches to new religious movements with which the Church of England does not have existing formal ecumenical relationships. We are returned to addressing questions of doctrine, creed and ecumenical dialogue, all of which ought properly to sit with the Churches themselves. For the Church of England in particular there is not in the present legal framework provision for the exercise of discretion by an incumbent, PCC or diocesan bishop in individual cases over whether a marriage can take place or can take place in one place or another.

All other legal requirements being in place, if a couple live in the parish, they have the right to be married in the parish church. The Bill unhelpfully gives wide discretionary powers through the making of exceptions to a general rule. Setting aside the long-winded process that would be involved in gaining formal consent from an incumbent PCC and diocesan bishop, it is hard to see how in natural justice this discretion could be exercised with sufficient fairness and transparency to be acceptable. The more one imagines specific cases, the more there is to be said for a legal framework which does not contain the element of personal discretion.

It has been pointed out, and the noble Lord has himself made it clear, that there are some places in mainly rural areas where the Anglican church is the only church building convenient for weddings and that it would be better for marriages of other denominations to take place in them than for couples to have the choice between either a church or chapel of their own denomination in an inconvenient location or in a secular venue where religious content to the marriage service is not permitted. But it seems upside down to start addressing this issue with the matter of weddings when it relates to the mission and ministry of the Christian Church in the area. It is already possible for denominations to enter at the local level into a sharing agreement under the Sharing of Church Buildings Act 1969. Under the terms of such an agreement, each participating denomination can celebrate marriage services in accordance with its own rites and usages. The shared building can be a Church of England parish church or chapel, for example. There are many more problems of detail into which I do not propose to delve here, but would need to be unpacked at greater length were this Bill to reach Committee.

It would be a great mistake if I were to speak here of only church buildings and church ministers. The local church building, parish church or licensed chapel is significant as the focus of a worshipping Christian community. Marriages are solemnised in the building as an expression of the reality of that parish community, and in some cases of a community with a historical identity spanning centuries. The prayer, support and friendship of the local Christian community gives extra depth and meaning to the event of a marriage ceremony. In that, the church building is so much more than a wedding venue.

For all the progress that it might appear to embody, I must none the less urge the House to recognise that this Bill is not the way to encourage the ecumenical hospitality for which we continue to work and to which I am personally committed. I want to leave it, having heard the challenges put by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, right at the end of his remarks—those very direct challenges to the Church of England—which we must address.

10:37

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate and to agree with him. I do so because, as a loyal and active member of the Church of England, I sometimes find that loyalty sorely tested, not least by some in the hierarchy in the Church of England who tend—how can I put this?—to be inclined to the listen less to the views of their congregations and more to the liberal, left-leaning and hand-wringing attitude towards affairs of state with which I find it difficult to agree. However, on this occasion I am delighted to agree with the right reverend Prelate.

This is about ecumenical marriage. My own marriage took place down the road in the Guards’ Chapel and involved both the chaplain of the chapel, who I suppose legally married us, my parents’ excellent priest who remains a great friend, and indeed a great friend of my wife, who is a monk at Ampleforth. It was an ecumenical marriage with Catholic input, and we were very grateful to him for it. I wish to say that I do not oppose anything ecumenical about marriage.

I am also the godfather to two Roman Catholic children. My noble friend Lord Deben expressed his wish that we should be more ecumenical. I should say that they are now both delightful young men, and I am glad to still be their godfather. At the christening of one in Nightingale Square, as I walked across to the church with my friend who is an Anglican but married to a Roman Catholic, he said, “The priest has insisted that all the godparents should be Catholic, so I told him that you were. Could you confirm that if he asks you”? I said, “Actually, no, I am afraid I will not. I will tell him the truth”. Luckily, he did not ask me. I have told this because it is important that we should all take a moderate and reasonable view of ecumenicalism.

I was moved to take part in this debate because I am instinctively uneasy about the measure for three reasons. The first has been much better expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, but it is important that the Church takes the lead and makes decisions in this matter. The Church of England, which is often criticised, is an extremely emollient beast. My noble friend Lord Deben referred to fudge, but it seems to me that the fudge over the christening that I was talking about was just as much fudge as the Church of England ever takes part in. I have always found the Church and bishops to be reasonable.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I am trying to follow my noble friend’s argument and looking at the text of the Bill. In Clause 1, subsections (1), (2) and (3), the word “may” appears, not “will”. It is a permissive Bill. Why is he suggesting that this is a direction to the Church?

[Lord Robathan]

My noble friend makes a good point, but I will come to why I am entirely against the measure in a second, if I may.

My point is that it must be for the Church to decide. If the Church brings forward such a measure, as the right reverend Prelate said, then Parliament may decide because of the nature of the established Church. It is of course the national Church—the established Church. One might say that it is a strange historical quirk, but it is not unreasonable to expect it to make decisions on these matters. Indeed, it would be quite wrong for us to try to influence the Church—let it lead on this matter and not us.

I would not presume to instruct the Roman Catholic Church on its doctrine on abortion, homosexuality or whatever it might be, much of which I profoundly disagree with. I do not always agree with everything that my own Church says, but it would not be for me or any other Anglican to dictate to the Roman Catholic Church how it runs its affairs. For instance, we might have a law proposed in this House that the holy water in the font at the entrance to each Catholic church should be tested for bacteria once every day or week or something—and some Anglican churches as well of course—but that would be going well beyond what any Parliament should do.

I should say to my noble friend Lord Deben that I find it somewhat strange that the measure should be proposed by somebody who has actually rejected the Church of England. That is why I am instinctively uneasy about it and would rather follow the lead of the Church of England than someone who does not actually like the Church of England.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

I wonder if I might take the noble Lord back to his original point that he felt it important that the leadership of the Church of England should listen to the people in the pew, if I may put it like that, like himself. Does he have any evidence that the leadership of the Church of England—I should say that I am a practising Anglican in that I practise regularly but do not seem to get any better at it—has actually consulted him and me? Indeed, I cannot see in the Explanatory Memorandum that the synod has actually taken a view on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Is this something that, at this stage, the leadership of the Anglican Church has decided on its own? Has he been consulted?

[Lord Robathan]

I am delighted at last to have something on which I entirely agree with the noble Lord, in that I too practise but do not get any better at all, so we have common ground there. However, no, I have not been asked, but then I have not been asked about a great many matters of doctrine or governance of the Church. It may be something that should be brought forward in the synod, which would be a good way forward.

10:44

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to lend support to the Ecumenical Marriage Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has laid before your Lordships’ House. I have two reasons for doing so. One concerns ecumenism and the other concerns marriage, and I will take them in that order.

First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, who has just resumed his seat, that this does not concern doctrine. I was concerned at the end of his remarks to hear him use the word “dictate”. The whole point about this Bill is that it does not dictate to anybody. I was pleased to hear his response to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, which might represent a way forward. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester said at the end of his remarks that he will reflect on the arguments laid before your Lordships’ House by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, earlier on, and the Church of England Synod would be a good place for this proposal to be taken to.

But the right reverend Prelate also based some of his argument on the constitutional question. I would simply refer him to the Library Note, which states:

“Under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, Parliament has a role scrutinising legislation which relates to the administration and organisation of the Church of England”.


Whether you look to the 1919 legislation or in this case the 1949 Marriage Act, which the noble Lord, Lord Deben, referred to in his remarks, Parliament has had a very clear role. Parliament itself has a right to have a view about these things and to consider measures of this kind. That this should now go to the synod before we reach Committee so that some of the points raised by the right reverend Prelate earlier on might be considered, is a perfectly proper point of view to put. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will have a chance to reflect on what I thought were some terrific points made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in his introductory remarks.

The central point about this Bill is that it lays no mandatory duty on the Church of England but is an empowering measure that simply removes an accidental statutory impediment to the enablement of clergy from other denominations to bring together couples in holy matrimony in a parish church. As the noble Lord reminded us, that does not force anyone to do this, but simply allows them to, and with the same restrictions about what is already permitted for funerals, baptisms and communion services.

My own parents married at the time of the passage of the 1949 legislation. That legislation did not require Anglican parish churches to register for marriages. They were deemed to be licensed; but the law states that marriage was to be, as the noble Lord mentioned earlier on,

“according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England”.

That was never intended as a restriction, but in an era when ecumenical relationships were much less common, it was simply a statement of fact. It was the reality. When in those unecumenical times marriages were made across the divide, they were often the source of bitterness, rejection and hostility. My own parents experienced that. They were Anglican and Catholic—a demobbed Eighth Army Desert Rat marrying an Irish-speaking girl from Mayo. My mother’s younger sister married a Northern Ireland Protestant and both marriages took place in a Catholic Church.

Sixty years later, echoing something that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said at the beginning of his remarks about funerals, my Anglican father was buried from that same Catholic Church where he had married after a funeral led by my late father-in-law, who was an Anglican priest of some 60 years standing. He spent some of his ministry in the right reverend Prelate’s diocese. I was delighted that, far from there being a restriction on my father-in-law conducting the service, the parish priest was hugely supportive and generous to a fault. It also represented a sea-change in attitudes. I might add to the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, that I am godfather to children from other denominations but, equally, my own children, who were baptised as Catholics, have godparents from other denominations. That was not an impediment. My uncle told me, after the funeral of my father, that he would have never believed the progress and change in relationships that had occurred in the intervening years. He said that he had felt a great healing.

Thirty years ago, I too married across the denominational divide and, for good measure, I married a vicar’s daughter with eight ordained Anglican clergy in the family—they still have not made me perfect either. But we would be foolish to forget how painful former times could be. In the 1950s, when as young people couples like my parents married, some bishops even refused to say the Lord’s Prayer together or to stand alongside one another at the war memorial. Sectarianism rather than ecumenism was the order of the day. In Liverpool, as late as 1958, the city’s Catholic Archbishop John Heenan, later Cardinal Heenan, was literally stoned by a sectarian mob while making a pastoral visit to a sick parishioner in the Scotland Road parish of St Anthony’s.

I went to Liverpool as a student and later had the honour to serve in that city for 18 years as a constituency MP. It was mired in sectarianism. I was shocked to witness at meetings of the city council, to which I had been elected, hostile opposition to minor improvements to Catholic primary schools on purely sectarian grounds. But that is not the end of the story. Thanks to Archbishop Derek Worlock, Bishop Sheppard—later Lord Sheppard —and successive moderators of the Merseyside free churches, I was privileged to see what is known as the “Mersey Miracle” and the coming together of Christians from different backgrounds, who took as their maxim “What we can do together, let us do it, and let us ensure that what separates us does not turn us into enemies”. The fruits of this practical ecumenism were vividly exemplified by the visit to Liverpool, in 1982, of Pope John Paul II, witnessed by 1 million people. Movingly, the Pope’s first steps were taken in that city at the Anglican cathedral, before travelling along the well-named Hope Street to the Catholic cathedral of Christ the King.

The Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has been written to reflect that spirit of enabling ecumenism to continue and to deepen. It will empower but not require the parochial church council, the incumbent and the diocesan bishop to allow other Christian marriages to be celebrated. Despite what the right reverend Prelate said about how this could become bureaucratic, in reality it would become based on good will and precedent. I believe that, once those precedents have been established, it would happen very easily and smoothly where people wanted it to happen. That would force them to face the question that the noble Lord put to the House about whether we really are serious about how far we want this ecumenical journey to go. It might also enable a sometimes sceptical secular world to echo the observations of the pagans of Rome, who said to their own bewilderment about the early Christians, “See how they love one another”.

That brings me to my second reason for supporting the noble Lord’s Bill. Probably the best £4 that two people who love one another can spend is on a marriage certificate. It is sometimes said that marriages are made in heaven but broken here on earth. According to the Office for National Statistics, around 42% of marriages end in divorce and around half of these divorces are expected to occur in the first 10 years of marriage. To Christians, a church wedding may not guarantee the durability of a marriage, but the solemnising of vows and the binding through the sacrament of holy matrimony does at least create a different narrative against which to live out and to attempt to lead your married life through all its ups and downs. We should do everything we can to encourage this sacrament to be taken seriously, not least because we know what the negative consequences are when a marriage ends. The Bill simply opens up the prospect of more church marriages and, in a modest way, for Parliament and the Church to say that this can contribute to stable families, stable communities and a stable society.

To conclude, the Church of England is already ecumenically generous—I so agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said about this—in allowing its churches to be used by other denominations. It is evident here at Westminster in the use of our parliamentary crypt Chapel of St Mary Undercroft. The noble Lord’s Bill involves no compulsion; it merely removes an impediment for the principle to be extended. Some say the Bill is not necessary, as another denomination can have permission to use a church as long as the service is taken by an Anglican clergyman, but there is no such restriction on any other service, yet this is the service when it is most likely that the happy couple would like to be married by someone who matters to them spiritually.

The three key reasons for giving the Bill a Second Reading are: first, that it is necessary to remove a legal impediment; secondly, that it gives the Church of England the power to add marriage to existing provisions but no direction; and, thirdly, that it enshrines all the safeguards the Church of England has already included in its canon law to cover other services. Even if, at the conclusion of our debate, there is not a peal of bells welcoming the noble Lord’s Bill, I hope that we will give it a ringing endorsement and a Second Reading.

10:54

[Baroness O'Cathain (Con)]

My Lords, I am taking part in this debate because it seems extraordinary that there is just one Measure, passed in 1949, that is causing this problem. The Bill would allow for the solemnisation of marriages in Church of England chapels according to the rites and ceremonies. We know that. It has been acknowledged that the Church of England is ecumenically generous in allowing its churches to be used by other denominations. But while the Bill would allow the Church of England to add marriage to the services it can permit it would still be up to it to make the decision. All the Bill would do is remove the unintended legal barrier. That is what it is: an unintended legal barrier.

As we have heard, the law on marriages is largely based on the authorisation of premises, which the Law Commission has referred to as a buildings-based system. The Marriage Act 1949 as amended requires that marriages must take place either in a register office, approved premises or in an officially registered place of religious worship. Section 5 of the Act specifies that Church of England marriages are solemnised,

“according to the rites of the Church of England”.

This Private Member’s Bill would change the area of the law that is currently governed by ecclesiastical law. Canon law states that a Church of England church can be used only for Church of England ceremonies, including ceremonies for the solemnisation of marriages.

Some exceptions to this can be made under canon law. The Church of England may grant permission for a minister of another Christian denomination, even in this situation, to assist in the solemnisation of a marriage. However, certain aspects of the ceremony must be performed by the Church of England. Guidance published by the Church of England outlines the roles that each minister would perform:

“The Church of England minister who solemnizes the marriage must establish the absence of impediment, direct the exchange of vows, declare the existence of the marriage, say the final blessing, and sign the registers. A minister invited to assist may say all or part of the opening address, lead the declarations of intent, supervise the exchange of rings, and join in the blessing of the marriage. He or she may also read a lesson and lead all … of the prayers”.


The Church of England has said:

“We see no need for Lord Deben’s Bill, and believe that the current arrangements give sufficient pastoral flexibility for weddings which are conducted in Anglican churches and chapels, involving people of different denominations”.


Over the last 100 years, Parliament has tended not to introduce legislation that affects the internal affairs of the Church of England unless that legislation is proposed by the Church of England itself. Ministers have referred to a constitutional convention whereby Parliament does not legislate on internal Church matters without the Church’s consent. For example, a recent Bill affecting the Church of England directly, the Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill, was introduced during the 2014–15 Session following a request of the Church of England. There is a constitutional convention that Parliament does not legislate for the internal affairs of the Church of England without its consent. This will be blown out of the water. Under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, Parliament has a role scrutinising legislation that relates to the administration and organisation of the Church of England. However, this legislation originates from the General Synod rather than from Parliament.

10:59

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, this short but interesting debate is a welcome diversion from the heavy diet of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which we have on Mondays and Wednesdays. This is something that touches people’s lives; we should therefore take very seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has brought forward and so lucidly explained. He has sought to remove an impediment in a Bill which is not mandatory at all but entirely permissive.

I was disappointed by the reaction of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester; he was rather put on the spot but I think his response was out of tune with the way things have developed in recent years and I will seek to explain why. I think he rested too heavily on the constitutional convention, bearing in mind, of course, that conventions are conventions and no more than that. We should be very careful in using that language. He rested on the convention that this Parliament does not normally legislate for the Church of England without the Church’s consent or, indeed, the Church having originated the legislation. What the Bill aims to do is amend a piece of legislation of which that was precisely the case; namely, the Marriage Act 1949, which places certain restrictions on the Church of England—this Bill would remove them.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, set out clearly that this is, however, a permissive Bill: it forces nothing on the Church of England as a whole and forces nothing on any individual parish where the incumbent might have some doctrinal reason for feeling that a particular wedding should not take place. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, points out, it does not enter the area of same-sex marriage, on which the Church of England takes a particular position. Contrary to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, it makes no doctrinal change; it does not enter into the area of doctrine at all—we might take a different view if it did. I cannot understand why the Church of England should resist hosting Christian marriage, of all things. The Church of England now hosts all sorts of things. Parish churches are encouraged, in order to make their buildings viable, to open their doors to industrial sponsorship, to social organisations, to all kinds of activities. Here we have fellow Christians who want to conduct Christian marriages, underpinning the doctrines shared by Christians about the value of marriage, and the Church of England considers that it has to continue placing this difficulty in the way and does not want any legal obstacle to be removed.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, quoted from the Library guidance the existing rules in the Church of England about what a nonconformist minister or a Catholic priest can do. In case noble Lords missed it:

“The Church of England minister who solemnizes the marriage must establish the absence of impediment, direct the exchange of vows, declare the existence of the marriage, say the final blessing, and sign the registers. A minister invited to assist may say all or part of the opening address, lead the declarations of intent, supervise the exchange of rings, and join in the blessing of the marriage. He or she may also read a lesson and lead all or part of the prayers”.


It is a bit demeaning: there are certain things that you really have to be a clergyman in the Church of England to do; if you are a nonconformist minister there are some things we will let you do, but there is a limit. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, will reflect on that from his years of experience as a minister conducting weddings. It reminds me of a Methodist minister friend describing his participation in Brethren weddings hosted in the Methodist church: all he had to do was sit there throughout and sign the register at the end. The Methodist Church did not place any other restrictions on it, but he had to carry out the legal requirement. We can surely move on from there.

We are in a world where we have shared churches, as the right reverend Prelate said. There are many in my part of the world, where the Church of England shares with Methodists or the United Reformed Church—it is extremely widespread in rural areas. Some nonconformist denominations have moved from big, old chapels into smaller premises which suit their regular worship but are not entirely suitable for holding a wedding. The parish church which is at the heart of the village, particularly in rural areas, seems much the better venue for that purpose.

The Church of England is an established Church, a role which it seeks to continue. It is sometimes a controversial role and there are those who would like that to change, but as an established Church the Church of England is the custodian—in many ways the very worthy custodian—of a wonderful heritage of parish churches. A great deal of effort goes into maintaining them but they are a shared heritage. It has always been the Church of England’s own emphasis. I remember as a child the vicar saying, “This is the parish church of the whole village”. He was saying to us Methodists: you belong here as well. Sometimes that seemed a little imperialistic, but lying behind it was just the parish system of an established Church. While that is the case, we surely do not want to be back in the days when Lloyd George was fighting the refusal of the Church of England to allow nonconformists to be buried by their own ministers in the village churchyard. Things have moved on so far since then that they could surely move on this issue.

11:05

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. When I saw on the speakers’ list that my name was figured there, with a B denoting Baroness, I thought that an instant act of transgendering had happened. I then thought that if that could happen at a stroke, perhaps whatever is preventing these marriages taking place can happen with similar prestidigitation. So I rise with the deepest voice that I can command in order to reassure Members of this House.

I am very grateful that the matter has been brought before us. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, explained that the 1949 Act was framed as it was by a Government, or a Parliament, who did not want to upset the established Church. As a Methodist minister I have never worried about upsetting the established Church and I reckon that I might do a little of that in my remarks now.

The noble Lord went on to talk about fudge. I remember reading Seven Types of Ambiguity, a great classical book that we Eng. Lit. students used to read. I think that we have had seven types of fudge, delineated very carefully and skilfully by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I shall not run away from it, and I shall certainly not indulge in fudge in the hand-wringing, liberal, stereotypical way that was referred to dismissively on the Benches opposite: someone married in the Guards’ Chapel might just feel that giving orders to Methodists is a good thing. I feel that fudge can be a very good, and in a theological sense, a very necessary thing: at the end of the day, however righteous, righteously established and brilliantly organised any Church body might be it cannot claim to have all the wisdom that can be possessed, all the experience that points to correct action. Humbly, under God, even Churches must recognise a higher power. That granted, fudge becomes an honourable thing. I have surfed on the waves of fudge through 50 years of Methodist ministry. Much of the fudge has been necessary, as I have had to discover ways of relating to the established Church.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, also talked about the way non-Anglicans can easily be edged out in ecumenical experiences. I have more experience of being edged out than most people—I have been hidden behind pillars; I have had arguments. I was a canon of St Paul’s Cathedral for 17 years. Organising a procession to go into a service at St Paul’s Cathedral—what the public do not see, in the Dean’s Aisle, behind the curtain—is an extraordinary thing. Precedence is what it is all about. Those of us who are honorary canons must understand our place, between the proper canons, the retired canons, the canons emeriti and those who thought they were canons but never were. It is a terrific thing to have to find your place in all of that when all you are is a Methodist minister.

[Lord Robathan]

Will the noble Lord let me know where he is next preaching? I am enjoying this so much that I would like to come and listen to him.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port]

I promise the noble Lord that before he goes home I will give him such a list.

I have been a Methodist minister for 50 years and I have had to work out a relationship with the Church of England over the whole of that time. My very first attendance at a Methodist Conference was in 1969, when the Methodist Church, in the days before the internet, voted on a proposal to bring the two churches together. It did it by the required majority—75% of those present and voting—and therefore voted itself out of existence. Then there was a gap as we waited for the Houses of the Convocation, in those days, to tell us whether they were minded so to do—and we discovered that by 68% or whatever it was, they had agreed, but not by 75%, so we had to reinvent ourselves, like David Bowie, and have another life.

One experience of fudge which perhaps noble Lords will be interested to hear part of— I must not disclose all the details: there are secrets involved in fudge—is to perform marriages for families of noble Lords down in the Chapel here. The intricate negotiations with Westminster Abbey could be put into a textbook relating the intricacies of the 4th-century theological search for a Christological doctrine that would suit everybody. But in the end the success was measured by the fact that the dear Anglican priest who came from the Abbey was quite content to be edged out and hidden behind a pillar. So we could do the wedding but he was there to record it and that was that. There are all kinds of imaginative things.

Perhaps as a matter of fact I should explain to the House the difference between a clergyman of the Church of England and those of us who are not. We do not have any authority to perform a marriage unless we have delegated authority from the Registrar-General. The Registrar-General interviews couples, goes through all the procedural aspects of things and, when he is satisfied, issues a certificate which is my authority, delegated by him, to perform the marriage in the building that has been authorised for the purpose. So we have never had the powers and that is the point at the heart of all of this: the Church of England is by law established and priests of the Church of England are also notaries public. They have the public status of officials of the state. They read the banns, they establish the mores, they take all the interviews and so on and they can give themselves authority in the other part of their capacity to perform these acts of marriage. That is where the difference lies.

Incidentally, on the prayer about being united and knitted together, and the part that was not quoted earlier in the debate, perhaps the knitting together is something that has to happen from heart, soul and mind. I hope that the Church of England will be generous enough to say to us Methodists, who have reinvented ourselves, “We were wrong 50 years ago. It is time, as an act of generosity, to take you back into our bosom”. It is our mother Church. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester is here and I am glad to take advantage of his supine position to make this point. I hope he will go away and argue with some conviction in the courts of the Church that it is really time that that horrible act of 1969 was reversed.

Since I am also a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee—perhaps I should have declared that interest at the outset—I feel that the modes of achieving these desirable objectives do exist. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, is absolutely right that this is a desirable objective. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester will have heard the concerns expressed and I hope that he will take the measure of that concern to the courts of the Church, using the facilities that already exist, to bring back to the Ecclesiastical Committee a measure which will endorse and undergird the generous proposal included in the measure being put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Deben.

11:14

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, on what is very nearly my first wedding anniversary, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Deben on securing a Second Reading of his Bill. Like my noble friend, I have learned a huge amount in preparing for today’s debate. Marriage law is very complex. I note his acknowledgement of the Church of England’s ecumenical generosity in allowing its churches to be used by other denominations. In turn, I acknowledge the generosity of intention with which he has brought his proposal before the House today, which has been mentioned by many noble Lords.

Parliament lately has been debating various subjects that concern marriage. I was pleased to note the support last month from all sides of this House for the Registration of Marriage Bill, introduced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. As he informed the House, the purpose of making provision to include mothers’ names on marriage certificates is,

“to correct a clear and historic injustice”.—[Official Report, 26/1/18; col. 1233.]

The Government are firmly committed to doing so. Also last month, in another place, Members debated marriage and support for family relationships more generally. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Kit Malthouse, responded by saying:

“The vital institution of marriage is a strong symbol of wider society’s desire to celebrate commitment between partners”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/18; col. 286WH.]


It is a pleasure to be able to repeat his words in this House today.

It is true, as my noble friend Lord Deben noted, that the Marriage Act 1949 does not routinely provide for other Christian denominations to solemnize marriages according to their own rites and ceremonies in Church of England churches and chapels. Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to this as an accidental omission. But this is neither an injustice nor an accident. However, the law does provide for other denominations, both Christian and others, to solemnize marriages in their own places of worship and in their own ways. Such provision reflects a long-standing freedom that couples should be able to marry in their place of worship, regardless of denomination or faith. That is entirely right.

How Church of England marriages take place is a matter of law and practice that go back many centuries before the 1949 Act. There has long been a tight association between the Church’s rites and ceremonies, its churches and chapels, and the reading of banns to give public notice of a marriage. We have a richness of ways in which partners can celebrate their commitment to each other before family and friends. Whether they choose to enter into marriage through a religious or a civil route, there is an unbroken connection between the place of the marriage and the type of ceremony that may be used.

Because provision for Church of England marriages and provision for other religious marriages were not made at the same time, there are some differences in the requirements that must be followed. None the less, important principles of public policy have endured and run throughout. The law sets out the requirements for a legally valid marriage. It also includes safeguards against marriages that should not take place at all, for reasons of important public policy. Marriage is one of our greatest institutions. The Government have always a duty to consider with the most studious care any proposals for change.

The Church of England has legislated for nearly 100 years through Measures that are received by the joint Ecclesiastical Committee. Although it is possible, it is not conventional for Parliament to legislate directly on matters that properly belong to the Church. I have therefore paid great attention to the contributions that all noble Lords have made today. I recognise that my noble friend Lord Deben has introduced a proposal that requires the Church’s permission for marriages to take place. I listened carefully to what he said. I also listened carefully to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, who set out the position of the Church of England. I am also struck by the right reverend Prelate’s understanding that the Catholic Bishops’ Conference and the Church of Wales are not supportive of this Bill. Many noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Robathan and Lady O’Cathain, have noted that it must be for the Church of England to decide. Without the Church of England’s consent to changing the law that affects it, the Government are clear that they cannot support the Bill. This is the Government’s principal reservation.

I also note that the Government have not seen evidence of any demand from denominations or couples to use Church of England churches and chapels for their own marriages; nor have the Government heard of any dissatisfaction with the current arrangements, apart from those expressed by my noble friend Lord Deben—

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving me this space but I could give plenty of evidence of people who would like to avail themselves of this facility—plenty, plenty, plenty.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention; perhaps I should have prefaced my “evidence” with “sufficient”. We are certainly always open to receiving evidence because that is the best way to make law.

As a government Minister, I cannot of course comment on the ecumenical purpose of the Bill or on the practices of denominations. These are matters for others to determine, in their own way and their own time. I see that only this month, the General Synod of the Church of England has done just that in welcoming a joint report with the Methodist Church on how the two Churches can work more closely together, including in what they speak of as an interchange of ministries. The report is called Mission and Ministry in Covenant; I note that its authors acknowledge that they have built on the foundations of dialogue between the two Churches over many years, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths. They also recognise that there is still much work to do. It is clear to me, then, that if Churches wish to take the initiative to work closely together, it is not a change that can be achieved overnight. Instead, it takes long consideration and, no doubt, prayerful reflection.

With all this in mind, and repeating that the Church’s position is sufficient reason for the Government not to support the Bill, I turn now to the detail of what my noble friend has proposed. Clause 1(2) makes it clear that the proposal would extend to peculiars, royal or otherwise. The Government would wish to approach very cautiously any proposal from outside the Church that affected royal peculiars in particular, since they come under the direct jurisdiction of Her Majesty the Queen.

Clause 1(3) requires that the proposed marriages are solemnized and registered only by a minister licensed to perform marriages in a church of another denomination. The existing law sets out that a marriage in another denomination’s registered building must take place in the presence of either a registrar or an authorised person. This authorised person will usually be a minister of religion, but not necessarily. The law does not require a minister to perform a marriage, only that the marriage should take place in the presence of the people required by statute. Furthermore, notice of such a marriage could not be given by the reading of banns, and the Marriage Act 1949 would require further amendment to provide for a superintendent registrar’s certificate to authorise marriages by other denominations in Church of England churches and chapels. The existing law provides for offences relating to the solemnization of marriages; the Government would also need to consider whether these offences ought to be extended.

Clause 1(4) presents a problem of definition. I am aware that there is potential for dispute about which groups constitute a Christian denomination. Whether this is justiciable would be a matter for the court. Lord Ramsey, as the then most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, understood this difficulty when he introduced his Private Member’s Bill nearly 50 years ago. Now known as the Sharing of Church Buildings Act 1969, it extended to the denominations which had taken part in the negotiations for the actual construction of the Bill. Furthermore, it provided a mechanism so that other denominations could apply to various Christian umbrella organisations to have the Act extended to them. Although not the prime intention of Lord Ramsey’s Bill, a consequence of a sharing agreement made locally with the Church of England under this Act is that other denominations may solemnize marriages in the Church of England building concerned. The requirements of the Act must be met, including that the other denomination has the building certified and registered in the usual manner.

I have endeavoured to be helpful to the House in setting out these points in detail. It remains the case that the fundamental issue for the Government is the Church of England’s position on its own affairs. Because the Church does not support the Bill, I must, as a matter of principle, express the Government’s reservations about the Bill.

I turn briefly to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He spoke very movingly of how differences in religion can affect families and communities, and the benefits of practical ecumenism. I accept his point that marriage is symbolic because it is a union—a coming together. None the less, families and communities have overcome their differences by themselves without changing the law. If one denomination is willing to involve another at an appropriate point in the marriage ceremony, that will surely be most welcomed by families and communities. That, however, remains a matter for the people involved, not for the Government.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, commented on non-C of E participants in C of E weddings. He said that there are certain parts of the marriage in the Church of England that cannot be performed by ministers of other denominations. But in any marriage, whether religious or civil, there are certain requirements that must be met and the presence of certain people is required. My noble friend Lady O’Cathain helpfully noted these in her contribution.

I remain grateful to my noble friend Lord Deben for bringing this matter before the House today and encouraging such an interesting debate. I know that many of your Lordships have a close interest in these matters—in how different denominations work together in sharing their faith and witness. This has been a fruitful debate that has drawn on long reflection and wide experience from across the House. I should therefore like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part today.

11:25

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate. I say to my noble friend who has just spoken that none of the things she raised could not be altered in amendments to the Bill. There is no difference between us and no reason at all why we cannot meet all those things. I just want to come back at her clearly: the Bill does not tell the Church of England to do anything. It is entirely fictitious to suggest that we are breaking the convention. What we are doing is removing a legal impediment for the Church of England to make up its own mind, which is clearly different.

The 1949 Act says that churches are licensed for marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. The Church of England would have to get Parliament to remove that if it wanted to change it. All I am doing is removing that impediment to start with and leaving the Church of England to make up its own mind. That is what this House has done on successive occasions, and why the Church of England now has so much power to make up its own mind. I say that as somebody who was a member of the General Synod of the Church of England for more than a decade, so I know how the system works. But I know also that every time one raised this question, and I have raised it for many years, I was told that it could not be done because of the previous law in this House. All I am doing is removing that. If I hear anybody repeat the argument that we are asking, forcing or doing anything else to the Church of England, I will just ask them to look at the Bill. It does not say that at all. The fact that that is the only argument that has been properly brought forward suggests to me that the Church of England does not want to be challenged by the ecumenical realities of where it stands.

I much admire my noble friend in answering for the Government but, frankly, the idea that she has never heard of anybody being worried or upset about this leaves me flabbergasted—that is the only word I can think of—because this is the issue for so many couples, as we now have an ecumenical society. They are amazed when they discover that the Anglican girl and the Catholic boy, or the other way round—or the Methodist girl and the Anglican boy—cannot make the arrangement that they expect and want to make. They want to be married by the person who has been closest to them in their courting and their coming to terms with what marriage is. They are surprised to be excluded from that and blame first the Church of England. I have been able to defend the Church of England again and again by saying “It’s not the Church’s fault; it is not allowed to do it because of the state’s law”. I want to remove that here.

I have one thing to say to the right reverend Prelate. I have been in politics for many years, and I often hear speeches which go like this: “I’m so much in favour of this reform, so keen on the other reform, and on all these past reforms. I am absolutely on that side, it’s just this new one that I am against”. The Church of England has a long history of that and of never being in advance. But it always finally blesses the marriage with the deceased wife’s sister—remember? That spent years getting through, because the Church of England could never bring itself to be just a bit ahead of what the public really wanted. There was the demeaning comment about a “marriage venue”; no one is talking about a marriage venue. We are talking about Christian people wanting to be married in the church which is their church, in their village, which they help to keep up, which they go to for ceremonies when they are there together. They do not want some hotel or some secondary place. They want to be where they see their faith continuous and with their neighbours. I say to the right reverend Prelate that that was the moment when he lost me. It was when he did not understand that ecumenism demands sacrifice and also demands getting round silly legalistic arguments. Of course we can insist that a registrar fills in the form, if that is what is needed. Of course we can get round all those things. This Bill says to the Church of England: “Here. All the impediments are taken away. You now have the chance to make a generous gift to the rest of society and a chance to show”—

[The Lord Bishop of Winchester]

The noble Lord makes me feel slightly uncomfortable. I want to clarify what I said at the beginning. I recognise the pastoral and personal issues that have been raised, but I say to him that there are a number of clergy in my diocese, and many other clergy in many other dioceses, who know that they have to conduct 150 weddings this year. They know what it feels like for their buildings to be used for event after event after event. My comment was not about the particular concern the noble Lord may have about a wedding that he is very interested in wanting to use the parish church as a wedding venue. but about the whole package deal of the Church of England’s parish church—the local priest who knows the people concerned, reads the banns, prepares the people, uses the service that expresses the faith in which people are going to be married—that cannot be separated from the building. That is a very particular way of doing a marriage service.

I have no intention of saying to the noble Lord that he wants to change parish churches into wedding venues. I do not think that that was my concern. I just wanted to clarify that.

[Lord Deben]

The right reverend Prelate is making my point for me. We are talking about Christians who want to get married and one or other of them has a connection with a particular parish church. If there are 150 weddings, there are still going to be 150 weddings, but in one of them instead of the actual words of marriage being forcefully made by a clergyman of one denomination, they can be made by a clergyman or priest of another denomination, due to the generosity of the Church of England, which recognises that its place as the national church is the evolution of a whole historic story and that it needs to defend that by showing that generosity.

I say to the right reverend Prelate that what concerns me is that I have been involved in ecumenical movements for a very long time. As an Anglican I closed, forcibly, the last Conservative club in Liverpool that excluded Catholics. When I became a Catholic, I was cut off by relatives who thought that that was unacceptable. Do not let us kid ourselves about the amount of sectarian bigotry that still exists. Our discussions about Brexit have brought it to the surface again. All I am saying to the right reverend Prelate—and I am addressing him very directly as I finish—is that this is the next step in ecumenism. It is not good enough to say, “I am so keen on the past and am entirely in favour of all that but I cannot manage this step”.

In the amendments, we can get around any of the legal problems. There is no difficulty. I have a host of different ways of doing that. They are not here because I wanted this to be absolutely clearly the words of the Church of England as far as I possibly could, but if the right reverend Prelate would like me to make a lot of changes, I am very happy to do so. It would have been nice had we had that conversation before, but my first discussion about this happened this morning. It is an interesting kind of way in which this has been handled. I just say please give the Bill its Second Reading because the time has come and there is no longer anything but mere political and bureaucratic reasons for trying to stop it.

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

Family Relationships (Impact Assessment and Targets) Bill [HL]

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 23rd February 2018 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

11:37

Moved by

[Lord Farmer]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I am heartened by the healthy number of speakers for this debate—although I notice noble Lords disappearing—and appreciate very much the effort that they have made. I greatly look forward to hearing noble Lords’ contributions.

This Bill would, if passed, ensure that all proposed changes to government policy are systematically assessed for their impact on family relationships, so they are supported rather than weakened. I will explain why policy should support families and what that will require, and summarise where we are now in terms of the family test introduced three and a half years ago. While it was a welcome forerunner to what my Bill proposes, there are strong indications that it is underperforming, and my Bill would remedy that.

In my briefing to accompany this Bill I outlined its purpose as follows. Policymakers do not habitually consider, in a systematic way, if and how policies support family relationships. It is as members of families that people usually experience the effects of policies and engage with public services. Families are impacted by policies and influence their effectiveness. Yet the focus of policy is typically on individuals. It is therefore essential to ensure that a family perspective is consistently applied to policy-making. In October 2014 the Government issued guidance for government departments on the application of the family test, which was an important first step. Departments are advised to think about family impacts in a similar way to how they consider impacts on equality to fulfil the public sector equality duty. However, equality—but not family—considerations are required by law. Moreover, departments are advised only to consider publishing assessments. The Bill would put family impact assessments and their publication on a statutory footing and require the Secretary of State to report annually on progress towards family stability targets and objectives.

I shall quickly acknowledge some of the people and organisations in this country who have consistently argued for family impact assessments: the Relationships Foundation, the Centre for Social Justice, Relate, the Family and Childcare Trust, Care and my noble friend Lady Stroud, who I am very glad to see here today. When they were in government, she and my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith ensured that the family test introduced in 2014 focused on family stability and the quality of relationships, not simply on family finances. While these are obviously very important, we in this country have a long track record of tracking household incomes and other indicators of disadvantage but we have been singularly bad at keeping our finger on the pulse of family breakdown. Indeed, the Centre for Social Justice’s 2007 Breakthrough Britain report highlighted that although the last Labour Government recognised eight domains of social exclusion, they collected data on only seven; the eighth, family breakdown, was ignored.

This Government are not doing much better. They last published the English indices of deprivation in 2015, the seven domains of which map loosely on to the former domains of social exclusion. Again, these make no reference to the breakdown of family and other relationships. The Department for Work and Pensions’ workless families strategy introduced new indicators last year. These include the proportion of children in families headed by couple parents who report relationship distress and the proportion of children in separated families who see their non-resident parents regularly. However, the social justice framework included family stability indicators: the percentage of all children not living with both their birth parents and the percentage of poorer children not living with both parents, compared to those in middle-income to higher-income households. These have completely disappeared.

In Committee on the Welfare Reform and Work Act, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, committed the Government to developing:

“a range of non-statutory indicators to measure progress against the other root causes of child poverty, which include”,

among others,

“family breakdown … Anyone will be able to assess the Government’s progress here. The Government are saying, ‘Judge us on that progress’”.—[Official Report, 9/12/15; col. 1585.]

As I have said before in this House, we cannot judge the Government on their progress against family breakdown as a root cause of child poverty when we no longer measure it but instead use the proxy of parental conflict. The DWP has given with one hand and taken with the other.

That makes no sense. We cannot ignore the importance of children being raised by both their birth parents where possible. There is the pain of losing daily contact with one of them, the blame that many children take upon themselves for the separation and the implications for financial hardship of raising children alone. One-third of children living with a working single parent live below the poverty line. Of course the quality of relationships is important but this is only half the story. Moreover, and rightly, the current family test asks questions about family stability and relationship quality.

Why should the Government support families? Well-functioning and stable families are important to all societies because of the considerable contribution that they make in, for example, generating productive workers, caring for family members and ensuring healthy child and youth development. It is always prohibitively expensive for the state to replace the functions that families perform, so Governments have both an altruistic and a vested interest in strengthening them.

When we neglect families, there are enormous fiscal and social costs. The Relationships Foundation recently published an updated headline cost of family breakdown of £51 billion. In previous years, about one-third of the overall cost was due to extra tax credits and benefits; one-third to extra health and social care costs; 15% to housing; a similar proportion to civil and criminal justice; and 5% to additional education costs. However, the sum of human misery is much harder to quantify. To take just one area, the charity Addaction found that more than half the children it was treating for serious drug and alcohol problems were from families that had split up.

The political philosophers Brighouse and Swift point out that,

“all the major political parties in the UK seek to present themselves as pro-family”.

At every general election it is “family, family, family”, but nothing significant appears to get done. All the major parties continue to allow the relentless trend of family breakdown to continue. As Professor Karen Bogenschneider observes, there is typically,

“a feast of family rhetoric but a famine of attention paid to the family concept. It remains one thing to endorse the important contributions families make to their members and society and quite another to systematically place families at the centre of policy design … and implementation”.

We need policies with the explicit end goal of supporting families, so I and colleagues published A Manifesto to Strengthen Families to counter the lack of activity that we have seen heretofore, which is generating some real anger on my party’s Benches. Around 60 MPs have signed it. We are not going to let this agenda go away.

However, Bogenschneider also refers to implicit policies that are not intended to affect families but have indirect consequences for them. The current family test aims to lay bare those indirect consequences so they can be mitigated where necessary. However, here again the Government could be accused of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Departments are not statutorily required either to carry out the test or to publish the findings of the assessment process. The guidance only obliges policymakers to make a judgment as to whether the five questions in the test should be applied and whether the details of any assessment carried out should be published. While they must document the application of the test “in an appropriate way”, ostensibly to build an evidence base about how policies impact families, that documentation seems to be available only to other civil servants. Its operation seems to be shrouded in some secrecy. An evidence base must be accessible if sedimentary layers of knowledge are to be added to it.

A review of progress in implementing the family test one year after its launch found that only four departments could cite specific instances when the family test had been applied, while a further four did not provide a meaningful response about how or whether their department was implementing it. More promisingly, the review outlined the many steps that the DWP was taking to ensure that officials in other departments were better able to assess family impacts. These included information exchange sessions and a policy profession course on implementing the family test across Whitehall. I would be obliged if my noble friend the Minister could inform us how many of these sessions and courses have taken place over the last two years, as such training must surely need to be ongoing, given the inevitable churn of personnel.

In response to Written Questions submitted in the House of Commons in December 2017, asking the Secretary of State in 15 different departments to which legislation his department had applied the family test, more than half provided a standard and completely opaque response:

“The Government is committed to supporting families. To achieve this, in 2014 the”,


relevant department,

“introduced the Family Test, which aims to ensure that impacts on family relationships and functioning are recognised early on during the process of policy development and help inform the policy decisions made by ministers. The Family Test was not designed to be a ‘tick-box’ exercise, and as such there is no requirement for departments to publish the results of assessments made under the family test”.

Such responses characterise the family test as highly discretionary, voluntaristic and opaque in its operation. Policymakers need neither apply it, document why they have not done so, nor publish documentation when they do carry it out. Accordingly, the family test is unlikely to achieve the cultural change in policy-making that was its original intent.

Also, language matters. The phrase “family test” is unfortunate because it implies that carrying it out will produce a pass or fail judgment on a government policy instead of a careful assessment of its effects on families in the round. It might unhelpfully disincentivise publication. Hence, the Bill would make it a legal requirement for government departments to carry out and publish family impact assessments where appropriate, using similar questions to those in the existing family test guidance. Family impact assessment is an internationally recognised concept with much good practice to learn from. The Bill would also explore the benefits of extending the requirement to local authorities and ensure that the Government act in a concerted way to address family instability by publishing family stability objectives and targets, and their proposals and policies for meeting them.

Almost half of all children are no longer living with both their parents by the time they are 15 years old. Family instability is undermining our economy, our children and young people’s mental health and our ability to tackle many of the major problems facing the Government, such as housing and social care crises. Addressing it directly is a priority, but so too is ensuring that government action is not indirectly making a bad situation worse. I beg to move.

11:52

[Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and I thank him for introducing the Bill so cogently. Noble Lords may be encouraged to know that I shall not be looking at the impact of Brexit on families: I think we deserve a little Brexit relief after this week.

Families in the UK have changed significantly from when I was growing up. We are now a society with different faiths and cultures and different views on family relationships. We have more single-parent families, we have same-sex partnerships, we have more formal childcare, and so on. Families are what they are, and some families need support in their relationships.

The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, described well the thrust of the Bill, so I shall not repeat that. Of course, these issues have been debated before, notably in another place on 8 February. We have a manifesto for families, with recommendations that every government department should have a Minister responsible for families. Local authorities are called upon to set up family hubs to support families. I agree that families are at the core of communities and society. Getting it wrong for families is not only costly but painful—especially, I suggest, for children.

As the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, said, and I repeat, policymakers do not habitually consider in a systematic way how policies support family relationships. We should remember that individuals, with all their individual needs, make up families. I wish that we would concentrate more on what factors make things go right for families and people, rather than just carrying on about what is going wrong. I wish that we shared insights into what goes right with families.

Families have been high on the political agenda for many years, and rightly so. Issues such as parental leave, laws to protect children and victims of domestic violence, support for disability in families and the teaching of relationships in schools have all emerged. Trying to improve people’s lives, especially children’s lives, is not only admirable but makes economic sense—as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, said.

I turn to the Bill, which suggests that we need to look at the impact of policies on families. I agree, but how do we do this without having a reverse effect or no effect at all? Let me briefly relate two anecdotes from my experience which taught me a lot about assessment.

I was once part of a project which looked at child impact assessment on a limited number of Bills in Parliament. Ideally, looking at the potential impact of policy is important before the impact is felt. I also suggest that it is important to include in planning assessments those on whom the impact will fall, such as children and families.

An example might be designing a family-friendly transport system. Any mother, father or grandparent—or anybody else—trying to balance two children, a pushchair and shopping knows how unfriendly transport can be, in both frequency of service and facilities. In the impact assessment project, we quickly realised that a Bill without the word “child” might still profoundly affect children. It is the same with families. Almost any policy from any policymaker in any field will affect families in practice.

The lesson here was about the need for early consultation before designing any intervention for children and families, and the need for agencies to collaborate to effect change. All of that is relevant to the Bill.

Another experience was when I served as an advisory teacher across London schools. I, and others in the same role, went into schools, usually at their request, to examine programmes of health education, offer training to teachers and deliver more effective programmes. It worked. When the role became more inspectorial, ticking boxes to say that such and such was or was not being delivered, it all fell apart.

Entities such as schools and families grow and develop from within, with support and encouragement from outside. We cannot simply judge them. People know that they are being judged and often act in ways contrary to what is intended. Families often need support, not just assessment and data. Many projects I know consult and involve families and communities thoroughly.

At the heart of all laws, policies and practice must surely be early intervention. It has often been said that most young people will become parents. They may or may not marry. What we do know is that the breakdown of relationships is common. Children can be encouraged to develop good relationships from an early age. Most, thankfully, learn this at home. Sadly, some do not and, unless there is intervention, they will continue a cycle of being ill-equipped to pass on those skills to their children. There is much excellent practice in schools, where good relationships between children and children and staff and children are encouraged and an ethos is developed in which consideration for others is paramount.

We probably all agree on what a good, functioning family might be. It begins with the parents and, usually to a lesser extent, other members of the family. Those parents have a right to be taught the skills of good parenting, inside and outside school. Most are not: most rely on instinct and example. I suggest therefore that Clause 2(b) on family formation should include the word “education”.

It is a good idea to have someone responsible within a department who has oversight of family welfare; it is also important that local authorities, which know their populations best, are enabled to do a good job. Sadly, cuts in services have affected this ability. I wonder how serious the Government are about supporting families when there are unacceptable levels of family poverty and unacceptable cuts to local services such as Sure Start, library services and recreational services. Families grow because they do things together and can afford it. The other government flagship, social mobility, is not going to happen without strong and stable families that support and encourage young people to aspire. We know that unemployment can create generations of unemployment, sometimes in very specific deprived geographical areas of the country.

I was interested in the troubled families programme, which, in phase 2, had 60 outcomes across, for example, crime, education, employment, health, domestic abuse and child safeguarding. That is all very well; these issues tear families, communities and society apart. I note that comparisons were to be made between councils, as they should be—but, on a positive note, I feel that comparisons should be about sharing good practice and not just making comparisons.

In October 2014, the Department for Work and Pensions published guidance for government departments on the family test, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, which assesses the impact on the family of every single domestic policy. But I have the impression—and I get the feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, shares it—that, despite good intentions, this task is super-complex, with nobody really pulling the whole thing together. How are the Government going to make family policies transparent to decision-makers, families and the public, and how will family policy be made a genuine concern across all departments and at a local level? What are the implications of this initiative for budgets at national and local level?

I admire the dedication shown by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, to improving family relationships. The Bill is an honest attempt to do just that. I would like to further discuss some of the issues, such as the role of assessment, with him and others.

12:02

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure but a rather daunting task to follow the two such erudite and knowledgeable speeches made so far on this Bill, and I congratulate the noble Baroness for bringing her wealth of knowledge and teaching to bear on it. I strongly support my noble friend’s Bill and the dedication that he has shown to this issue over many years.

I want to work backwards in the Bill and start with Clause 3, which sets targets for family stability and asks the Government to publish objectives and targets and proposals and policies to meet those targets. I assume that by targets my noble friend does not mean numerical targets—that X% or Y% of families must reach certain goals—but targets more in the sense of objectives. I want to take a step back behind the Bill and ask why it matters. What is the point of having strong and stable families? Why is it important?

I discovered many years ago in the Home Office, as Criminal Justice Minister, some fascinating statistics on how the level of criminality among young people depended on the strength of the family relationship. I am absolutely certain that that has not changed one iota over the last 20 or 30 years; we still get the same statistics and trends coming through. I choose my words very carefully here, as I do not want to be misconstrued, but it would seem that in a strong family certain factors are present, while in a weak family certain factors are lacking. A weak family is one where a single parent is trying to bring up children on his or her own. Usually, that single parent will be a woman, not through any fault of her own, but because the father has cleared off and abandoned his responsibilities. A more difficult factor is when the person is trying to bring up two or three children who, increasingly, may have different fathers, and she is struggling on her own.

The statistics also show that, if a factor is present where one or more of the parents or close relatives have been engaged in criminality, the children of that family face another uphill task to be on the straight and narrow. When there is one or more person unemployed, that is another, additional factor bearing down on a family. When the children are truanting and no one is doing anything about it, or when they are not in a loving or caring relationship, those are further negative factors.

I am not suggesting for one moment that, in any family where one or a couple of those factors are present, the children inevitably will go on to a life of criminality, but all the statistics bear out the facts that, the more of those negative factors are present, the greater the chance that the children of that family will themselves not have stable families in future, and the children themselves may go on to a life of criminality. I am making no judgment at all on the sex of the parent; that is irrelevant for these purposes. Two people bringing up children is more than twice as good as one person trying to bring up children. That is why strong and stable family relationships are important and why my noble friend’s Bill is important.

I move on to Clause 2. I am so pleased that my noble friend has suggested in the Bill that the Secretary of State must carry out an assessment before extending it to local authorities. That is the right thing to do. I am worried that we should get this right in central government first, before we extend it to local authorities. We all know that there are some excellent and brilliant local authorities out there, but there are some pretty daft ones as well—and I can imagine some of them carrying out a family impact assessment when it is quite unnecessary, wasting money and discrediting the whole thing. I can imagine, when a local authority decides to change the colour or shape of the recycling bins or boxes, it could waste months doing a family impact assessment that is not necessary.

However, in housing policy a family impact assessment is absolutely vital, as it is with planning policy. I am appalled with the number of houses that are built without gardens these days. It is bad for the environment—no food for the hedgehogs or blackbirds—but it is appalling for the children to have no play space. I have seen that around the country. So, yes, planning policy impacts families, not just whether you have bungalows for older people or enough bedrooms for children but whether you have a play space as well. So that is an area where it may be appropriate.

That brings me on to suggest that, before we extend this to local authorities, we would need a sort of checklist for them—things to think about that may impact on families. If there is just a general obligation for local authorities eventually to carry out a family impact assessment, that could damage the policy because they would be missing out in some areas and doing it improperly in others. So a sort of checklist may be helpful. Obviously, it should include education policy, social security and housing policy, as well as health policy when it is done locally. But what about care homes for the elderly? What does that have to do with families? Well, if they are separating a married couple who have been together for 50 years, that is a family. That is a grey area that needs to be thought about. So it is worth while doing an assessment and carefully thinking it out before we extend this to local authorities.

That brings me on to central government. In the briefing I read, I was surprised to see that only three departments—the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education and the Ministry of Defence—referred to specific instances in which the family test has been applied. Noble Lords may ask what it has to do with the Ministry of Defence. There are two very important issues. First, the Ministry of Defence faces a problem at the moment with a shortage of money—it will always be short of money—and of recruitment. You cannot have an Army based on young, single men and women. We are losing married people from our Armed Forces at a rate of knots. Why are we losing them? Because the Ministry of Defence housing for our soldiers, sailors and air men and women is an absolute disgrace. It always has been and, at the moment, it looks like it always be.

In the press this morning, I read two Ministry of Defence stories—the first about the disgraceful treatment of a brave and heroic Army major who has been investigated for the seventh or eighth time for alleged offences in Iraq. It is an absolute disgrace that we have not stopped that. But the bigger story was about the number of people resigning from the Armed Forces because the accommodation in Aldershot—and Aldershot is not any worse than the rest—was so deplorable. As one woman said, “My tent in Afghanistan was better than the housing I got from the Ministry of Defence in Aldershot”. Without going further down that route, I would love to see the Ministry of Defence’s assessment of its housing and an impact assessment on families. If it could get it right for families, it would solve an awful lot of its other military problems.

Five departments said that they produced tailored guidance or tools for applying the family test, which I take to be a sort of checklist, and that brings me on to my point about a checklist for central government. If these departments have produced a checklist—which I assume will say, “If you are going to have a policy in areas X, Y and Z, apply the family test; these other areas are irrelevant and nothing to do with families, so you do not have to do the test”—that would be a very worthwhile tool and would make it more difficult for the Government to refuse my noble friend’s Bill.

I was delighted to read this morning that my right honourable friend Michael Gove is planning to put in place a deposit scheme for plastic bottles. He is going to tackle the plastic bottle scourge, and rightly so, but I hope that he would not have to do a family impact assessment on that, because it is an area that seems quite irrelevant to families, although I remember as a boy making a lot of pocket money—threepenny bits at the time—collecting glass bottles, the ones with the screw tops. I hope that Michael Gove’s scheme will allow kids to collect all these bottles and get 20 pence for them; that would really clean up the countryside.

I am being slightly facetious there, but we need to make sure that central government does not obviate its responsibilities here by saying, “The Bill is too wide-ranging; we cannot have a family test for everything—some things are irrelevant to families”. Yes, some things are irrelevant to families, but let us come up with the checklist of things that are relevant, so that government departments cannot get round them. The Bill can of course have a regulation-making power to make sure that, if a new area crops up in future, it can be added to the checklist of things that government departments must do. We could make the case that a whole range of things tangentially affect families—cycling, climate change, overseas aid—but let us concentrate on the key areas and the key departments first.

It is vital for the Department of Health, social security and the Home Office. The Home Office has apparently not done any of this, but it must do family impact assessments. With its policy on law and order, crime and policing, it is one of the key departments affecting families. I had not thought of transport until the noble Baroness mentioned it. Getting on and off buses with prams and pushchairs and so on affects families. We should find the key government departments that make the biggest impact on families and make sure that, through this legislation, they are doing family impact assessments in the areas where families are affected. Then, if we get it working in the key departments of central government, in due course it can be extended to the other departments and then to local authorities.

With those little caveats, I strongly support my noble friend’s Bill and I wish him all success. I know that the Minister will have to give the sort of generic speech that every Minister gives, probably rejecting the Bill—as we heard for the last Bill a few moments ago and as I heard for my Private Member’s Bill; there is a market for coming up with a generic ministerial rejection speech—but I hope that is not the case today. I hope I am proven wrong.

12:13

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra; his ministerial experience is of great value to the House and I look forward to studying his speech in more detail in the Official Report. I am delighted to be here. My idea in coming was to support the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, in his consistent and long-established quest to make improvements in this important area of public policy. He has done an enormous amount of work behind the scenes, and this Bill is part of that. He is right to say that he should be pleased with the turnout that he has got this morning; the House will value his continuing work in this important area. I do not think anybody is going to say anything critical about this Bill, except that maybe we should have more of it, and faster.

I have a small niggle, however, on the Long Title of the Bill in that it refers to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is referred to all through the Bill. I assume this is the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, but there is an ambiguity there and, if we get to Committee stage on this important Bill, I will move an amendment to clarify that point—that is also to demonstrate to noble Lords that I have read the Bill.

[Lord Skelmersdale (Con)]

It is my understanding that—this has always been the case, for as long as I have been in this place—a reference in legislation to a Secretary of State means any Secretary of State at any time.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

That is fantastically good news for the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the rest of us.

[Lord Farmer]

My Lords, I just agree with that.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

So, we are all agreed about that. I am now looking at new departments and new Secretaries of State with enthusiasm and I am glad the point has been clarified; I will go home a happier man.

Family impact assessments are a very valuable tool and we should be developing them. As this Bill makes quite clear, they allow for some perspective and anticipatory thinking at the policy-making level. I can see the effect of this; I serve on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and government departments are now getting much cleverer about impact assessments supporting, in terms of statutory instruments, the primary legislation that spawns the orders. What we should be doing here, and what I think the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, is trying to do, is to change the culture in departments so that they are always thinking about how this will work through the policy development. If they are doing that right at the beginning, it makes it much easier to get the policy right.

I think that departments—from an opposition point of view, this might be an unusual thing to say—should be braver about talking about the real costs of some of this policy. I was looking recently at some of the predictions and forecasts—we can never be sure that they will happen that way—and, frankly, in the next 20 years, when you look at the demographic change that this country is facing and all the other problems such as climate change, the resources available to do this family support work will get harder and harder to find. In telling the unvarnished truth, nobody wants to frighten anybody about all this, although some of the forecasts are really quite depressing, but we have to be realistic.

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

I agree very much with what the noble Lord is saying, and I am following his speech with great interest. He is talking now about costs, but does he not think it is worth considering that, if the family stay together more, the likely result of that is an enormous cost saving, both in money and other ways?

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

That is a helpful intervention, because I absolutely agree with that. Family impact assessments are an important tool in getting to that point. That was the point I was going to make.

We need to look not only to local authorities—as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, mentioned—but to try to capture some soft support systems in neighbourhoods and communities in future. That is new for me; I look to the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, when I say this, but I have always kept a bit of distance from the agenda that she has been very positively promoting in her own way, because I always had a suspicion that Conservative Governments and Conservative Chancellors in the past have sometimes used it as a way of saying that we do not really need to keep up the benefit expenditure. I am in favour of individual entitlements to benefits, and when you look at the cuts, freezes and caps, that has not been made any easier. But even I—if I can put it that way—am now thinking that we really need to look at some of these symptoms that the Centre for Social Justice and others have been looking at, as additional methods of support. We can make it more cost-effective if we have more effective family policy, and I think that this Bill does that, particularly in setting up objectives and targets, looking at reporting and being transparent and honest about that reporting.

I have a couple of points to contribute to the debate. The DWP has an enormous amount of data. The quest of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, could be assisted considerably if some of the really clever people in the research department there thought about how to cut across and tabulate some of the real-time information. There is a minefield—no, not a minefield, a mine. What am I trying to say?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)]

A mine of information?

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

Ministers have their uses. There is a mine of information in the DWP, and Ministers should go back and ask whether some assistance can be given to this kind of policy programme. The data needs to be made available to local authorities, although you obviously have to be careful about data protection. There are rules about that, but you should be testing them to the limit of what is useful if that makes a difference to identifying some of the anticipated problem families. Big data is now so clever that you could begin to get, not algorithms but almost algorithms, which would anticipate where the problems were. You could make available the priorities in terms of the spatial dimension in deprived areas; and professionals in the department, and in local authorities, could start to be provided with data on circumstances that would help them to anticipate where future problems would arise. In support of family impact assessments, the department should do a little bit of work to see whether any help could be provided in that direction.

I spent a very interesting morning at the universal credit centre in Dover, where I observed two applications. I am saying this against myself—I was really looking for problems that I could come back and attack the DWP about, but they both went swimmingly well. It was clear that the job coaches were signposting people who had individual problems. That is what they should be doing, but they could be doing more of it. The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, rightly said that policy is pointed at individuals. Universal credit is actually pointed at households. The claimant commitment could go as far as saying to people coming on to universal credit for the first time that, if anyone who has signed up to it sees problems arising in their household that might lead to family breakdown, they could phone. The “Ghostbusters” number should be that of the universal credit coach who could hold the ring and say, “Let’s see what we can do”. I know that they have only got a certain amount of time available and they are not looking for things to do. However, in the course of these interactions with people coming on to universal credit, we might start to look at family problems a bit more broadly. That is a good place to start the discussion.

Finally, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, that if this does not work, we should think about getting more robust about enforcing it. If the DWP cannot do it, it should go to the Cabinet Office or to somebody who has control of all the Secretaries of State, now that I hear they are all in play—I hope that includes the Treasury. In the course of discussing the Bill, I hope that this House will send a clear signal to central government that we are not going to allow the family test failure to happen again on this Bill. If they do not get it right, we will come back looking for more and we will not be long in doing it. I support the Bill and encourage the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, whom I thank for the opportunity for this debate. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with him in his future work in this important area.

12:24

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Farmer on securing a Second Reading of his Bill. The subject matter could not be more important, for the simple reason that without families there is no sustainable society. A breakdown in family relationships leads to, as some would say we are witnessing, a breakdown in society with massive, indeed unsustainable, financial, social and painful human costs. My noble friend Lord Farmer has already outlined this and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, alluded to it.

As I said in my noble friend’s debate on strengthening families in November 2017, I was delighted to be a co-signatory to A Manifesto to Strengthen Families. The measures that it advocates, of which this is one, are not just eminently sensible but essential. The family impact assessment is particularly important because, as has been explained, the voluntary nature of the family test and the rather haphazard way in which it has been applied suggest that it is unlikely to achieve the cultural change in policy-making that was originally intended.

That is surely the key point. We are embarking on positive, beneficial and non-judgmental cultural change, which recognises the family’s pivotal role as the foundation of a stable society. I stress that I completely accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, that families now come in all shapes and sizes. That is covered by paragraphs (a) to (g) of Clause 1(5) and by Clause 4. For the reasons set out, this Bill provides a crucial cornerstone to that process of cultural change because, without family impact assessments being conducted consistently across central and local government, establishing a cross-government family strategy, which is fundamental to strengthening families, is just not possible

The question is not so much why we should have family impact assessments on a statutory basis. It is, surely, why not? Indeed, how can we make measurable, cost-effective and sustainable progress towards stronger families and the stability that they bring without the measures proposed in the Bill? We only have to look at, for example, the mental health costs to teenagers of family breakdown to see that the growing instability caused by a systemic devaluation of the family comes at an extortionate price. The figure of £51 billion was mentioned by an earlier contributor to this debate. On the other hand, reversing that trend by strengthening families would be an extraordinary prize, which I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer for pursuing through his Bill. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The Bill deserves our wholehearted support.

12:29

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to support the Family Relationships (Impact Assessment and Targets) Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. He has done the whole House a great service by eloquently setting out the details of the Bill and the history of the currently inelegantly and, in his phrase, unfortunately named family test, which has clearly not achieved all that was originally hoped for when it was introduced in 2014. It is because the family tests are not shaping policy-making in the way that was hoped for that I agree with the noble Lord that statutory family relationships impact assessments and targets should be published.

I will say why the impact assessments are needed and why it would be best if that were a statutory provision. My remarks are predicated by my belief, which I share with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and others, that the family is the building block of society. That view is completely at variance with that expressed in the third Reith lecture, as long ago as 1967, by Edmund Leach, the British social anthropologist, when he famously excoriated the family by saying:

“Far from being the basis of the good society, the family ... is the source of all our discontents”.


In reality, the breaking up of stable families is a far greater contributor to instability, unhappiness and discontent.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, reminded us in their thoughtful remarks, families come in many shapes and sizes. Although some may resemble war zones, at their best they provide stability, love and a network of care to face and deal with the many challenges and misfortunes of life. I cut my own teeth representing a community where half the homes had no inside sanitation, running hot water or bathrooms, but where the open doors of people’s homes in back-to-back terraced streets, populated by aunts and uncles, grandparents, parents and children, were places where burdens were shared and where an elderly person would never have been found weeks after their death and no one any the wiser. It is instructive that, with the breakdown of families and communities, it is said that some 1 million elderly people do not see a friend or a neighbour during the course of an average week.

However, the costs of family breakdown are not simply social. Yesterday, I met Michael Schluter, one of the founders, in 1993, of the Cambridge Relationships Foundation, to which the noble Lord and others have referred. In a report published a year ago, it put the figure at £48 billion—updated, as the noble Lord told us today, to a staggering £50 billion—as the cost of family breakdown. Put another way, the cost to the average taxpayer is around £1,820 a year. But of course this is about not just money or economics. How do you put a price on the often intense pain and suffering felt by those experiencing family failure, especially when there are children involved? With children now only having a 50:50 chance of living with both of their birth parents by the time they are 16, we have far too little understanding of the sheer scale and extent of the emotional costs. Too often, it is this that is the real source of distress and discontent identified half a century ago by Edmund Leach. So what might we do? Back in 1996, in another place, during the passage of the then Family Law Bill, I argued for anniversary tax allowances: tax breaks that might be given incrementally as wedding anniversaries occur. I also argued for family impact statements and, among other things, in a book, Citizen Virtues, I suggested that,

“these should be attached to every new Government policy, just as local authorities attach environmental impact statements to planning applications and policies”.

That brings me to the two reasons why I support the noble Lord’s Bill. First, why are impact assessments needed? Governments rely on families to achieve many of their most important goals, yet neither the nature and extent of that reliance, nor the ways in which that contribution may be fostered or compromised by the actions of government, are clearly set out. Let us consider one example of the way in which policy goals rely on families: the hugely important question of social care. Carers UK reports that the number of people providing unpaid care of 50 or more hours a week has increased by 26% in the past decade. The UK’s 6.5 million unpaid carers provide care valued at an estimated £132 billion a year. Without that contribution, the pressures on social care, and thus the National Health Service, would be even greater than they already are. Yet the ways in which housing policy, which has been referred to in this debate, may influence the ability of families to co-locate to provide care, for example, are simply not reported. The generation of baby boomers comprises the largest block of people ever to enter old age in the United Kingdom. Their couple and family relationships have generally been characterised by greater fluidity than those of the generation before them, with more step-families and more single people in old age. The full implications of changes in family stability for the family provision of social care are yet to be seen. There are many areas of policy that may influence the motivation, opportunity or capability to provide care but, without the assessments and indicators that this Bill calls for, they will remain hidden from view.

The mental health of both adults and teenagers, their physical health, the educational outcomes for children, the likelihood of needing welfare support, all these and many other policy goals are influenced by what happens in families, yet this vital resource is neglected in our policy-making. The noble Lord’s Bill rightly recognises that it is not just primary legislation that should be assessed for its impact and that assessments should be complemented by family stability targets and proposals for how those targets should be met. It has long been a concern that there is no adequate mechanism for coherence to support families across all areas of government. All government departments rely on families and all influence them. Without a broad overview of how government is fostering a climate in which families can thrive and fulfil these responsibilities, family impact assessments will lack the necessary context. Equality and environmental assessments have worked because the context is understood and deeply embedded within the policy-making process. The current experience of family tests on policy suggests that the social capital of families is something of an orphaned asset as far as government is concerned.

Secondly, why should this provision be made statutory? The Bill rightly seeks to build on the existing patchily implemented family test and seeks to put it on a statutory footing to ensure that it becomes more deeply rooted in policy-making, influencing the culture of departments right across the piece, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, told the House a few minutes ago. The fact that the current non-statutory approach plainly is not working was made very plain by the series of Written Questions that have been referred to, which were put to multiple departments in another place in December. Like other noble Lords, I have looked at those Questions and the replies. Eight government departments provided an identical response, which was deeply troubling in two respects. First, that standardised reply did not even attempt to answer the basic question about what legislation the family test had been applied to since 2014. To the extent that departments are normally happy to admit when they have done something that you want them to have done, the complete failure to reference any specific application to any legislation makes me doubt that the departments in question had applied the test at all. Secondly, the Answers all contain the following words:

“The Family Test was not designed to be a ‘tick-box’ exercise, and as such there is no requirement for departments to publish the results of assessments made under the Family Test”.


That is risible. The rather ridiculous inference of this statement is that all other impact assessments that result in published reports are just “tick-box” exercises. None of us believes that. If it were the case, the logic would be to scrap environmental impact assessments, child rights impact assessments, regulatory impact assessments and equality impact assessments, and I am not arguing for that. No one is interested in some bureaucratic box-ticking exercise. As other noble Lords have said, what we need is transparency, accountability and a strong incentive for government departments to take this seriously. If assessments are not published, there is no adequate mechanism for highlighting the missed opportunities, costly omissions or unintended consequences of failing to consider how the vital contribution of families may be supported or undermined.

In conclusion, I say to the noble Baroness, who I know is deeply committed to this issue, that government has made commendable efforts in seeking ways to enable policymakers to consider a range of factors in policy-making. I note, for example, the recent report from the Office for National Statistics on natural capital, which said that,

“by providing valuations of the UK’s natural capital, decision makers can better include the environment in their plans to allocate resources to develop, and promote the growth of, the economy”.

If we can factor in and report on the natural environment in our policy-making, as we should, surely we can and must do far better in assessing both the value of and our impact on the most important element of the social environment: our families. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his diligence and assiduity in pursuing this issue with such dedication and passion and I wish his Bill every possible success.

12:40

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer for his tireless work in bringing the Bill before the House. The first time he and I met, we talked about his commitment to the family, and he has never wavered from fighting to see family life stabilised in this country, particularly among the poorest.

The Bill matters. Family stability in this country is in crisis. The UK has one of the highest rates of family breakdown in Europe, and the fact that, as we have already heard, almost half of the nation’s children are not living with both birth parents by the time they are 15 should be a source of serious concern to us. Almost half of children in our poorest communities have seen their parents split by the time they start primary school. These statistics matter, because each one represents a personal story of human pain. They matter because family breakdown entrenches poverty: poverty levels for children growing up in lone-parent families have almost double the “poverty risk” than children living in couple families. They matter too because they affect children’s life chances, as we heard. Children who experience family breakdown perform less well at school, gain fewer qualifications and are more likely to be expelled from school.

But it is not just the nuclear family that is impacted by family breakdown. In the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, more than 1 million older people say that they go for over a month without speaking to a friend, neighbour or family member, and more than 2 million people in England over the age of 75 live alone. According to the 2017 report published by the Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness, more than 9 million people in the UK often or always feel lonely.

David Cameron said:

“Families are the best anti-poverty measure ever invented. They are a welfare, education and counselling system all wrapped up into one”.


He said that,

“if we want to have any hope of mending our broken society, family and parenting is where we’ve got to start … So: from here on I want a family test applied to all domestic policy. If it hurts families, if it undermines commitment, if it tramples over the values that keeps people together, or stops families from being together, then we shouldn’t do it”.

The step that he took, as we have already discussed this morning, was the creation of the family test, an excellent way to ensure that issues affecting families are assessed and addressed. But the family test at present is not effectively applied across departments and is not applied in a uniform way.

The Bill seeks to address that by doing two things. First, it would require the Secretary of State to publish objectives and targets for promoting “strong and stable families” and for the Government to report on their progress towards meeting these objectives. Why is this so important? In policy terms, government machinery has little idea how to support family stability, let alone what approach would promote strong and stable relationships. It was my experience from five years serving in the DWP that politicians and civil servants were comfortable talking about childcare, parenting, or flexible parental leave, all badged under supporting families, but not about how to support the adult relationship that is at the heart of a family and from which family stability is achieved. I can remember the negotiations required within the coalition just to be able to collect and report on family stability data, and the moment we left the DWP, as my noble friend Lord Farmer said, the statistical set was discontinued.

The requirement in the Bill provides an opportunity to reverse some of the human pain that comes from the breakdown of the family, and improve the life chances of many, and will give civil servants the opportunity and mandate to gather the evidence base for recommending the best policy interventions from around the world that really support and move the dial on family stability. There are reasons why the UK has the highest levels of family breakdown in Europe, and we do not need to accept that this has to be the case.

Secondly, the Bill requires government departments to publish family impact assessments, setting out an assessment of the impact of a policy proposal on families and family relationships. I welcome the clarity that my noble friend Lord Farmer has introduced in defining the specific areas of impact that he is calling for. This provides clear benchmarks by which civil servants can undertake an assessment. He calls on government to consider family stability factors ranging from a person’s ability to play a full part in their family’s life through to factors that impact on the family formation, and from families undergoing transition such as the birth, adoption or fostering of children through to families where relationships are fragile.

For an impact assessment to be applied, Ministers and officials need clarity. This is by far and above the hardest judgment area for a civil servant. I can remember our work in the DWP when considering the family test on welfare reform. It was complicated. Would increasing the work requirement on a lone parent lead to better life chances for a child or increase stress at home? What was one measuring? Would the benefit cap lead to increased incentives to partner with the father of one’s child or to a greater likelihood of relationship breakdown? These are not simple areas. We also found that civil servants and Ministers were quick to equate more money with greater family stability and less money with greater vulnerability, rather than drawing from an evidence base of what factors strengthened and stabilised vulnerable families.

It was my observation that officials who applied the family test needed better evidence of what strengthens and what weakens families, and that departments needed to be helped to use this evidence base when preparing, designing and delivering policy rather than treating an impact assessment as a means of checking policy once it had been decided.

The strength of this Bill is that it clearly provides a definition of strong and stable families as those that have relationship qualities that contribute to the emotional health and well-being of the family, including that the parents or guardians with whom a child lives remain consistent over time. It clearly lays out the requirement for the Secretary of State to publish objectives and targets for promoting “strong and stable families” and for the Government to report on their progress towards meeting these objectives. It then clearly provides guidance on which areas need to be reported on for impact. This is all hugely helpful.

If we really believe that families are the best anti-poverty measure ever invented and that they are a welfare, education and counselling system all wrapped up into one, let us ensure that it is not government policy-making that undermines this key building block of a healthy society, and let us do everything we can to ensure that this valuable and precious unit of love, care, affection and identity is protected and supported with all due care.

12:48

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to be part of this interesting debate and, in particular, to speak in support of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. The value of happy families is hard to quantify. Although it extends far beyond mere economics, it none the less has a profound impact on our economic life. The cost of family breakdown, for example, is extraordinary and continues to increase, as documented by the Relationships Foundation, rising from £37 billion per annum in 2009 to £48 billion in 2015. That, as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is equivalent to £1,820 per taxpayer.

In that context, quite apart from broader well-being considerations, it makes complete sense that the Government should take care that the policies and legislation that they develop do not have negative unintended consequences for family life. Indeed, such is the importance of this commitment that it should be not merely an aspiration but a fundamental discipline of government.

Mindful of that, I was delighted when on 18 August 2014, as has already been referred to, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced the introduction of the family test. He stated:

“I said previously that I wanted to introduce a family test into government. Now that test is being formalised as part of the impact assessment for all domestic policies. Put simply that means every single domestic policy that government comes up with will be examined for its impact on the family”.


In Answer to a Written Question in the other place in October 2014, the then Education Minister, Edward Timpson, said:

“In addition, the new Family Test, announced by the Prime Minister on 18 August 2014, will also mean that every new domestic policy will be examined in terms of its impact on families”.


In another Written Answer given in the other place in the same month, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland stated:

“‘From October 2014, every new domestic policy will be examined for its impact on the family”.


The commitments made between August and October 2014 quickly broke down. It was later in October 2014 that the Department for Work and Pensions issued guidance on the family test for the whole government. It highlighted two crucial failings, one of which was the narrowing of the scope. In the first instance, the Government U-turned on their commitment to review every domestic policy. The guidance stated:

“Policy makers need to make their own judgements about how they apply the test in a sensible and proportionate way at each stage of the policy making process ... While public policy by definition impacts the lives of individuals, families, communities and society as a whole, there will be policies, which do not have any impact at the level of the family per se, or where the impact is small and indirect, or temporary in nature. Where that is the case it may not be sensible or proportionate to apply the test”.


Central to the rationale for the family test was the idea that, because the family is at the heart of the social environment, policies that are not developed with the family in mind can none the less end up impacting it. To this end, I am concerned that the guidance rather infers that it is obvious when the family is engaged and that, where the impact is small and indirect, it can be forgotten about. This is clearly seen in the Answers to Written Parliamentary Questions in which entire departments suggest that the policies and legislation they are working on are such that the family test is not engaged. The only department to provide detail about the implementation of the family test is the Department for Education in relation to policy areas that so obviously impact the family one is tempted to say that it should have been thinking of the family anyway, even in the absence of any new family test discipline.

The second area is optional testing and recording. DWP guidelines make it plain that the family test will be optional, that there is no requirement to conduct it and that there is no penalty for not doing so. The guidance, however, encourages the recording of assessments when they take place. It states:

“It is important that the application of the Family Test is documented in an appropriate way as part of the policy making process. Where a detailed assessment is carried out, departments should consider a standalone document to bring together their analysis. Departments should consider publishing assessments where they are carried out, and where policy is being submitted for collective agreement through the Cabinet Committee process, the assessment should be included alongside other policy documentation”.


However, once again, there is no legal requirement to record an assessment and no legal requirement to conduct it.

Answers to some of the most recently asked Parliamentary Questions make it clear that, for the most part, no records of when or where the family test was conducted are published. Interestingly, the Answers all contain identical words, suggesting a cross-departmental stonewalling policy. One Answer stated:

“The Government is committed to supporting families. To achieve this, in 2014 the Department for Work and Pensions introduced the Family Test, which aims to ensure that impacts on family relationships and functioning are recognised early on during the process of policy development and help inform the policy decisions made by ministers. The Family Test was not designed to be a ‘tick-box’ exercise”—


we have heard that mentioned before—

“and as such there is no requirement for departments to publish the results of assessments made under the Family Test”.

When introducing the family test guidance, the Department for Work and Pensions stated:

“It is important that the application of the Family Test is documented in an appropriate way as part of the policy making process”.


It is striking, therefore, that even that department now provides Answers to Parliamentary Questions that excuse the absence of any published reports, with the statement that,

“there is no requirement for departments to publish the results of assessments made under the Family Test”.

On 14 December 2017, in the very week that some of these Answers were provided, breaking new records in government opacity, the Minister for the Constitution issued a Written Ministerial Statement in the other place, which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, provided to us. The Statement began:

“Since 2010, the Government has been at the forefront of opening up data to allow Parliament, the public and the media to hold public bodies to account. Such online transparency is crucial accountability for delivering the best value for money, to cutting waste and inefficiency, and to ensuring every pound of taxpayers’ money is spent in the best possible way”.


The Statement also refers to “the sunlight of transparency”, and critiques,

“more bureaucratic processes … which were time consuming for public servants and opaque to the outside world”.

It goes on to describe how,

“Single Departmental Plans … allow the public to track the Government’s progress and performance”.

Of course, the strength of the sun’s light differs year-round, and so, it seems, does the Government’s commitment to transparency. I have seldom encountered a less transparent process than the family test.

If one takes time to scrutinise the Answers to Parliamentary Questions, one is left with the question: is the family test actually happening? I have to tell the House that, with the exception of the Department for Education which has published four reports, your guess is as good as mine. This is surely no way to conduct government in the 21st century.

To this end, I strongly welcome the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, which makes conducting the family test and publishing its outcomes a statutory requirement. It is a very moderate piece of legislation that does not hold to the original “every domestic policy” commitment. Clause 1 gives departments the opportunity to determine that some policy initiatives are sufficiently removed from the family and that the family test should not be applied. Crucially, however, thinking the issue through is required and any decision not to apply the family test must be accompanied by a published reason for not applying it.

If it becomes law, the family test will be bathed in the sunlight of transparency, as it should. If it does not, I fear it will become little more than a joke. That would be funny if it was not so serious. I hope very much that the Government will support the Bill, because the current arrangement is completely unsustainable.

13:00

[Lord Framlingham]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, whose knowledge of this subject is second to none. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Farmer, who is a great champion of the family. We should all be extremely grateful for his tenacity and belief in what he is trying to do and what we want done.

Every speaker in the debate has said this, but it is none the less true that there is growing concern about the fabric of our society, and many of the problems can be traced back to the weakening of the family unit. Over the past few decades, Governments of all colours have made lots of huge and silly mistakes, but none has been greater than the failure to acknowledge and stand up for the importance of the family, with all the consequences which have flowed from that. Strong and stable families are absolutely essential to the maintenance of a strong and stable society, and they are vital for the safe and secure care and upbringing of our children.

Why is there this ridiculous and almost fanatical desire on the part of many in our pseudo-intellectual and supposedly opinion-forming circles to deny this? Perhaps acknowledgement of the value of the family by these people would be accompanied by the need to admit personal responsibility and guilt, not just in their own lives but for the lives of those who have been affected by the views they have held and the decisions they have taken. Even our language about families seems designed to confuse. We used to have widows and widowers and we used to have unmarried mothers. Now we have single-parent families. What does that mean? Does a family have to have a husband and wife? Of course it is not essential or for obvious reasons always possible, but history shows it to be the most stable and, for children, the most supportive system. Why should we have to justify it? It has been the same for thousands of years without dispute, so why did we decide to downgrade it? It should not be necessary to bang the drum for the family, but bang it we must.

I am sorry that the Church does not have more to say about the role of the traditional family. I do not understand its reticence. By displaying openness and tolerance to other relationships and unions, traditional marriage has perhaps been weakened by neglect. As has been referred to in the debate, over the years we have seen a huge increase in the divorce rate. Divorce is devastating for children. We are dishonest if we deny this to ourselves or to society at large. Financial arrangements may be made and plans for dividing time together put in place, but for the children concerned the effect is almost always absolutely devastating, and the damage done remains with them to a greater or lesser extent for the rest of their lives. That is true—uncomfortable, but true. Single parenthood from choice may work for the individual who chooses, but the children have not been given a choice. All the evidence shows that two parents give each other strength and support, and children of single parents start life at a disadvantage, obviously through no fault of their own.

Nothing undermines family life or parental responsibility more than the evils presented by the internet. It takes children to places where their parents cannot follow and they have absolutely no idea who their children are meeting or what they are doing. It is dangerous pernicious and has rapidly taken over the lives of many of our children for whom even rapid reform will come too late. We now have cyberbullying on a massive scale. I was devastated to find that thousands of primary school children are watching hard-core pornography. It is harder for an underage child to place a bet on a horse than to watch hard-core pornography. It is vital that the Government take the toughest possible action on this as a matter of the greatest urgency.

Sadly, just a few days ago, two young men were murdered. They were knifed to death in separate incidents within a few hours of each other just a short distance apart in the London Borough of Camden. As I drove home that evening, I happened to tune into a radio programme about it. The presenter was pleading with his listeners to phone in with their ideas and possible solutions and attempting to understand what had happened. I heard an expert on youth activities and members of the public all discussing reasons or possible solutions. They mentioned government and local government responsibility. They mentioned a lack of funding, counselling, youth organisations, youth groups and sport. One word they never mentioned in all the time that I listened was “parents”. What is the key to this problem? It is parents and parental responsibility.

The longer this debate has gone on, I have slowly come to the conclusion that what has changed more than anything else over the years as far as keeping families together is not just love, because one hopes that love is always there, but other things. The financial need to stick together has gone, although not completely. Shame has gone too. I do not know what the answer is. It is tragic to have to admit that the only way we can keep families together is to make them poor again or reintroduce shame. That is a conundrum for us all that we must try to work through. I am sure that personal and perhaps selfish choice is, in many ways, at the heart of this. To a great extent we have lost the knowledge and the joy that is brought by putting yourself second in a family context.

The thread running through so many of the problems that I am talking about is the family, and the beginning of a solution to them is, without any doubt, the protection and reinvigoration of family life. My noble friend’s Bill puts responsibility on the Government to play their part in this revival and it has my fullest support.

13:08

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the powerful and compelling speech that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, on securing a Second Reading of this very important Bill and I pay tribute to his sterling and unstinting work as a champion of family policy, which is so often the Cinderella at the policy ball. I also draw attention to my declared interests in the register.

Today’s debate has been primarily about aligning the widespread concern expressed across the House to ensure we do more to strengthen family life and family relationships, with the maxim that “what gets measured gets done”. There is no doubt in my mind that we need to be doing an awful lot more to support family relationships, recognising, as I know we all do and as many across the House have emphasised, that modern families come in all shapes and sizes.

I had the privilege of being the chief executive of the charity Relate for a number of years. During that time, I came to understand the huge importance of the quality of family relationships and how much it matters. That is what I focused on and what I will focus on today. I also came to understand during that time that where family relationships are under strain it is children who are very likely to suffer the ill effects. More recently, as chair of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service for six years, I have particularly learned the adverse impact that high levels of parental conflict, as well as witnessing or, indeed, experiencing domestic abuse, has on children’s emotional and mental health and well-being. The evidence is also very clear, as we have heard this morning, that outcomes across the board for children are better for children who come from strong family backgrounds.

If we ask ourselves why all of this matters to government and whether it is not just a matter for families, the answer is very simple if one looks at some of the Government’s stated priorities, which also happen to be key policy interests of mine. When it comes to the worrying increase in childhood mental health problems, we know that family life and secure and loving relationships play an important role in the mental well-being of children.

Turning to another area, social mobility, which is known to be a personal passion of the Prime Minister—it is also passion of mine—as co-chair for a number of years of the All-Party Group on Social Mobility I was very pleased in 2015 to chair a parliamentary inquiry into parenting and social mobility. I have even brought the report with me. Two key points emerged from that inquiry after looking at all the evidence. First, the point of greatest leverage on social mobility is what happens between the ages of nought and three, particular in the home. Secondly, whatever the effort and resources the Government put into formal early education—something I hugely and strongly support—its impact will always be limited if it is not combined with a good and strong family home environment.

I will mention one other area of policy, which is the issue of the pressures of intergenerational fairness. It is a relative newcomer on the policy block but it has a lot to do with families. We have heard quite a bit about some of the housing issues and how the lack of affordable housing, and in particular the lack of the right type of housing for families, makes it a lot harder for the younger generation, particularly new families, to get their foot on to the housing ladder. These things really matter and policy needs to take account of them.

I also mention the late Jo Cox’s commission’s report on combating loneliness, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, also referred to. That report emphasised the value of the family test in strengthening intergenerational relationships within families and reducing the potential for animosity between generations stemming from what many consider to be real generational inequalities.

All these things matter and are big issues. They matter in their own right and they demand a serious family-based response. Yet too often family policy is the one area that is overlooked as policymakers look for the appropriate policy levers to pull. In short, the focus of policy, as we have already heard, is too often on individuals rather than on families and the communities in which they live.

Family is arguably the most homeless of political issues. Strengthening families and developing policies to support families to care for each other, including for children, older relatives or family members with long-term health issues or disabilities, is a very important social policy objective. It is critical to social care, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Our social care system, in as fragile a state as it is, would collapse completely without the contribution that family members make. Where does responsibility for family policy actually sit within government? I argue that it sits both nowhere and everywhere, and that is a real problem. As an issue, it feeds into almost every area of government policy-making—although not every single one, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, made clear—which means that a single Minister or department will never be able adequately to address the issue.

A consortium of charities and other organisations involved in family support, called the Relationships Alliance, which includes Relate, recently wrote a very thoughtful report assessing progress a year after the family test was implemented. It states the current situation well:

“The absence of a transparent mechanism to record when the Test has been applied means that it is impossible to accurately assess how successfully the Test is being incorporated into the policy making process. There is little information available to the public about a process and little accountability for implementation of the Test. Whilst the Government rightly wishes to ensure that the Test does not become a ‘tick box’ exercise, this does not preclude recording and monitoring of its use”.


It is also apparent, as we have heard, that only a very small proportion of departments have produced tailored strategy, guidance and tools to support the implementation of this. None of the departments that have not produced tailored guidance have referred to plans to do so. The work of the Department for Work and Pensions to support cross-government implementation of the test is valuable, but it is not a suitable substitute for a tailored implementation strategy within each department. Will the Minister inform the House how many departments have now produced a tailored implementation strategy? I share the concern already expressed, in the light of the inadequate responses to various Written Questions in the other place, that the Government seem to be so focused on not turning this into a tick-box exercise that they have lost sight of what it is about, which is to ensure that an assessment is actually carried out within departments of the impact of policies on families. This is not rocket science.

As things stand, it is hard to have confidence that the process is being followed from the outset of policy design, let alone at the end point when policies are being signed off across government. Imperfect though it may be, the statutory need to demonstrate compliance with the public sector equality duty, as already referred to, has helped to drive a culture of equality awareness in government, the key point being that it is statutory and not voluntary. We need a similar imperative for family impact assessments so that policymakers, Ministers and civil servants, learn to think about it so that it becomes intuitive to “think family” when policy is being designed.

I have long argued, based on my experience of working at Relate and at Cafcass, that the structure of government does not seem to recognise the fundamental importance of family relationships. There is at present no Cabinet lead for families, as was recommended in a number of important reports, both recently and less recently by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, in his report following the shocking death of Victoria Climbié. To be frank, we seem to be going backwards: until 2010 there was a Cabinet Sub-Committee on Families, Children and Young People, and during the coalition years the importance of families was recognised in the Cabinet Committee on Social Justice. As far as I can see—and I am very happy to be corrected if I am wrong—this is now taken forward and co-ordinated by a junior Minister in one department. What sort of message is that sending? A Cabinet lead would really help to drive implementation of these assessments. Back in 2016 it was clear that the Cabinet Committee on Social Justice was taking that lead. So will the Minister inform us which body has taken over from that committee?

The recommendation of the Relationships Alliance, which I have already mentioned, that as decision-making is increasingly devolved to local level, the Government should carry out a cost-benefit analysis of supporting local authorities and NHS bodies to carry out equivalent tests on policies, is very well made, and I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, included it in Clause 2.

On Monday I had the privilege of visiting the Family Drug and Alcohol Court, which is working with parents who have a lot of problems, particularly with drug and alcohol dependency, and who need to turn their lives around before they can parent effectively again. Yesterday I had the real pleasure of visiting the Pause project in Hackney, which is working with mothers who have had more than one child taken away from them into local authority care, again to try to help them turn their lives around.

This sort of work is so important. I was shocked to the core, to be honest, to hear from one of the workers at the project about a case where there had been no such help or intervention for mothers in this situation and one mother had had 13 children removed from her and taken into local authority care. I know that that is an extreme example, but it shows how important family support is and the help that the various projects and initiatives that I and others have mentioned can provide. Many of these are under threat as local authorities and the NHS are really struggling with finances and having to make cuts. That is why I think it is so important, when these decisions are being made, that these tests are carried out at the local as well as national level.

Although many of us in this House, myself included, welcomed the introduction of a family test and the stronger focus on families it was meant to give to government policy-making, it is very clear from the debate today that it has not lived up to its early hype. So it is time for this House to do what it often does best: improve both legislation and policy-making as the Bill passes through the House. I strongly urge the Government to support it. I support it very strongly myself and hope that at the end of the debate we do not get the standard rejection speech from the Minister, because the support across the House has been overwhelming.

13:22

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and benefit from her expertise in this area. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that this has been an interesting debate. We should thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for introducing it. Of course, the subject has been aired at both ends in recent times and the noble Lord has been true to his word in promising a Private Member’s Bill when the Manifesto to Strengthen Families was debated in November last year. In doing so, he instanced what he saw as the inadequacy of the non-statutory family test and the potential benefit of family hubs and local one-stop shops to help disadvantaged children.

As we have heard, the family test was introduced as far back as August 2014, with the enthusiastic backing of David Cameron. But, as we now know, not all of his initiatives turn out well. The test comprises five questions that policymakers need to consider, including the impact of a policy on families, their formation and their sustainability. As the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and others have said, publication of the outcome of such tests was not mandatory and few have been published to date. This issue was the focus of attention of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, a long-standing campaigner on this matter, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who took us for a brief walk down memory lane to the days when you could get 3p on a recycled bottle—I think it was a Tizer bottle; that was the premium rate you could get.

So that we can get a better assessment of the consequences of the provisions in the Bill before us, can the Minister confirm on the record how many tests have been carried out or are under way, and precisely why the outcomes could not be published? Indeed, what is the Government’s view of the future of this test?

Although the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has previously acknowledged that Tony Blair was there first, we know that much of the current thinking on the role of the family emanates from the Centre for Social Justice. We have heard authoritatively today from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, who is a strong campaigner on this issue, as well as from the noble Lord himself. Their focus is on the scale of family breakdown in the UK, with the assertion that it plays a role in driving poverty and further enhancing disadvantages. It follows, they argue, that family breakdown is an issue for society itself, not just individual families, and that it is necessary to have data to begin to build a picture of this and to test policies against. I think that view was shared by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Shinkwin and Lord Alton.

We should be clear that this is not exclusively a Conservative agenda. We on these Benches share an analysis which says that family breakdown and parental conflict can contribute to driving poverty, and that policy-making should encompass an assessment to avoid such outcomes. Where we would differ, I suggest, is in our asserting that lack of income is the fundamental cause of poverty. Research by the Tavistock Institute confirms that family separation can cause or increase family poverty and that the Government’s emphasis on improving the quality and stability of family relationships is an important anti-poverty measure to help avoid relationship breakdown, or to ensure that it is better managed when couples part. However, it says the evidence is clear that incomes matter and that poverty and lack of money is in fact a major cause of relationship breakdown, as well as a consequence of it.

The Bill’s requirements for the scope of a family impact assessment are potentially very wide and not without resource implications. Given the context of the Bill, one would have expected it to come with an impact assessment. Can the Minister say whether there is one and if not, why not? In particular, the definitions of family and families are commendably wide, including civil partners, a range of carers, children and grandparents. This begs the question of who would not be covered. Perhaps the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, might give us a view on this.

To the extent that individuals and relationships are not included in this wide definition, we would need to be satisfied that their exclusion does not disadvantage them and that by focusing on some, others should not be allowed to slide into poverty. But we should be clear that we do not see these approaches as overriding the need to address income poverty—the fundamental issue, in our view. The Bill espouses lofty ideals of how families can be supported; at the same time, the Government have visited horrendous cuts on a range of social security provisions. The Bill is about impact assessment but we have struggled to get from government a cumulative impact assessment of a decade of cuts to social security on the incomes of families with children. How have these matters featured in the family test so far? To what extent are the “Targets for family stability” required by Clause 3 to have an income component?

The CPAG has looked at these matters and concluded that the cuts to the legacy social security system—benefits and tax credits—and the effects of universal credit will lead to alarming losses, which will damage the life chances of hundreds of thousands of children. Families already at greatest risk of poverty will lose most; I think the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, alluded to this. This is not just lone parents but families already on low incomes, larger families, families with young children and families where someone is disabled. It calculates that families with four or more children will be more than £4,000 per year worse off because of the cuts to the legacy benefit system, and more than £5,000 worse off following the cuts to universal credit.

Just consider some of the policy changes since 2010: the health in pregnancy grant abolished; child benefit frozen for three years; uprating of most working-age benefits restricted to 1%, and then frozen for four years; restrictions on the Sure Start maternity grant; the baby element of child tax credit abolished; the benefit cap introduced and then reduced; the two-child limit introduced; local housing allowances cut; and much more.

What possible countervailing policies to promote strong and stable families could wipe away the negative effects of all this? The Bill proposes that the Secretary of State must publish a report no later than six months from the coming into force of the legislation setting out the costs and benefits of extending the requirement for a family impact assessment to local authorities. Will the Minister say whether central government would be prepared to fund such engagement by local authorities should there be a decision to proceed? She will be aware that no new money was made available for public services in the recent local government settlement and that local authorities face a £5.8 billion shortfall by 2020. Of particular concern is the need for £2 billion to plug the gap in the shortfall in children’s services, again needed to support the most vulnerable.

The Bill invites the Secretary of State within nine months to set out objectives and targets for promoting strong and stable families, and proposals and policies for meeting them. Should that come to pass they should presumably be informed by a consultation exercise. My noble friend Lady Massey produced some valuable insights for us from her experience, the lesson being the need for early consultation before designing any intervention for children and families and the necessity to cross barriers if change is to be delivered. In responding, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, will share with us what he considers should feature in those objectives and targets.

On previous occasions the Government have declined to accept that family impact assessments should be put on a statutory basis. Given the passion displayed by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and others, we look forward to hearing whether the position of the Government has changed.

13:32

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer and congratulate him on securing a Second Reading debate on the Bill. I also thank all noble Lords who have participated in today’s excellent and thoughtful debate. My noble friend has worked tirelessly to strengthen families. This is evident both in this debate and beyond, in particular through his work to strengthen the family relationships of prisoners, who are often the most in need of a supportive family environment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and my noble friends Lord Framlingham and Lady Stroud that we value his work and the message to him is: please keep going.

The Government have a critical role to play in supporting families. Strong families, in all their forms, are critical to our success as individuals and as a society. I am pleased to see, and to learn from having been in the Department for Work and Pensions for several months, that families have been climbing the political agenda in recent months with debates being held on how the Government can support families and on the critical institution of marriage and its place in government policy. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, that we need to do more.

It is right that the Government continue to champion the family as the bedrock of a strong society. The family test, which has been in place since 2014, has helped policymakers to put families at the heart of policy development. We developed the current family test in conjunction with the Relationships Alliance, a group of expert organisations with a rich depth of knowledge about family relationships and functioning. Led by the Department for Work and Pensions, we continue to engage with other government departments to help them to implement the family test, and by doing so, ensure that families are considered early in the policy-making process.

Yes, families come in all shapes and sizes, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, and the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Shinkwin; that is a critical point that should be made. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that there is no question but that, for example, the Cabinet Office is looking very closely at how we can do more to strengthen policies in support of the family, as indeed we are across government.

My honourable friend in another place, Oliver Dowden, who is the Minister for Implementation, led a debate on 8 February this year on the strengthening families manifesto, during which he said:

“Within the Cabinet Office, we are continually looking at ways to measure the impact of policies in relation to the family. We currently analyse that impact through mechanisms such as the implementation unit, which falls within my brief. That is a central part of the initiative”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/2/18; col. 659WH.]


I should explain to noble Lords that the implementation unit is a cross-governmental unit to support departmental capability and public service reform.

With regard to the statutory basis for the family test, I reassure noble Lords that the Government continue to be committed to the family test and the benefits that it brings by ensuring that families are central to all the policies that we develop. The family test and the five questions within it are intended to comprise a broad and flexible tool that encourages consideration of the family from the first stages of policy thinking and throughout policy development. Good policy-making requires giving consideration to a range of important factors, and the family test is a tool to assist policymakers to take into account impacts on family relationships and family functioning.

I am pleased to see that the proposals for the family impact assessment laid out in the Bill take into account all the factors that we consider as part of the current family test. Indeed, we agree that the Government should consider these factors, and the family test already supports this to happen throughout government. However, we are concerned that placing such an assessment on a legislative footing could risk losing the flexibility to adapt and change. I have been very struck by a number of the ideas and suggestions from noble Lords in today’s debate. Embedding such an assessment within primary legislation would mean that we lost that flexibility, which is an important feature of the current family test.

Noble Lords have made reference to the use of different language and talked about a different narrative and changing the culture. I believe it is very difficult to change culture. I say that as a lawyer; indeed, as a lawyer I am rather cynical that embedding policy in primary legislation can always succeed in changing culture. I am sure all noble Lords present will know that the recent report from the Jo Cox Foundation recommends that the Government should consider amending the family test to consider the matter of loneliness, which we know is a significant problem for many people across this country. Indeed, I would see loneliness in a sense as a subset of family and the breakdown of family, and that is something that we should consider in the round.

My noble friend Lord Framlingham spoke passionately about the impact of the internet on children and their response within their family and beyond. This is where, I fear, the truth is that legislation is a double-edged sword. It is easy to exclude if it is not on the list; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, made reference to the list of what constitutes the structure of a family. We have to take great care and think about future-proofing. However, that is not to say that we disregard much that is in the Bill or the spirit behind it with regard to the development of our policy.

The Bill also raises the matter of reporting on the costs and benefits of extending family impact assessments to local authorities—something raised by several noble Lords. We know that local authorities and the wide networks of partner organisations they work with are best placed to understand the families living in their areas, which is why central departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions, work closely with local areas on a range of family issues.

My noble friend Lord Farmer asked how many information exchange sessions and courses on implementing the tests had taken place over the past two years. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also referenced the tests and the number of courses. When the family test was first introduced four years ago, the Department for Work and Pensions ran a number of seminars and sessions and supported departments with evidence packs and guidance. We continue to support departments to build capability of their own in this area, although I noted noble Lords’ emphasis on the importance of consistency across departments.

The work being carried out at the moment at the Department for Work and Pensions includes the new reducing parental conflict programme, in which I know my noble friend Lord Farmer has taken a keen interest. Since today’s Bill was laid last June, we have seen an increase in the total funding available for this vital work to up to £39 million. I note what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said about cuts, but in many instances they have been accompanied by other support systems for the family. We are very careful to ensure that what we do does not drive breakdown in family relationships through income poverty, which he referenced. We understand, appreciate and accept that that would be entirely counterproductive.

Noble Lords have all stressed that it takes a lot more than money, critical though that is, to support the family. Through our new programme, we are actively supporting local authority areas across England to embed proven parental conflict provision into their mainstream services for children and families, as well as building and sharing the evidence base for what works to improve the quality of interparental relationships.

As we work with local areas on these critical issues, we will be able to gain a greater understanding of what support and guidance local authorities need in order to best consider the impacts of policies on families. Local authorities also need to retain flexibility to adapt and change how they assess impact on local families, including the ability to take local factors into account.

I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said about his visit to Dover, which I have read all about. I am pleased that he found it a positive experience attending the jobcentre there. I am also pleased to be able to say that as work coaches in jobcentres become more familiar with the system of universal credit, they are enjoying and getting great satisfaction from, in a sense, going beyond their brief to support in a more holistic way the welfare, in the biggest use of that word, of those in front of them. I will also take what he said back to the department, because he is absolutely right: all the time we must think about ways in which we can so easily add to our support to the family through communication and signposting, which is so important.

I turn to the issue of family stability and the provision in the Bill which would require government to establish objectives, indicators and targets for promoting strong and stable families. We believe that families are vital. Not only are they the basic building block on which we build a successful economy and a stable society, but growing up in a loving family environment helps children develop into successful adults.

As my noble friend Lord Shinkwin said, without families there is no sustainable society. I was also struck and concerned when my noble friend used the words, “systematic devaluation” of the family, which was very much echoed in the speech by my noble friend Lord Framlingham. That is something that we should take great care of when thinking through our policy: how we respond to that idea of systematic devaluation of the family. But I was also struck by what was said in response to that, in a sense, by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, who has spoken on this subject for so many years in your Lordships’ House, with such eloquence, expertise and experience—and I so welcome her contribution today. She suggested that we should ask what makes a family go right, and she is absolutely right. It is really important to think about what lends stability to a family. That is a very different experience, in many ways, from the experience and extraordinary expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, in the work that she has carried out on all the evidence of what lends to the negative impacts of family breakdown.

To demonstrate our commitment to these key issues, last April we published Improving Lives: Helping Workless Families. This, with its accompanying analysis, set out nine national indicators designed to track the Government’s progress towards tackling the root causes of poverty and disadvantage. It includes the new relationship distress indicators, which measure elements of parental conflict in both intact and separated families. This was based on recent evidence, which shows that, when it comes to the critical issue of improving children’s outcomes, the quality of the relationship between the parents is far more important than the structure of the family. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Stroud referenced adult relationships, and we cannot underestimate their importance. As I mentioned, we are beginning to tackle the problems faced by workless families, who are three times as likely to experience parental conflict, through our new reducing parental conflict programme.

My noble friend Lord Blencathra referenced the Armed Forces and the importance of supporting them in this area. As the Department for Work and Pensions representative on the newly formed Armed Forces Covenant and Veterans Board, I reassure my noble friend that I am very much focused on the welfare of veterans and of our serving personnel. We are constantly looking at the range of extra support we provide to our Armed Forces families. Apart from anything else, as my noble friend said, retention of our Armed Forces personnel and their welfare is of vital importance.

I know that all the noble Lords present understand the importance of supporting families, and the benefits that strong family relationships can bring to us all. My department will continue to encourage active use of the family test, and continue the discussions across Whitehall, which will include the need for policymakers to consider whether any new policy supports strong and stable families or undermines these vital relationships. On a personal level, I am particularly keen to work with colleagues across government to reassess, perhaps, some of the narrative. A number of noble Lords today have referenced the use of language—how we explain what we are trying to achieve. Why do we use the term “conflict”, for example? It sounds more like a war zone—and, yes, is “test” the right word that we should use? We should not be afraid to revisit that issue.

I thank all noble Lords who have participated in today’s debate. I shall write to those to whom I have been unable to respond. I look forward to working with all noble Lords, because this is more than a Conservative Party issue—it is cross-government and cross-party. It is too important to be part of politics. So I look forward to working with all noble Lords as we strive to build a society that works for everyone, with the family at its core.

13:49

[Lord Farmer]

My Lords, I have been hugely impressed by the contributions from all noble Lords today. There have been some extremely powerful speeches. Perhaps the Minister can encourage all government Minsters, particularly those at Cabinet level, to read Hansard today and get into their hearts and minds the spirit and power of the arguments that we have heard.

I am conscious of time; there is another debate after this. We have been powerfully involved in this, so it has taken longer than probably anticipated. I will just say that I am extremely grateful to everybody; we have made a powerful argument and there has been broad support. I will not attempt to summarise—as I know some people do at the end—all the excellent points that have been made but, if Cabinet Ministers do read this debate, I just note that we have recently had a Minister appointed for loneliness, as has been mentioned today. Loneliness is very much a part of families, and it would be much better to have a Cabinet-level Minister for families rather than for loneliness. Loneliness often comes particularly in old age, when people no longer have families, perhaps because of a family rift or something. It is a family Cabinet Minister who should address that.

I would like, however, to express my complete agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others that the Government are in danger of being so obsessed with the family test not becoming a tick-box exercise that the right mechanisms will not be put in place to ensure it happens at all, or that it will be carried out in such a way that learning and cultural change—which is what we are talking about today—take place. Given that these are the bigger prizes that the test seeks to deliver, we all agree that it cannot simply be a hurdle for policymakers to jump over—I am sure all noble Lords can see how self-defeating this would be. I agree that passing laws is not always a panacea but, when the Government say that they are not minded to make family impact assessments a statutory requirement, the onus is very much on them to explain how they will boost and monitor the performance of the test. I underline again that the word “test” is a problem; I think “assessment” is a far better description of what is required.

As I have mentioned, there are several respected organisations—which the Minister also mentioned—which not only co-designed the original family test but are also highly motivated to continue helping the Government to improve their operation. Their ongoing involvement is essential. The role that well-functioning and stable families can play in delivering departmental priorities was also made clear, for example by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, regarding social care. At best, family impact assessments will not just reveal how to protect families from unintended consequences of policies, but how families can work in partnership with government to deliver the best outcomes for those policies.

I thank the Minister for her supportive response and her encouragement to keep going. I can assure her that I will, as will many colleagues, I am sure. So, much like a good Boy Scout, she should be prepared. All that remains is for me to thank again everyone who has spoken—it has been a terrific debate—and to ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

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

Criminal Records Bill [HL]

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 23rd February 2018 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

13:54

Moved by

[Lord Ramsbotham]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as president of Unlock, the charity for people with criminal convictions, which, for years, has taken a keen interest in the reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which I will refer to as the ROA from now on, and whose co-director has issued a most comprehensive brief to those who are speaking today. I also thank the Library for its usual excellent briefing, which excellence I am sure all noble Lords appreciate and admire.

I am pleased to note that the Bill is listed under my proposed title, Criminal Records Bill, rather than as a revision of the ROA, because that better describes its subject, which is only one ingredient of the rehabilitation of offenders. Just over a year ago, when my previous attempt to revise the ROA was read for the second time, the prisons part of the Prisons and Courts Bill had not started its progress through the other place. I mention that because, at the time, I had high hopes that the need to revise the ROA might be picked up by the Government, as the revision was clearly in line with other reforms envisaged in the Bill, including the holding of the Secretary of State for Justice to account for the rehabilitation of offenders. But those hopes were dashed when the prisons part was dropped from the Bill—hence yet another attempt to persuade the Government of the need for reform.

The Bill is short, consisting solely of a suggested amendment to the list of those sentences that are excluded from rehabilitation under the ROA, a table of suggested alterations to the length of rehabilitation periods for adults and children and a clause suggesting that the title of the Act be changed.

I begin by reminding noble Lords of a little of the history of previous attempts to reform the ROA. It explains why I feel so frustrated that, despite all the evidence from many different sources, a Private Member’s Bill, first by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and then twice by me, should have to be used as a vehicle for trying to persuade the Government to take action on something that both their predecessors identified as a major inhibiting factor to the rehabilitation of offenders, which they profess to champion.

For many years, the main grounds for criticism of the ROA have included that it did not do enough to rehabilitate offenders, the length of its rehabilitation periods and the exclusion of prison sentences of over 30 months from its scope, the most trenchant criticism coming from the Better Regulation Task Force in 1999. Following this, the then Labour Government published a review entitled Breaking the Circle, in 2001, followed by a consultation, in response to which they said, in 2002, that they intended to publish a draft Bill containing their proposals for pre-legislative scrutiny. However, no such Bill emerged, which I have always regarded as a regrettably lost opportunity.

In 2010, the coalition Government that followed published a consultation document entitled Breaking the Cycle, in which they acknowledged that the Act was inconsistent with contemporary sentencing practice, as well as overly complex and confusing, resulting in many people not realising that it applied to them. The Government said that they were taking a fundamental look at the objectives of the Act, as part of their rehabilitation revolution, giving thought as to how it could be reformed, including broadening its scope so that it covered all offenders who received determinate sentences and reductions to the length of some rehabilitation periods. In the event, there was no mention of the Act in the Government’s response to the consultation. However, a clause was added to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—LASPO—which reformed the Act in two ways. First, its scope was extended to cover custodial sentences of up to 48 months and, secondly, the length of some of the rehabilitation periods was reduced.

There are, currently, three types of criminal records check in England and Wales: basic, standard and advanced. All employers can carry out a basic check as part of their recruitment process, the length of time when convictions or cautions have to be disclosed being laid down in the ROA. However, employers have to apply to the Disclosure and Barring Service, set up following the LASPO amendments, for standard and advanced checks. Professions that are protected, and for which disclosure is compulsory, are listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, which is now seriously out of date because it does not mention the DBS.

I said last time that the Government should establish a system for identifying and stopping ineligible requests for checks, which too many of the 4 million each year currently are. That requires either the Ministry of Justice or the Home Office to lay down clear criteria regarding the eligibility of applications. The DBS should publish and maintain accurate guidance on its processes. Together, the Government and the DBS should take action against employers who do not take reasonable steps to ensure that they are eligible to apply for checks. Although carrying out an illegal check is a criminal offence under the Police Act 1997, there have, as yet, been no prosecutions and the DBS does not see itself as an enforcement body.

However, while government has been idle as far as revision of the Act is concerned, others have been very active. In July 2016, the Home Office asked the Law Commission to review and report on an aspect of the criminal records disclosure system known as filtering. Although outside the scope of my Bill, filtering, which has been in place since 2013, is important because it regulates those jobs that are exempt from the ROA, requiring an individual to disclose convictions and cautions even though they are spent. The Law Commission found that the legislation governing filtering was hard to understand and inaccessible to users, that there was uncertainty as to what was or was not on the list of non-filterable offences, as the content of lists, which were in two different parts of the legislation, was changed from time to time, and that, overall, there appeared to be a lack of a principled basis for the inclusion of individual offences in the list. It said that there was a compelling case for a wider review of the disclosure system as a whole.

In March 2016, the Standing Committee for Youth Justice published a report Growing Up, Moving On: The International Treatment of Childhood Criminal Records, which I mentioned at Second Reading of my previous Bill. In December 2016, Charlie Taylor, now chairman of the Youth Justice Board, said in his report on the youth justice system that, in his view, the current criminal records system lacked a distinct and considered approach to childhood offending. Both reports were picked up by the Justice Select Committee in the other place, whose first report during Session 2017-19 was entitled Disclosure of Youth Criminal Records. The committee said that the current system for disclosure undermined the principles of the youth justice system and may well fall short of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Government, however, in their response dated January 2018, claimed that current disclosure arrangements, including rehabilitation periods and the filtering system, were proportionate and struck the right balance between protecting the public and an individual’s right to privacy.

The Government claim that they can do nothing about reforming the disclosure system until the Supreme Court has ruled, which it is due to do in June, on an appeal that it has mounted against the dismissal, by the Court of Appeal, of its appeal against a judgment of the High Court, in a case brought against the current system. The same excuse for doing nothing was used by the officials in the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office who I went to see last year in a vain attempt to get government to review the ROA on its own account. I have to admit that, to me, this smacks of procrastination, quite apart from being a waste of public money. It is now 19 years since the Better Regulation Task Force reported its concerns. The Minister will realise why it is hard to take a department seriously that takes so long to action something that successive Governments have agreed needs to be done.

Since then, another voice has been added to those calling for reform. In his review of the treatment of BAME offenders in the criminal justice system last September, David Lammy MP said that,

“it must be recognised that a job is the foundation for a law-abiding life for ex-offenders, but that our criminal records regime is making work harder to find for those who need it the most. The system is there to protect the public, but is having the opposite effect if it sees ex-offenders languishing without jobs and drawn back into criminality. A more flexible system is required, which is capable of recognising when people have changed and no longer pose a significant risk to others”.

The danger of being frustrated by such a long period of government inaction is that one is tempted to overstate one’s case, which I hope, sincerely, I have not done today. As the Minister knows, protecting the public is the responsibility of every Government, which, in the case of those sentenced by the courts, should include ensuring that active, rehabilitative measures, designed to help them to live useful and law-abiding lives on release, are provided. Unfortunately, currently, the Prison Service and probation service are failing to rehabilitate far too many of those sentenced by the courts, for reasons that need not concern us today. But, if the Government are to do everything in their power to redress that situation, the onus is on them to examine all the causes of failure. Part of the rehabilitation process must include giving all those convicted of an offence the opportunity to have the positive things that they have done, during and since finishing their sentence, recognised, in law, and allowing them to be legally rehabilitated, subject to certain clearly laid-down conditions.

The current criminal records system has been judged to be bad in practice by successive Governments and many outside observers and wrong in law by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. I hope therefore that the Minister will accept the urgency of the need for a fundamental review of the whole system, as recommended by the Law Commission, which can be initiated only by government and not by a series of Private Members’ Bills. If Scotland and Northern Ireland can do it, why cannot England and Wales? I beg to move.

14:07

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for this Bill, which has the support of these Benches.

Perhaps I may first make an admission: I introduced the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill in previous Sessions. The purpose of my Bill was to make changes to the rehabilitation periods that are completed before cautions and convictions become spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The Bill passed all its stages in your Lordships’ House but failed to secure a First Reading in the other place. This gives me an opportunity to put on record my thanks for the support I received from my noble friend Lord McNally and from the then Secretary of State for Justice, Ken Clarke, during the coalition Government.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, mentioned that the Government tabled amendments to the then Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which amended the length of rehabilitation periods and increased the scope of the Bill to cover custodial sentences of 48 months.

We have a crisis in our prisons. Rehabilitation has become a distant dream. On 16 February—a week ago—the Times reported:

“Thousands more prisoners are to be released early under a government drive to relieve pressure on overcrowded and drug-ridden jails”.


Will the Minister confirm whether that is so? The figures available for 2010 indicate that reoffending by all recent ex-prisoners was estimated to cost the economy between £9.5 billion and £13 billion annually. Will the Minister give the most up-to-date figures available on this? In the Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile, the Prison Reform Trust said:

“Nearly all prisoners (97%) said they wanted to stop offending. When asked what would be important in stopping them, most said a job (68%) and a place to live (60%)”.


I said earlier that we support the Bill, which seeks to extend the protection that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act currently provides to former offenders who have turned their lives around and avoided reoffending for a significant period. This includes ex-offenders who have served sentences of over four years but have then left crime behind them and stayed out of trouble for more than eight years.

The Bill also reduces the periods after which convictions attracting shorter custodial sentences and community orders become spent. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 provides that after specified “rehabilitation periods” ex-offenders do not have to declare spent convictions when applying for jobs, housing and insurance. These factors were identified in the Bromley briefings. It is worth re-emphasising that the Act does not apply to people applying for jobs in sensitive areas of work, such as criminal justice agencies, financial institutions and work involving young people or vulnerable adults. In my view, there is scope for narrowing down the exceptions to the Act, but for the present the noble Lord’s Bill would leave them as they are.

Despite those exemptions, since it was enacted in 1974, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act has helped many ex-offenders to live down their past. Initially the Act applied only to offenders serving sentences of up to two and a half years. However, following my introduction of a series of Private Members’ Bills to reform the Act, the coalition Government agreed to extend the Act to include offenders who have served sentences of four years or less.

Even now, however, many genuinely reformed ex-offenders can never benefit from the Act. More than 7,000 people a year are given sentences of over four years. At present, they can never be rehabilitated for the purposes of the Act, however much they do to change their ways and over however long a period. Therefore, an offender who receives a four-year sentence at the age of 18 and never commits another offence is legally obliged to declare that conviction. If asked when applying for jobs at the ages of 50 or 60, this still applies to them—and that means when applying for any job, not just employment in sensitive occupations.

Our provisions are still notably less generous than the rules that apply in many other European nations. Most European countries apply rehabilitation periods to sentences of longer than four years and their rehabilitation periods are often significantly shorter than ours. Is it not time to remove this anomaly?

The same is true in relation to young offenders. In 2016, the Standing Committee for Youth Justice published a report entitled Growing Up, Moving On, which compared the treatment of young people’s criminal records in 16 comparable countries. It found that the system in England and Wales was the least generous of all the systems studied. A criminal record acquired by a juvenile in this country affects the young person for longer than in any of the 15 other countries compared in the study.

Again, since the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act was implemented, sentence lengths in this country have increased significantly. Many offenders who would have received sentences of four years or less back in 1974 are receiving sentences of five, six or seven years today. That means that many offenders who would have been helped by the current law if they had offended in the 1970s now find that their offences can never become spent during the whole of their lifetime.

Under the provisions of the noble Lord’s Bill, offenders who receive custodial sentences would have to avoid crime for a specified period after the sentence was completed, including any post-release supervision period. An offender who received a custodial sentence of more than four years would then have to remain crime-free for an additional period of four years. That means that those offenders would have to avoid crime for more than eight years, and in some cases for a much longer period, before the provisions would apply to them. An offender who received a three-year sentence would have to stay out of trouble for a total of five years from the date of the sentence before his or her offence became spent. So for the more serious offences, offenders would have to avoid reoffending for very significant periods. Even then, the new provisions would not apply to jobs in sensitive occupations, for which they would still have to declare their full criminal record indefinitely. Less serious offenders who receive short sentences or non-custodial sentences would benefit from the Bill’s provisions after shorter periods, but even then, only when they were applying for a position which does not involve work with children or vulnerable people or other sensitive occupations. These are important safeguards, which I am sure the Minister will welcome.

Taken overall, the provisions of the Bill would further reduce the scope for unfair discrimination against ex-offenders in the job market. Regrettably, such discrimination is still widespread. Surveys of ex-offenders in Nacro projects—the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders—have shown that 60% have been explicitly refused jobs because of their criminal record. I declare my interest at this stage as the president of Nacro. Of course, it is sometimes reasonable to refuse an ex-offender a job because of his record. For example, we must obviously bar offenders with a history of offences against children from working with children. Equally obviously, we should bar offenders with a history of offences against elderly people from working with or caring for the elderly. The Bill would not apply to cases such as these as they are covered by the exceptions to the Act. However, in many cases employers often turn down applicants because of offences that have no relevance to the job for which they are applying.

Unfortunately, the scope for discrimination against ex-offenders is wide because decisions to employ or refuse people jobs are not made at the top of companies. They are made by large numbers of individual managers and personnel staff who have usually had no specific training in how to deal with applications from people with criminal records. Unfair discrimination against ex-offenders is wrong in principle because it imposes an additional illegitimate penalty of refusal of employment on people who have already served the judicially ordered punishment for their crime. It also reduces public safety because an ex-offender’s risk of reoffending is reduced by between one-third and one-half if he or she gets and keeps a job. The whole community benefits when offending is reduced, and reformed offenders are also helped to avoid returning to wasting their lives in criminal activity.

In conclusion, the Bill would enable more people with criminal records to start again with a clean slate after a period—in many cases a very long period—free from criminal activity. That is a worthy aim and I am delighted to support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in his efforts to achieve it.

14:18

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, as ever it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, particularly given his remarkable and creditable record on the issues we are discussing today.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham on presenting the Bill to the House. It deals with a very important issue. The noble Lord has a remarkable record and a huge fund of knowledge of the way in which imprisonment and other sentences of the court affect the lives of those who have been sentenced, not only when they are in custody but, importantly, when they leave custody. We tend to focus a great deal, though not always very effectively, on what happens to people when they are inside a custodial establishment. Much more difficult to pin down is what happens to them when they leave and in the years that follow, which can sometimes be the wreckage of their lives.

I would like to focus particularly on those who are under 18 years old when they are sentenced. I do so with some trepidation, knowing that the immediate past chairman of the Youth Justice Board will speak after me in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, did great service in this area and I am delighted that he is participating today.

In June 2014, a parliamentarians’ inquiry sponsored by the Michael Sieff Foundation and the National Children’s Bureau reported on its investigation of the youth justice system. Page 56 of the report of the inquiry, which I chaired, states:

“The panel recommends that, in the longer term, children who have offended be given a ‘clean sheet’ at 18, meaning that previous offences would be expunged from their record rather than only filtered. This would only be available if a specified period of time had elapsed in which there had been no further convictions. This would not be available for homicide, serial sexual offences and other violent crimes … A similar recommendation to this was notably made by the Home Office in its 2002 report ‘Breaking the Circle’”.


This issue, along with the views that are being expressed in the debate, has been around for a long time and I would simply remind the Minister, who I think comes fairly new to these matters, that five Members of your Lordships’ House were on that panel, and of the three Members of the other place, one was Robert Buckland, who is currently the Solicitor-General with a wealth of knowledge of the criminal law process, and that our report was unanimous.

In dealing with the issue of children—for they are children—who are sentenced, I want to tell your Lordships about one small episode that I experienced while doing a piece of work some years earlier for the Howard League for Penal Reform. I went into a youth custody centre and as I was walking along the corridor with officers, a boy of about 17 said, “Will you come into my room, sir?” All over the walls of his room were certificates, all of them for maths, including one for an A* pass at GCSE. I said something really stupid to him, “You like maths, do you?” to which he replied, “I love it, sir. I want to be a maths teacher when I get out”. I do not know what has happened to him since, but he would certainly have been able to obtain the qualifications to become a maths teacher. I asked him whether he had enjoyed maths when he was at school, and he replied, “I never went to school, sir”. That is an example of someone who, while he was in custody, through the work of the education part of that establishment, discovered a real aptitude which he could offer to others later. However, I know, because I was an MP for 14 years and I have seen these problems in constituency surgeries, that someone like that young man applying for a teaching job at 23 or 24 years of age would not have a chance of obtaining it because his criminal record would be deployed against him. His sentence had been one of medium length.

We really have to deal with this problem. We can do any analysis you like, one of which I would call a social benefit analysis. Taking the example I have given, what would the social benefit be of that young man becoming a maths teacher or using his skills in some other productive way in employment that he obtained because his record did not have to go before prospective employers? The other one we could do is a cost-benefit analysis for society, to which the answer is perfectly obvious.

I regard this Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, as an important and necessary provision. I would expect further focus in Committee on the issues I have raised about the under-18s and I would happily undertake part of that role. I know that we have the broad support of the excellent successor to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as chair of the Youth Justice Board—Charlie Taylor. I and many others have spoken to him about these issues on numerous occasions because he keeps an open door and is interested in our views. I know what recommendations he would make to Ministers both privately and more publicly. The time has come to get to grips with changing the law so that convictions, whether for children or adults, do not wreck or at least badly dog their lives as they continue.

After all, the purpose of justice—certainly the purpose of youth justice—should not include wrecking the later lives of the people who have been through the custodial system, sometimes only to small measure as a result of their own fault and often because of the circumstances in which they found themselves. Those of us who have spent long periods in and out of criminal court rooms know that there is an underlying truth to what I and others are saying in this debate. Society must not simply say that they are responsible for their own actions. Of course they bear responsibility for their actions, but we bear responsibility for what happens to them afterwards.

My noble friend Lord Ramsbotham referred to current litigation that remains unconcluded. Ongoing litigation has never been a justification for the Government doing nothing. If there is merit in doing something, the Government can do something and save us the costs of the litigation. That sounds like a pretty good litigation tactic.

14:25

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, this is the first time in 14 years’ membership of the House that I have ever had the effrontery to speak in the gap and I hope not to abuse the privilege today. I would have put my name down to speak in this debate yesterday, but I was told that it might go beyond the time when I have to be away.

I recognised then and yet more clearly today, that, that said, there is little of substance that I can add to the impressive contributions made by the several seasoned warriors who have campaigned consistently on this issue over many years. I refer not only to the three who have already so tellingly and impressively spoken—special tribute is due to my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham for his tireless championing of this cause over recent years—but also to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who is shortly to follow. All I want to add, for what it is worth, is an erstwhile judge’s name to the list of those who support this Bill. It is an attempt to drag this country a stage further towards a more enlightened future, where more ex-prisoners—not least young offenders, of whom my noble friend Lord Carlile has just spoken—may be allowed to shed the mark of Cain and thereby improve their prospects of shaking off, too, the temptation to reoffend and instead obtain gainful and confidence-building employment.

It is infinitely depressing to learn that, as with the age of criminal responsibility, this country’s position with regard to the disclosure of criminal records is more repressive and punitive than virtually any other civilised nation. Just as we criminalise children at 10, with the regrettable consequences that has for their self- image and prospects of a responsible, law-abiding future —a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has worked so hard—so too in this country it takes longer than almost anywhere else, and longer than it should, for those convicted of crime to then live down their criminal records and so restore their prospects of resuming life in the community on level terms with others as to employment, insurance and so forth.

I hope that, at last, the Government will have the imagination now to welcome rather than to oppose this further attempt to improve the future, not just for ex-prisoners but for us all. I strongly support the Bill.

14:29

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, I do not think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, needs to apologise at all. It is extremely valuable to the case that we are trying to make to have a judge of his long experience expressing his views. As for the other speakers before me, each one was, in their different ways, a great influence on me when I had responsibilities in these areas. The country at large is grateful to them for the significant contribution that they have made to make our criminal justice system more civilised and more humane.

I await the response of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on behalf of the Labour Party. I have always counted him as being on his party’s more liberal wing. However, the truth is that the Labour Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, mentioned, did nothing after their 2002 review of the working of the 1974 Act. Indeed, during their period of office between 1997 and 2010, successive Labour Home Secretaries went out of their way to show that they were not woolly liberals and had a determination not to be outflanked by the Tories on being “tough on crime”. That is why nothing has been done: because the two major parties have been frozen by fear of the other exploiting any sign of a liberal move in this part of the criminal justice system. I look forward to the noble Lord’s contribution. I hope we can rely on him and the Labour Party for taking the Bill forward.

The case for a fundamental review of the workings of the criminal records system and subsequent legislation to implement its findings is ever more pressing and urgent. When I was at the Ministry of Justice between 2010 and 2017, first as a Minister and then as chairman of the Youth Justice Board, it was constantly impressed on me that policy must be research and evidence based. My experience in those seven years left me with a firm belief in three core directions of policy. The first was that early intervention works in preventing young people entering the criminal justice system. The second is that through-the-gate support works. I still remember talking to an ex-prisoner working on a Carillion building site—Carillion had a good reputation for employing ex-prisoners. He said to me, “You know sir, you cannot imagine how lonely you feel stood at a gate of a prison with your clothes in a bundle and £40 in your pocket and you don’t know where you’re going to live and you don’t know where you’re going to earn a living”. The attempts at through-the-gate support are entirely to be welcomed. The third is a mantra referred to earlier: a job, a home and a relationship work more than anything else in avoiding reoffending.

The proponents of the Bill argue that, far from it being woolly liberalism, it is overwhelmingly based on evidence from study after study, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, pointed out. A criminal record is a major factor in preventing an ex-offender getting a job, and that inability to enter the world of work is a major factor in subsequent reoffending.

I was recently sent a booklet written by Sir John Timpson entitled How Prison Leavers can Find a Career. As the House will know, the Timpsons have a splendid record in employing ex-prisoners. The booklet lists some of the hurdles an ex-prisoner faces in housing, getting a bank account, a mortgage, credit cards or insurance and in finding a job. It gives the following statistics: 61% of prisoners reoffend after two years; 19% of prison leavers with a job reoffend after two years; and 3% of prison leavers who join Timpson reoffended. I would not claim that that is absolutely scientific, but it is interesting that one of the factors in the Timpson process is giving prison leavers not just a job but a range of other support as they get into the world of work. Let us be clear, measures that help offenders back into the world of work reduce crime and save the victims of crime from its trauma. There is hard-nosed, research-based evidence that a more intelligent use of criminal records can have a positive impact on levels of crime.

It would be a step forward if the Government carried out an independent, wide-ranging review of the 1974 Act. It would also be interesting to know whether the 2012 reforms I introduced through LASPO revealed any downsides: I know that the department has just conducted a post-legislative review of the LASPO Act. It was one of the fears of No. 10—it was not the Ministry of Justice, it was No. 10 that had cold feet about going further in 2012—but were there any adverse results of those modest reforms that we carried through, that small step towards liberalisation?

There are difficulties, of course. We have just finished our work in this House on the Data Protection Bill. There, we had to take account of the right to personal privacy and weigh that against the reality that modern technology has the capacity to track our every move and have instant recall of every incident and event from our dim and distant past. The right to be forgotten is difficult to deliver even for the most law-abiding citizen in our brave new world of artificial intelligence and data revolution. It is also true that reformers have to meet genuine public concerns that wiping the slate clean may result in the still-dangerous paedophile, the partner abuser, rapist or others who remain a danger to society disappearing into a maw of anonymity, only to offend again. That is why any management of criminal records includes the list of exclusions from its provisions set out in new subsection (1) in Clause 1.

Will the Minister clarify how protections provided by the domestic violence disclosure scheme—Clare’s law—would be affected by the measures proposed in the Bill? How would the Bill affect the other sexual and violent crimes which the tabloids always imply would be given anonymity by its passing? It is significant that all the major reports referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, call for reform along the lines proposed by the Bill, particularly as it applies to offenders under the age of 18—children in the eyes of the law. During my three years as chair of the YJB there was ample evidence of the overhang from offences committed often when the offender was in early teens that could continue to blight prospects into adulthood. A key element of the Carlile report—I know it was funded by Sieff, but it is known as the Carlile report, and rightly so—into the treatment of young offenders by the criminal justice system was, as we have heard, that with suitable safeguards, an ability to wipe the slate clean at 18 should be provided. My successor as chair of the YJB, Charlie Taylor, wrote a report showing that a childhood criminal record, even for a relatively minor offence or misdemeanour, can have severe implications during childhood and beyond into adulthood; this can affect an individual’s education, employment and other prospects for years to come.

I am sure we all wish David Gauke well in his new responsibilities. He is our sixth Justice Secretary since 2010; I wonder whether there is a lesson to be learned there. I hope he will accept that there is an overwhelming case for an independent inquiry into an Act which is now 44 years old. We need to assess how the latest technologies impact on or undermine the workings of the Act, and to examine how the shadow of a criminal record can be lifted while retaining public confidence. Our aim must be to bring forward legislation fit for a 21st-century purpose and which avoids or minimises the unnecessary or disproportionate impact of criminal records on those who have genuinely put their criminal past behind them, while continuing to protect society from those who remain a danger and a threat.

On another Friday a few weeks ago, the noble Lord, Lord Snape, observed about this “last business on a Friday” slot that all that could be expected from the responding Minister would be for them to say “as little as possible” and not leave any hostages to fortune. I hope we will get more from the Minister today and that she will welcome the Bill as an overdue step in penal reform, which will help those trapped by the long shadow of a criminal conviction but also cut the reoffending rate, with benefits to victims and society as a whole, who bear the trauma and cost of reoffending. I wish the Bill well.

14:40

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and others, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—a “seasoned warrior”, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown—for his commitment to this cause and for pressing this Bill once again. The sensibility that he expressed is still important today and needs to be pressed, and it is good that he will be putting pressure on the Government to try to take it further forward. We will support him on that. We should acknowledge the work of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, which has been mentioned, and the contribution made by the Youth Justice Board, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who manages to be effective and make his case well at the same time as trying to knock down those who might otherwise rally to his standard. He must learn to be a bit more generous in his remarks. I am not very good at categorising where I stand on the political spectrum, but I think he will be satisfied by what I will say today.

I am standing in for my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I am afraid that I cannot in any sense match her experience and knowledge, or indeed speak for her on this occasion. But I declare an interest in that when I was director of the Smith Institute we worked on two projects which I think are relevant today. One was work done with the then chair of the Youth Justice Board on restorative justice, a programme which is still to be taken up wholeheartedly by the Government but I think should be. We also did a report on a study that was done in conjunction with Centrica at Reading jail on the impact that having a job, good housing and proper support—points made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally—made to the rehabilitation of prisoners coming out from there when Centrica took the big decision, a bit like the one already cited, to recruit its fitters from those who were in Reading jail. That solved its problems of finding appropriately qualified people to take on that work but also had a huge impact on those lives.

The Bill contains a detailed plan for the revision of the current situation affecting spent sentences, and we support it. In his opening remarks, the noble Lord made the point that the Bill is very specific and detailed but actually it conceals a much broader concern, and it would be a pity if we lost that. I hope that when the Minister responds she will engage with that. The Bill seems to be based on a feeling that the present system needs a fundamental overhaul and to map more closely changes in the criminal justice system, and also go wider than that because of the changes that are currently being made in the use of the disclosure system. It probably needs an independent, wide-ranging inquiry, and that inquiry is now long overdue.

It is really about what sort of society we want to live in and the Bill challenges us to live up to the ideals of fairness and proportionality that should be present in our criminal justice system, as they must in many other areas of society. It is also important to pick up what a number of speakers have mentioned, that it seems to be a particularly English and Welsh problem that we cannot sort this out in the way that has been suggested today. We have already made significant changes to the disclosure arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Why can these not be rolled out into England and Wales as quickly as possible?

As others have, I acknowledge the excellent report produced by the Library to prepare us for this debate, and I am also grateful to Unlock for its briefing; I will draw a little bit on that. In the speeches today and the material that has been circulated, the general view seems to be that the reforms made by the 2012 Act have not met the needs of either prisoners or the general public. We have heard today that rehabilitation periods remain too lengthy and in any case are not evidence based. Some convictions are never spent regardless of the progress made by the individual—an invisible punishment, it has been called—which will for ever shadow the individual and prevent full rehabilitation and re-engagement in society. Surely people must have the opportunity to have positive things they have done since leaving prison recognised in law, allowing them to be legally rehabilitated.

I was struck by the force of the argument made in one paper that the law should recognise a presumption that no one who is released from prison should face a lifetime of disclosure without the prospect of a review at some point. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, we must not have a situation which wrecks lives; there must be some rehabilitation process available. As others have mentioned, something really must be wrong with a system that allows someone who has received an eight-month prison sentence for actual bodily harm to have their conviction spent before somebody who merely received a fine, for example, for speeding.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, asked whether there was not a need to look critically at the way in which employers can get on to the list of excepted professions and cited the rise in the numbers of applications made for information about individuals under that provision. There are very few criteria in present law for how jobs are granted excepted status and the system seems to be too blunt, too unclear and too broad. We need to have much more detail about the thinking behind what rights prospective employees have in regard to employers asking for information about their offending history, and make sure that these are widely available.

A number of people mentioned the Taylor review, part of which was reproduced in the Library briefing that was circulated. It has some force, since it seems extraordinary to read that,

“a criminal record acquired in childhood can have far-reaching effects that go well beyond the original sentence or disposal. Certain sentences … never become spent … certain convictions or cautions will always be disclosed when an individual seeks employment … A key principle underpinning”,

the approach to the Taylor review was that,

“children who break the law should be dealt with differently from adults”.

That does not seem to happen, and I share the view that the current system needs to have a completely different approach for children, as opposed to adults.

In the previous debate on an earlier version of this Bill, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti indicated support for it, describing the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act as “completely outdated” and the rehabilitation periods it enforces as,

“overlong and not based on any real evidence”.—[Official Report, 27/1/17; col. 939.]

This remains the position of the Labour Party. The Government’s response today, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, hinted, is likely to be that the current disclosure arrangements, including rehabilitation periods, are proportionate and strike the right balance between protecting the public and the individual’s right to privacy. I think that is bonkers, and I hope they have been listening to this debate.

14:47

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for bringing this matter back to the House for debate today. Noble Lords have powerfully raised a number of important and varied issues. Like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I do not want to speak for too long or to create any hostages to fortune, so if I am not able to respond to all the issues I will of course write.

Rehabilitation is one of the most important objectives of our criminal justice system and the Government support all ex-offenders who wish to turn their lives around. Work can reduce the likelihood of re-offending, as we have heard today, and for many it is a central element in leading a rehabilitated life. This is why the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act—or ROA—provides that rehabilitated offenders will be treated as though they had not committed the offence and, subject to exceptions, will not be required to disclose spent cautions and convictions.

While this is familiar to many noble Lords, it may help if I briefly describe the ROA and how it supports ex-offenders. Under the Act, most convictions and all cautions will become spent following a certain period of time. That period varies according to the disposal or sentence imposed for the crime. Convictions resulting in non-custodial sentences and those resulting in custodial sentences of up to, and including, four years become spent. Where a caution or conviction has become spent, the offender is treated as rehabilitated in respect of that offence and is free to withhold the fact of that caution or conviction for most purposes. This includes when applying for most jobs, as well as when applying for insurance or a bank loan.

However, the protections afforded by the Act are excluded in respect of specified areas of employment. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 lists areas of activity and proceedings that are exceptions to the Act. This means that an employer or other relevant body is entitled to ask for, and take into account, certain details of a person’s spent cautions and convictions, as well as any unspent cautions and convictions. These activities usually involve working with children or vulnerable adults, or where sensitive information is handled and there is a risk to the public of an abuse of trust.

I now come to the specific proposals that the noble Lord has included in his Bill. As I understand it, the intended effects of the main amendments include: bringing all determinate custodial sentences of any length, except extended sentences for certain sexual and violent offenders, within the scope of the ROA, whereas currently only custodial sentences of up to and including four years may become spent; reducing the rehabilitation periods that apply to a range of sentencing disposals for both adult and juvenile convictions, so that they become spent more quickly; removing the rehabilitation periods applicable to fines and some other sentences, including some non-custodial sentences and sentences under the Mental Health Act 1983; and commencing the amendments to the ROA that were made in 2014, in so far as they relate to road traffic endorsements. The intended effect is that rehabilitation periods for road traffic endorsements would be reduced. They are currently of five years.

The current rehabilitation periods were introduced almost four years ago, in March 2014, when reforms to the ROA were commenced through provisions in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. A conviction resulting in a custodial sentence of four years, or 48 months, or less may now become spent with the exception of offenders serving extended sentences. Previously, only convictions resulting in custodial sentences of 30 months or less could become spent. At the same time, most other rehabilitation periods were also reduced. Rehabilitation periods are substantially shorter for individuals who were under the age of 18 when they were convicted.

The Government believe that these reforms, which were approved relatively recently by Parliament, are proportionate and strike the right balance between protecting the public and helping ex-offenders to put their criminal pasts behind them. The Government are therefore not minded to support the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, or the intentions behind it at this time. However, we give careful consideration to maintaining a policy which balances protecting the public and supporting rehabilitation, which is why the debate today is welcome.

I turn now to the nuances of the Government’s position, and I hope it will be helpful if I say something about the position and why we have taken it. Noble Lords will be aware, as it has been mentioned today, that aspects of the disclosure regime are currently being challenged in the courts. Several joined cases—P and others—are due to be heard this summer by the Supreme Court. These cases focus on the question of whether the current scheme, which sets out which cautions and convictions can be filtered from criminal record certificates in certain circumstances, is compatible with rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; that is, the right to respect for a private and family life.

Filtering provides that certain old and minor convictions and cautions are protected from disclosure and are no longer included on a standard or enhanced criminal record certificate. Filtering does not apply to convictions where an individual has committed a specified serious offence, has more than one conviction or has received a custodial sentence. Filtering also does not apply to any caution for a serious offence. For individuals who were convicted or cautioned below the age of 18, convictions and cautions are filtered more quickly in acknowledgement of the special importance of supporting those who get into trouble when they are young to put the past behind them. The filtering arrangements seek to strike a difficult balance between the rehabilitation of offenders, their right to privacy and the protection of the public.

Noble Lords may ask why we cannot take a view on this Bill now, given that the Supreme Court litigation does not directly challenge the 1974 Act. The Government believe that it is sensible to consider any proposals for change to the current disclosure arrangements in conjunction with an authoritative judgment of the Supreme Court on the requirements of Article 8 in this context. Although the litigation relates to the filtering rules, we think it is necessary to consider the disclosure regime in the round.

The disclosure system has also been considered in a number of recent reports—for example, David Lammy MP’s review into the treatment of and outcomes for black, Asian, and minority-ethnic individuals in the criminal justice system, and Charlie Taylor’s review of the youth justice system. David Lammy called for a discretionary process for criminal records to be sealed and we confirmed in our response at the end of last year that we would consider the recommendation, following the conclusion of the ongoing litigation. We also stated that we would also consider the recommendations made by Charlie Taylor in his report.

Most recently, on 31 January this year the Government published our response to the Justice Committee’s report on the disclosure of youth criminal records, a report that commended the earlier proposals by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, as representing a reforming consensus. This is a very important area, as noted by the noble Lords, Lord Carlile, Lord Dholakia and Lord McNally. Our response noted that the committee’s report was reflective of the long-running debate on how the disclosure regime should balance the objectives of securing public safety and respecting an individual’s right to privacy. As for the report’s recommendations on reform to the statute, the Government made the following statements, and it is worth reading them in full:

“The Committee makes a number of recommendations and conclusions relating to the legislation which governs the filtering of convictions and cautions from criminal records certificates. The Government notes these recommendations and the Committee’s concerns. However, against the backdrop of the litigation, the Government believes that it is appropriate to consider these recommendations in conjunction with an authoritative”,


statement from the Supreme Court. The Government’s response continues:

“The Committee has suggested that the rehabilitation periods set out in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which are not subject to challenge in P and Others, should be reconsidered. The Government considers that it is important to consider the Committee’s recommendations regarding different aspects of the disclosure system in the round, and will therefore consider this recommendation alongside the others”.


So we are not able to support the noble Lord’s Bill at this time, but we would welcome the opportunity to speak to him further in the interim about how we can increase the support available to ex-offenders. We are making continuing progress in a number of areas, and a wide range of initiatives are ensuring that offenders have the skills and experience that they need.

We are also looking at the reform of education. It remains at the heart of prison reform. Earlier this month, the MoJ launched the procurement process for the new education contracts that will underpin the delivery of learning and skills in prisons from April 2019.

Turning to employability, I note specifically the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. We continue to work with Business in the Community on its Ban the Box campaign, calling on employers to give ex-offenders a fair chance to compete for jobs by removing the tick-box for unspent cautions and convictions. We also need to ensure that people with convictions, particularly children and young people, understand when and how they need to disclose their criminal record. The MoJ will work with stakeholders to improve government guidance and information available online to make sure that it is clear, consistent and easily accessible so that people understand their rights and responsibilities in respect of disclosing their criminal record. We will set up a stakeholder panel with a number of charities and voluntary sector organisations to make sure that the information we provide is consistent, up to date and accessible through online and offline channels.

I turn to a few of the points raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, raised the question of ineligible criminal record checks. The DBS publishes guidance on eligibility to support employers and registered bodies. Should an applicant feel that they have been asked to undertake a DBS check in relation to a role that is not eligible, they can contact the DBS to investigate. The DBS can suspend or cancel the registration of a registered body that fails to comply with the code. Knowingly carrying out an unlawful criminal record check is an offence under the Police Act 1997.

The noble Lord also asked about the Law Commission’s recommendations. In the summer of 2016 the Home Office Minister invited the commission to undertake a review of the list of offences that are always subject to disclosure—that is, those that are never filtered. The Home Office and the MoJ are considering the recommendations made in the report. These include the current list of offences that are never filtered, which was drafted by the Law Commission based on a strict interpretation of the existing SI.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, along with many other Lords, asked why the Government are not considering these recommendations before the litigation. I think I have spoken sufficiently on this area, but I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, mentioned that policy-making and legislation must be evidence based, and I agree, and we must surely hear the views of the highest court in the land, which is why it is important that we hear from the Supreme Court before we consider the recommendations of the noble Lord and others such as David Lammy, Charlie Taylor and the Justice Select Committee.

Turning to comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about the article in the Times about the prison population, we want prisoner numbers to come down, but we will not set an arbitrary figure. The purpose of prison is of course twofold. It is for justice for victims and the wider public by holding those in prison to account, but it is also a place for rehabilitation, and we must do much better by offenders and ensure that where we are able more swiftly to rehabilitate them by using home detention curfew or release on temporary licence, we use them when appropriate.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, mentioned the cost of reoffending, and I can confirm that the latest estimate based on figures from the National Audit Office is that the annual cost to society of reoffending is £15 billion.

In conclusion, I can only reiterate that we will consider the noble Lord’s proposals, among others, when we have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s judgment later this year. This means we are unable to support his Bill today but we welcome his continued involvement in the issue. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate.

15:01

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very disappointing response. I, of course, welcome any discussion with officials but I want to bring to them members of Unlock, the Committee for Youth Justice and the Law Commission, who know far more about the practicalities than any official who wrote either the Minister’s disappointing response or the very negative report sent to the Select Committee on Justice in the other place following its report.

I despair, because here we have evidence coming from the ground of people facing impossible conditions. It has been relentless and supported by all parties in this House. I am extremely grateful to all those who spoke, particularly the representatives of the two Opposition Front Benches, for their support for the Bill. I know that the Bishop for Prisons was widely behind it as well. All parts of this House are supporting it based on the evidence. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, we must take action based on the evidence.

That evidence is overwhelming. It has now been 19 years since the Better Regulation Task Force reported, and 19 years of doing nothing is simply not good enough. I despair of a Government who say that the evidence is not strong enough. Once, I was a member of an independent commission set up to look at asylum. We described the attitude of officials in the Home Office as a culture of disbelief. The culture of disbelief is unfortunately spreading into the Ministry of Justice as far as any outside evidence of what needs to be done is concerned. I wish that the Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty’s Prison Service would set an example by using several ex-prisoners who have come up with imaginative ideas for rehabilitating people in prisons. They are often refused because they are ex-prisoners. This includes drugs counsellors and others with practical experience. If only the Ministry of Justice would wake up to the fact that these people are very often the right people to bring in—because the voice of experience is terribly strong. I wish that message could come across.

I am extremely grateful to those who have taken part, and look forward to having discussions with officials to try to persuade the Government that they must make progress, as they have heard today from all speakers. I despair of waiting until June for that to happen. Surely to goodness we can start the process before the June judgment. The judgment has gone against the Government twice, once in the High Court and once in the Court of Appeal, so I wonder whether there will be any change. I ask the House to give the Criminal Records Bill a Second Reading.

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

House adjourned at 3.06 pm.