Medical Innovation Bill [HL]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Giddens (Lab)
I support Amendments 1 and 6 —the latter because I speak as someone who has spent much of his life studying innovation. I recognise that the backdrop to this Bill is the massive acceleration of innovation in some core areas of medicine, so the point is to try to bridge the gap between that and the time taken to test medicines. However, I will comment especially on Amendment 1, even though I cannot hope to match the rhetorical power of my noble friend Lord Winston.
I have stressed several times in the debate the crucial importance of looking for possible unintended or even perverse consequences that the Bill could have. Amendment 1 is very worth while for this reason. It would certainly be a perverse outcome of the Bill if it had the effect of inhibiting or slowing down emergency measures where they need to be taken, and I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, might be prepared to accept both the amendments, which seem to me to add strength to the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, as far as Amendment 1 is concerned, I think that the later amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Saatchi has the same effect. Amendment 1 is very clear on the matter, and I think that it has been the law that emergency treatments are dealt with in a way that is suitable for the emergency. Accordingly, something of this sort in the Bill is an improvement.
I find Amendment 6 more difficult. As I said in Committee, “innovation” is an ordinary word in the English language, so to try to list all possible innovations seems to suggest a foreknowledge of what innovations may be introduced in the future. It requires unnecessary precision. As I said, “innovation” is a reasonably simple word and it is easy for a practitioner to carry it in their head. I venture to think that Amendment 6 would be somewhat more difficult to carry in your head. I have read it, of course, but I would find it quite difficult to repeat it now without reading it, so I will not attempt that test.
On the later amendments, it seems to me that emergency medicine is certainly not intended to be dealt with by the Bill. It is obviously intended to deal with a deliberate decision to administer a treatment into which has gone a degree of consultation and prior thought. I am therefore entirely of the view that innovation ought not to be covered by it. In so far as my noble friend Lord Saatchi’s amendment does not do that already, Amendment 1 is very acceptable so far as I am concerned.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, as this is the first contribution from the Front Bench to the discussion of today’s amendments, perhaps I may again place on the record our support for the key principles and intent of the Bill. As we stress, Labour has always strongly supported efforts to bring innovative treatments to patients faster, and we underline the need for a major effort by government to address the barriers and bureaucracy that prevent progress being made and ensure that innovations are rapidly transcribed into practice. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, recently held a short debate in the Moses Room on the impact of innovation and research strategies on health improvement. It provided an excellent overview of the key issues, the progress being made, and the problems still to be addressed. We are keen to ensure that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, is seen in the context of this wider, bigger picture. I know that the noble Lord accepts that his Bill will be one measure in the broader landscape of what needs to be done.
Along with my noble friend Lord Turnberg, I am also grateful to the noble Lord for the efforts he has made to address the issues and concerns raised by noble Lords across the House. In Committee we underlined our broad support for the changes—the “Sir Bruce Keogh amendments”, as they are now known—which have been made to ensure patient safety and safeguarding. We also found the round-table discussions for Peers that were organised by the noble Lord following our suggestions in Committee very valuable and useful. Again, we are broadly supportive of the new amendments he has brought forward today, which are the result of the discussions, on emergency care, on the recording of key information in the notes of the patient receiving the treatment, on excluding cosmetic surgery from the scope of the Bill, and on ensuring the preservation of the existing law about clinical trials and other forms of research.
My noble friend Lord Winston continues to express strong concerns about the Bill, and his amendments are designed to add further safeguards and limitations on the scope. He fully reflects the continuing concerns that have been voiced by a number of key stakeholders and doctors, including the BMA and the Medical Practitioners’ Union, which have issued further detailed briefs warning against the possible consequences of the Bill. At my noble friend’s instigation, I have read carefully Tuesday’s Adjournment debate in the House of Commons on patient safety and medical innovation, and in particular the contributions from Dr Sarah Wollaston MP, who expressed the strong criticisms we have heard from the noble Lord and the Bill’s critics, and the contribution from the Minister for Life Sciences, George Freeman. I thought that Dr Wollaston’s contribution well reflected the issues and concerns we have heard in this House—but also that the Minister presented a pretty balanced response as to where we are today in terms of the safeguards and workability of the Bill.
For our part, we have sought to work constructively with the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, and other noble Lords to improve the Bill and to make it workable and safe for patients. The round-table discussions particularly focused on the outstanding areas of our concerns which we are discussing today. First, there is the issue of obtaining written consent from the appropriately qualified doctor in relation to the proposed treatment, which will come up in the next group. Secondly, we seek to ensure that the Bill does not impact on or affect the existing law on clinical trials and other forms of research. We are satisfied that Amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, have the effect of reinforcing this in the Bill.
Thirdly, we desire to see a definition of “innovation” in the Bill and we have sympathy for the arguments that key areas need to be excluded from its scope, as again set out in the amendment retabled by my noble friend Lord Winston. The Department of Health has argued strongly that any definition of innovation would need to be the subject of a widespread, cross-government consultation that should include the devolved Governments. We have made a dignified retreat on our particular amendment and we accept the difficulties that would be involved at this stage in the progress of the Bill. However, my noble friend Lord Winston has made a strong case for defining innovation in respect of medical treatments and the use of drugs, and I look forward to the responses of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. Like my noble friend Lord Turnberg, we think that a form of words based on that would provide a useful clarification.
On exclusions, the briefing on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, states that he has considered attempting to define the extent and scope of the Bill, but has found it impossible to do so in a way that answers more questions than it raises. However, Amendment 10 does provide the important exclusion of cosmetic surgery that was sought by noble Lords across the House, and we welcome this. At the round table there was discussion about the possibility of the scope of the Bill referring to the regulated branches of medicine to distinguish the areas it covers. My noble friend Lord Winston makes this point in Amendment 12 in relation to excluding practitioners and health workers who are not registered with the General Medical Council or the General Dental Council.
Fourthly, I turn to the very important issue of emergency situations in the treatment of patients, which is a strong area of concern for noble Lords across the House, including my noble friends Lord Turnberg and Lord Winston, and the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. Amendments 14 and 15 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, address this by providing a reference to emergencies as an example of a situation in which the existing common law Bolam test would apply and a doctor might not engage in the procedures of the Bill. But if there is further clarification in respect of the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Winston, we would be grateful for that. Amendment 1 raises other issues in respect of emergency care, and again I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, and the Minister in response.
As I have said, we have worked constructively with the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, to make the Bill safe and workable, and we believe that the amendments that were made in Committee—and that we hope will be made today—will make it a better Bill. It has strong support, but we know that key stakeholders still have major concerns. There needs to be strong commitment from the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, and the Government to address these issues and ensure that there is full consultation on the regulations, guidance and codes that will enforce its implementation. The registration of innovative treatments will be crucial, and this will be picked up by my noble friend Lord Hunt under our amendment later.
Finally, I remind the House of the four key tests of what the Bill will achieve, which were set out to the House of Commons by the Health Minister, Dr Daniel Poulter. He said that the Bill must,
“ensure it does not … put patients at risk … deter good and responsible innovation … place an undue bureaucratic burden on the National Health Service; or … expose doctors to a risk of additional liabilities”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/14; col. 999W.]
Again, I would be pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, and the Minister as to whether they consider that the Bill in its amended form will achieve this.
Lord Winston
It is very kind of the Front Bench to offer that possibility. If I were to degroup an amendment, I would degroup the stem cell one and put it with Amendment 5, as it would fit better with patient safety. One of my difficulties is that the groupings are slightly odd in terms of the relevance of the different aspects of my amendments.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My understanding of the groupings system is that those who have views on the amendments should take the opportunity to speak when the relevant group is first dealt with, but it does not preclude a noble Lord who has tabled an amendment speaking when the amendment is called in the ordinary course of events. As your Lordships know, following a debate an amendment is often called as being not moved, but the person who tabled the amendment has the option to move it at that point. Therefore, in that sense there are two opportunities to speak. However, in order to try to make the procedure as economical as possible, the general idea of the groupings system is to enable a group of amendments to be considered as a whole on the basis that, rightly or wrongly, such consideration is facilitated in that way.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Perhaps I may raise a point. When you table an amendment, you are usually sent a draft list of the groupings. You are asked whether you are happy with that or whether you want your amendment to be grouped separately. I wonder why that has not happened in this case.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, I am not certain whether the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, makes things easier by suggesting in Amendment 3 that one should move from views to support, for two reasons. One is that we have a later amendment that refers to views and the recording of them. The other is that I would have thought it would be important to record the spectrum of views concerned, not just the support—the negative views as well as the positive. So I have my doubts about Amendment 3.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I think that we would all take the view that the last thing we want to do in any sort of legislation is endanger patient safety. However, I suggest that the honourable Honor Smith was not acting under my noble friend Lord Saatchi’s Bill; she was acting, I take it, under the law that existed at that time. Therefore, even in the best regulated circles, with no provision for innovation, something can happen. No doubt the lady thought that she was doing the right thing when she did it, but it turned out ultimately that that was not so.
With regard to the Bill, the ultimate test of the defence is whether it is in the best interests of the patient. In taking account of views from qualified people in the area, that is an important factor. It is necessary that a doctor who is going to use this treatment should be able to satisfy the court that, in the light of the available evidence at the time when the decision was taken, this decision was in the best interests of the patient. Therefore, endangering a patient strikes me as something that is already covered quite clearly by that requirement. The mention of danger must be an important aspect of the best interests of the patient, surely.
On Amendment 2 from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, he talks about the body of medical opinion. The cases that I know of talk about “a” body; lawyers certainly do not often agree one with another and I think that sometimes doctors do not agree either. Someone therefore has to make a choice from time to time.
It is perfectly clear that we all want to prevent patients from being put in danger. I have seen and listened to the programmes by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, about the injection of stem cells into people for money in different parts of the world without the promised success ensuing from that. I am sure that there is a danger in that area. Indeed, there are dangers in many areas. However, the problem for the doctor—and I am glad in a way that this responsibility is not the kind of responsibility that one has to carry generally in other professions—is that it is the life of the patient that may well be in question. Therefore, in taking an innovative step it is essential that the views which are available in relation to the matter and which are reasonably readily available to the doctor making the decision to use the treatment are taken fully into account. That is what this Bill is trying to do.
The Bill is set out as providing for responsible innovation. One of the fundamental elements of responsibility must be the patient’s safety. While I entirely agree with the view that that is an important issue, I believe that the Bill safeguards that so far as possible. The experience to which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred is an example of what can happen. On the other hand, you cannot make certain; nothing is infallible. I believe that from that point of view this is as good as we can achieve.
Baroness Wheeler
This is a very important group dealing with patient safety. I shall briefly intervene in support of my noble friend Lord Turnberg’s Amendment 3, which refers to seeking the support of the appropriately qualified doctor rather than his or her views, and to support Amendment 7 from the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, on recording the treatment and consultation on the patient’s notes.
Our firm preference was for the Bill to specify the need for the written consent of the appropriately qualified doctor, but we have heard senior medical doctors’ concerns about giving formal written consent to another doctor’s proposed course of treatment for the patient without knowing their full history and other circumstances.
As my noble friend Lord Turnberg said, there is something of an irony in a Bill designed to address doctors’ fears of litigation running the risk of opening up the fear of litigation from the supporting doctor. We consider “support” to be preferable to the doctor’s “views” and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, can respond positively to this as a way of reassuring patients and their carers and relatives and enhancing patient safety.
My noble friend Lord Winston’s Amendment 2 seeks additional safeguards for patient safety by reference to excluding treatment where a,
“body of responsible medical opinion”,
considers that the treatment is likely seriously or unreasonably to compromise patient safety. He has raised some very important issues here, particularly in response to cancer treatment, and I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, or the Minister.
The clarification the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, provides in Amendment 7 concerning the issues to be recorded in the patient’s notes provides welcome safeguards. It does not include the full range of issues, covered under Clause 1(3), which noble Lords have been concerned to see recorded in the patient’s notes, but it goes some way to providing the greater transparency and accountability that we all wish to see, particularly in recording the doctor’s decision to depart from the existing range of accepted medical treatments for the patient’s condition and the explanation of the proposed treatment.
Finally, we have considerable sympathy with Amendment 13 for the reasons ably put forward by my noble friends Lord Winston and Lord Turnberg, and I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, or the Minister on this issue.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, I support the amendment, as do many organisations. They say that it is essential that provision is made for collecting and sharing data to ensure that information, both on beneficial and harmful effects of treatment, is captured for the benefit and subsequent use of patients. We should be much better at collecting data than we are at present. This is important for research, but also for safeguarding patients. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, one of the purposes of the amendment, as I understand it, is as the noble Baroness has said: to record the results of an innovative treatment for the benefit of succeeding generations. If innovative treatment has been successful in a particular case, the details of that case are required to make sure of the extent to which the results might be expected to follow in another case. I regard it as important that that should happen. I understand—no doubt this will be explained later—that there are possibilities of voluntary registration systems being set up. The Government may be able to help us on that, but I regard it as essential, if the Bill is to achieve its purpose, that the innovations, particularly if they are successful, are not kept secret. If they are unsuccessful it is also wise to warn people off later attempts.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that all attempts at innovation are recorded, not simply those that are successful. A voluntary register might allow those who have some mishap with their innovation not to register. The whole point of having a more than voluntary register is important. I am very supportive of the amendment.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, in so doing, it would be valuable if the Minister could go back to the central theme of today’s debate, which is patient safety, not the protection of doctors from clinical negligence claims. If we are focused on patient safety, any failure to collect valuable information, whether positive or negative, would compromise patient safety—not perhaps the safety of that individual patient at that moment but patient safety generally. The collection of data here is of fundamental importance. I cannot see the reasons why it should not be compulsory.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Do I understand that the position that the Government are taking is a technical one on the scope of this Private Member’s Bill and that it would be improper in a Private Member’s Bill to set up a register that would go beyond the scope of this Bill as to the innovations that it covers? The idea is to set up a register that would be wider in its scope than the mere innovations that take place under this Bill, assuming that it becomes an Act. Is that the difficulty?
Baroness Jolly
I thank my noble and learned friend for helping me out. I thought that I said at the onset that this was felt by the Government to be outside the scope of the Private Member’s Bill. But they are very sympathetic to the idea and have already started to have conversations. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, talked about safety and, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, responsibility is another thing. The Government see it as the responsibility of doctors to enter on to the registry. In the mean time, I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Assisted Dying Bill [HL]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
I had intended to make a short observation but the intervention came from the opposite Front Bench, so I did not find it possible to speak. I rather go with the form of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, subject to this. It is essential in the Bill that there should be a terminal illness. That is a very important issue which requires determination before the Bill operates. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as far as it goes, does not actually require—if I have understood it right, and I am subject to correction like everybody else—the judge to be satisfied that the patient is suffering from a terminal illness. I think that that is a part of the definition that requires to be taken into account.
For my part, I was rather expecting that the detail of the amendment would be settled before Report. In the mean time, what we are really considering is whether, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, there should be judicial intervention at all. On that point, I think that a very large proportion of the noble Lords here today are rather in favour of it. However, the precise detail of it is quite important. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that it is right that we should settle on the particular form of the amendment today.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I very strongly support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I actually think that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has a great deal to commend it, and I would have said that to him. However, the point made by the noble and learned Lord is terribly important. Who is going to be the deciding factor on the terminal illness? I believe that this is an enormously important issue for Report—and I am at the moment assuming that the Government will give us time to have Report. I refer to what was said by the noble Lord on the Front Bench. This has got to a point of such importance that I really do not think that it should be addressed at this stage.
Baroness Murphy
I am happy to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. Of course people change in their capacity. The way in which the Bill is phrased and the way in which the code of practice needs to be devised must take account of people’s changing capacity. I accept that completely. The noble Lord is right; people change in their capacity.
Amendment 54 adds a provision in the Bill that a patient should be referred to a specialist if there is any doubt in the minds of the attending consulting physicians on the patient’s capacity. That safeguard is in the Oregon legislation and is worthy of being put in this Bill. It could easily be put into the code of practice also, and that is where those of us who originally were concerned about the Bill had in mind for that provision to go. However, if people would feel more reassured that it should be in the Bill, I would support that. We must get away from the notion that doctors somehow do not understand capacity or use it. They do so every day of the week—not always perfectly but sufficiently to this end. We cannot expect that people should have a sort of supercapacity over and above what is generally accepted by the courts.
This issue was given a great deal of thought during the creation of the Mental Capacity Act, but ultimately the way that Acts are implemented has to depend on the way that codes of practice are devised. That is where the professions must come in: to help us and to tell us what they would like and what people think. To take a very good point made by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, this is not just an issue for doctors to decide; it is about other people coming in to say what the code of practice would look like and what lawyers, relatives, indeed all of us would think was an appropriate level of mental capacity. It will, of course, be extremely high and quite different from testamentary capacity, where the test is quite low.
I propose that we support Amendments 54 and 59, but I do not support the amendments at the beginning of the group.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, technically speaking this is a debate on Amendment 6, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney. Some of the observations that have been made are not very clearly directed to that. All the same, I will talk about one of them.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, is best dealt with by Clause 4(2)(c): that the doctors administering the poison are to be sure that they have confirmed that the person has not revoked and does not intend to revoke their declaration at the last minute. As has been said, the patient has the last word in this sense: they can stop the injection if they do not want to have it at that point. If they have changed their mind following the declaration, there is ample safeguard in the Bill against any, as it were, forced injection.
I will say one thing on the intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. As I understand it, if we bring children into the world we have responsibilities for them. Those responsibilities should not be regarded as burdens that are somehow affected by the Bill. It would be extremely dangerous to take the view, for example, that a disabled child should feel responsible for the care responsibilities that they put on their parents. If that child thinks that there is an obligation to die, because it is the only way to remove that obligation from their parents, then that is a most dangerous doctrine. In view of what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said, I felt that that was something that needed to be put on record.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I believe we are debating the whole of the group, although I do agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, that the assessment of capacity and settlement of the decision needs to be done at the moment that that decision is finalised. I do not think that the other amendments in the group are rigorous enough. My Amendments 71 and 151 have three main elements. I am drawing on my experience as a psychiatrist working with disabled people—in particular people with intellectual disabilities—and of teaching medical students about the assessment of capacity for more than 30 years.
The first element to which I want to draw attention is that, in consideration of any request for assistance with suicide, positive action is taken to establish that there is no evidence of mental disorder. The second element is the need to establish the presence of a decision-making capacity that is commensurate with a decision of this nature, as has already been suggested by my noble friend. Thirdly, the amendments propose a regime for ensuring that clinical opinions about the absence of mental disorder and the presence of decision-making capacity are taken on the basis of expert assessment.
There are in England and Wales two circumstances when a person is not permitted to make healthcare decisions themselves. One is when they lack mental capacity in relation to the relevant decision. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 applies to many decisions but assistance with suicide is explicitly excluded. Other noble Lords will explain more about decision-making capacity and the findings of the recent post-legislative scrutiny Select Committee of your Lordships’ House which examined this Act and of which I was a member.
The other circumstance when people are not permitted to make healthcare decisions for themselves is when they suffer from a mental disorder of a nature or degree that warrants, for assessment under Section 2, or makes it necessary, for treatment under Section 3, for the person to be in hospital in the interests of their health or safety or for the protection of others. If a person was depressed or anxious and wished to kill themselves, they would normally be stopped from doing so with the authority of the Mental Health Act 1983, so the additional assessments that I am suggesting in this amendment should relate not only to impaired judgment but, first, to whether the person has a mental disorder.
I remind noble Lords that the definition of mental disorder is,
“any disorder or disability of the mind”.
The psychiatrist making such an assessment must be Section 12 approved, as required by the Mental Health Act. The Mental Health Act is risk based, not capacity based. If it is in the interests of his health, a person with a mental disorder can be detained and treated. It overrides personal autonomy. The Mental Health Act does not require any impairment of judgment or decision-making capacity to be present.
If you have a mental disorder then, whether you are capacitous or not, you will not be given assistance to die. The Mental Health Act would take precedence and the person’s mental illness would need to be treated effectively before any assessment of their decision-making capacity was made. Therefore, the Mental Health Act provides another safeguard.
As I read the Bill, nothing would stop patients detained under the Mental Health Act, if they retained decision-making capacity, from being given medication to end their life. That is clearly wrong. I shall go further: it relates not just to patients who are already detained but to those who, if assessed, would meet the criteria for detention in order to treat their mental illness.
Wishing to end one’s life is a common symptom of mental illness, normally regarded as constituting grounds for psychiatric assessment. Suicide itself is not unlawful but, as a society, we regard suicidal intent as a reason to protect a patient from self-harm. We do not take the view that we should intervene in a case of suicidal intent only if we have reason to believe that the person concerned lacks capacity; we assume that a person who announces or otherwise indicates intent to take his or her own life is not acting rationally, and we do everything possible to discourage or prevent him or her proceeding. That is what all the suicide watches and all the suicide prevention strategies that successive Governments have introduced in recent years are about. Indeed, the national confidential inquiry into suicide and homicide, NCISH, which I chaired from 2007 to 2010, was set up to inform clinical practice and health policy with a view to reducing suicide rates.
The noble and learned Lord’s Bill makes it clear at Clause 6 that it is seeking to amend the Suicide Act 1961. Some may not see the provision of lethal drugs to a seriously ill person as assistance with suicide but in law that is what it is. This leads me to conclude that the Bill is out of alignment with social attitudes to suicide.
The Assisted Dying Bill also fails to provide a strong enough assurance that a person requesting assisted suicide has the mental capacity to make this decision. Capacity assessment must be decision-specific. The more serious the decision, the greater the level of assurance required that the person making the decision has commensurate capacity; that is, a level of capacity appropriate to the decision in question. The key purpose of my amendments is to ensure that there is mandated, at least in outline, a proper process for establishing the absence of mental disorder and for taking positive action to ensure the presence of commensurate capacity.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness spoke about the young man who was operated on misguidedly by the surgeon. It reminds me that young people, 18 to 25 year-olds, might be particularly susceptible to this kind of suggestion over time. I am concerned that this particular group, who are not at the end of their lives but at the beginning and who represent a very small group within the group that we are discussing today, should be given plenty of thought, in particular because of issues around their maturity and the trauma that they may have experienced growing up.
We recognise that developmental delay can arise from trauma. We recognise that, while 18 is generally considered the age of maturity, we extend protections up to the age of 25 for young people who are leaving care. That is for a number of reasons, but in part because of the history of trauma that they have experienced. We recognise that it may take more time for them to develop. Where children or young people have not built up such large social networks, they are more dependent on those nearest to them and one should be very careful to avoid a situation in which they are drip-fed the notion that perhaps their life is not worth living and should be curtailed.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was referring to the first part as well as the second part of the amendment, although he spoke mainly about the second.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I was referring to both. Clause 1 says the applicant has to initiate it, but I want it to cover both.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I will speak to Clause 1, and in particular to the concern about young people aged from 18 to 25. As I stressed before, this is a very small group within the larger group we are discussing, and one has to be very concerned that they get the appropriate healthcare and health professional treatment so that they can make fully informed, proper decisions. It is notorious that the transition from children’s services to adult services often causes issues in the treatment of young people.
Many young people may have some difficulty in fully appreciating their own mortality. While it is easy for us to recognise, it may be more difficult for an 18 or 19 year-old to realise that ending one’s life is absolutely final. Therefore I would appreciate consideration being given to the welfare of that particular group, so that whatever progress is made on the Bill in the future, the welfare needs of 18 to 25 year-olds are taken into very careful consideration.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, my Amendment 10, which was superseded, accords with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Cavendish. I just want to explain that all I wanted to do was to put the condition about informed consent into Clause 1, which contains the lists of qualifications. There is of course a reference to informed consent later on in the Bill. That was all I wanted to do, and it goes along with what is done by Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which talks about informed wish. I therefore assume that that would be simply a technical matter of moving it.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, I follow my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. I was thinking along similar lines on Amendment 10 and fully informed decisions. I am sure that all of us want decisions to be fully informed, so I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, could before Report give some thought to whether he is satisfied that fully informed clearly includes, first, being told what the options are and, secondly, on the part of the patient, having some comprehension of what he or she is being told. Running off a list of options does not mean that the recipient is fully informed if he or she does not understand what the options really mean.
Tax: Aggressive Tax Avoidance
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
My Lords, there is very extensive academic literature about the so-called Laffer curve, and I suspect there are very different views on it in your Lordships’ House. It is undoubtedly the case at the extreme ends of the curve that if you tax very highly the rate falls of because people find ways of avoiding it, and if the tax rate is very low the rate falls off simply because the rate per taxable unit is so much less.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, is it not correct that the principal weapon of aggressive tax avoidance is misuse of allowances that are permitted for various reasons? The complexity of that system is so great that it is extremely difficult to analyse transactions to see whether or not they comply with these particular conditions properly.
Lord Newby
The noble and learned Lord points to a very important problem. There are over 1,000 tax allowances, all of which have been introduced individually for very good economic development reasons. The problem is that they are now very complicated. Some tax advisers have been extremely creative at finding ways to use these allowances, which were developed for perfectly good reasons, to enable people to avoid their tax.
Medical Innovation Bill [HL]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I shall attempt to stick to the advisory limit. This is an extremely important Bill which, as has been said, has generated a lot of opposition and very many pages of debate. I am greatly obliged to Leigh Day solicitors for presenting me with a large file on the Bill. Of course, the flow of such material has continued up to the last minute. I want briefly to summarise the Bill as I see it because I believe that it provides the best possible protection in relation to medical innovation that could be devised. You just have to look at the Bill in this way.
Clause 1(4) states:
“(4) Nothing in this section—
(a) permits a doctor to administer treatment for the purposes of research or for any purpose other than the best interests of the patient”.
This is the centre of the Bill. If you innovate, you will depart from the existing practice. The law as I understand it in respect of medical and other professional people is that, in treating their clients or patients, they have to use the reasonable care that is expected of a person of that skill. That is the fundamental rule. Other ancillaries have been developed such as the Bolam principle, which says that if there is a body of medical opinion that is responsible and relevant, that is evidence that the doctor in question has in fact exercised reasonable care. The question is this: if there is no such body, how do you exercise reasonable care?
The Bill sets out a procedure by which that can be done. It analyses the process of coming to a decision that reasonable care has been taken in the circumstances of an innovation. It sets out that this must be done by a process which is accountable, transparent and allows for full consideration of all the relevant matters. I personally do not find it easy to suggest an improvement to that particular formula. The Bill sets out in some detail the process which must be followed in order to achieve that overall objective. The first requirement is,
“consultation with appropriately qualified colleagues, including any relevant multi-disciplinary team”.
That implies consultation. I have read some opinions which suggest that it could be ignored without any consequences whatever. You can ask someone’s opinion, and if it goes against what you want to do, you just ignore it and carry on. That is not my understanding of the term “consultation” as it is used in the law. Consultation means that you have regard to the opinion. In a case where a doctor is challenged, this will have to be set out. If, for example, Dr A says, “This is very dangerous”, the defendant doctor will have to give a good reason why he thinks that that statement is not correct. That is the first stage, and of course consultation would include looking at the relevant literature on the subject.
The second requirement is,
“notification in advance to the doctor’s responsible officer”,
which is in accordance with the statutory provisions covering medical responsibility. The third requirement is,
“consideration of any opinions or requests expressed by or on behalf of the patient”.
That would include the patient’s consent, which is absolutely essential for any treatment by a doctor. It must be full consent that is given after a full explanation of the risks involved in the treatment. The fourth requirement is,
“obtaining any consents required by law”,
which, as I say, includes the consent of the patient himself or herself. The last requirement is,
“consideration of all matters that appear to the doctor to be reasonably necessary to be considered in order to reach a clinical judgment, including assessment and comparison of the actual or probable risks and consequences of different treatments”.
That is a very full assessment. As I say, I have received quite a body of literature but I have not seen any that actually formulates the way to achieve a result of reasonable care in the situation of an innovation. How do you do it if there is no body of opinion already in favour of it? How do you justify your decision as taking reasonable care? In my judgment, most of the literature that has come in from a great number of bodies, including all the professional bodies, is based on a failure to give full effect to the provisions of the Bill.
I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of three of the medical royal colleges. I am also a member of Cancer Research UK, and I join my noble friend in paying tribute to the work of the charities, particularly Cancer Research UK in its research function. I also had some experience of this area of the law when I was in private practice but, of course, as your Lordships will understand, that is rather a long time ago. I support the Bill heartily and I have seen very little in the way of suggested improvements to this line of thought.
Taxation: Rental Income
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
It is not true that the scheme just covers letting agents. As I said, there are two other categories of people who should pay tax in this case: one, in the case of tenants, if their non-resident landlord wishes to go that way; and the other for the non-resident landlord to register for self-assessment. Perhaps I may give the noble Lord and the House some sense of the scale of the income generated from this scheme. In 2011-12, companies that held residential property in the UK on which tax was paid paid a total of some £375 million.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, is there not scope for using the deduction-at-source method against rents? It seems to be at least as effective as any other likely way of getting money from people who are overseas.
Lord Newby
My Lords, that is basically how this scheme operates. A letting agent has to take some 20% of the rent and pay it over to HMRC for the non-resident landlord.
Financial Services Bill
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts(11 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
My Lords, this amendment puts on the face of the Bill a number of requirements on firms and consumers in relation to the use of the continuous payment authority. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McFall, for raising the issue. It brings us back, of course, to the very important issue of payday loans, which we were discussing earlier this afternoon. Abuse of the CPA is one of the most concerning practices of payday lenders. It does not mean that the CPA is universally the wrong method to use; it can help consumers administer their financial affairs with the minimum of fuss. However, there is clearly a problem.
As the noble Lord, Lord McFall, said, CPA is a recurring payment mechanism involving a debit or credit card; it allows a firm to take regular payments from a customer’s bank account without having to seek express authorisation for each payment. The OFT, as he set out in some detail, has highlighted its concerns in this area, particularly concerns that payday lenders are not explaining CPAs to consumers adequately and are using them in ways which do not take account of the possibility that the borrower is in financial difficulty and unable to repay. It is also concerned that lenders are, in effect, using CPA to securitise the loan and so may not make adequate checks on affordability. There is also evidence that some lenders mislead consumers about their right to cancel a CPA or put obstacles in the way of cancelling.
As the noble Lord explained, last week the OFT published revised guidance with the aim of ensuring that firms with a consumer credit licence do not misuse CPAs. The guidance makes it clear that the OFT expects lenders’ use of CPAs to be reasonable and proportionate, and that lenders must have regard to a borrower’s financial position when exercising a CPA. If a firm breaches this guidance and the OFT believes that this compromises the firm’s fitness to hold a credit licence, it can take enforcement action. The Bill gives the OFT the power to suspend consumer credit licences with immediate effect. Therefore, to that extent, there is a new power here which can be used to address the problem. We believe it is right that the OFT is taking action on this now and the Government welcome the new guidance.
However, like the noble Lord, I think that regulatory powers to address the abuse of CPAs and to ensure that consumers are protected need to be strengthened. The FSA has already made binding rules covering the use of CPAs by firms that it regulates. Once the regulation of consumer credit moves to the FCA in 2014, it will be able to extend those rules to payday lenders, which will be a major step-change in regulation of the payday loans market. I am pleased to inform the noble Lord that the FSA has confirmed its intention to carry across OFT standards on the use of CPAs when the transfer takes place to ensure that these consumer protections remain.
However, I do not agree that these requirements should be set out in statute, as the noble Lord’s amendment proposes, rather than in FCA rules. Overreliance on statute is exactly the problem that we have faced in the current regulatory regime, which relies on powers set out in the Consumer Credit Act and has resulted in an inflexible regulatory regime which cannot respond quickly to all the developments in the market and risks leaving consumers exposed to detrimental practices. Addressing this through rules will allow the FCA to impose requirements to address issues relating to the misuse of CPAs that might emerge in the future.
I hope that the noble Lord is able to take some comfort from the commitments made by the Government earlier in this debate on introducing new explicit powers for the FCA and giving the FCA a strong mandate to step in to tackle detriment caused by firms in the payday loans sector. I hope he is also assured that the FCA will have a strong and flexible toolkit at its disposal to ensure that CPAs are not abused by payday lenders. In the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask two questions. First, is there anything in the nature of a direct debit guarantee for the CPA system? Secondly, is it only people with credit licences who go in for being recipients of these payments?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I do not believe that there is a guarantee. I think that the vast bulk of people who use this system will fall into the category that the noble and learned Lord asked about. However, I will check and will write to him if there is any further information that I can give him to explain those points more fully.
Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Bill [HL]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, first I want to say a word about the document that the noble Lord, Lord Myners, received yesterday morning in the Printed Paper Office. Your Lordships will remember that in the original Explanatory Notes issued by the Government in connection with this Bill, there was reference to an Appendix C, which I came across in the course of my preparation for Second Reading. When I drew this to my noble friend’s attention, the immediate reaction was that this would be published the next day, which was a very generous and ready response. It is 100 per cent obvious, I think, that this document was not intended to be published and that the reference to Appendix C in the Explanatory Notes was a mistake—and which of us has not made a mistake? When you see the document, it demonstrates quite plainly that it was not intended to be published. However, my noble friend on the Front Bench had no reason whatever to seek to suppress a document to which reference had been made, so that we could see it for what it is.
I also emphasise, as my noble friend did at Second Reading, that the Government were not emphasising that an economic case had been established for this particular Bill and that it depended on more general considerations, which he gave. However, this document does contain some figures, and the £61 million is referred to in it. I would not wish to analyse it as it does not have the polish that you would expect from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills if it were intended for publication. The mysterious passive comes into it quite a number of times: “it is to be considered”, or, “are considered as”, and so on. It does not say who the subject of the consideration is or who actually reached that point of view. Again and again, it mentions that any detriment would be time-limited, which seems a glimpse of the obvious since a suspension is only for a limited period. On the other hand, it repeatedly refers to Great Britain being open for business. The obvious conclusion is that that also is time-limited and is therefore not much of a point, to my mind. I have to say, in fairness to my noble friend, that he did not really make that point as part of his submissions in support of this Bill.
We are concerned today only with the amendments, and I am not going to take up time in dealing with any other matters. However, I will just say what my approach to the amendments is. First, under the present law, a shop worker is entitled, if he or she is working for one of these large stores as defined in the Bill, to opt out of Sunday work. The statutory requirements are very clear and are, as my noble friend has explained, a statutory back-up. A good number of retail businesses operate within that system, but with much less requirement for notice than the statutory requirement of three months. The point that I find difficult in trying to deal with the alternative amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, is that, in the ordinary course of events, workers in this industry who have not opted out would expect to be working on the days to which this suspension applies. Therefore, if they did not wish to work on these days in any event, they would have already opted out.
The only problem is that because this Bill has come rather late, Royal Assent will be too close to the first day of suspension for the ordinary provisions of the Act to apply. Therefore, the Government have sought to deal with that point in their amendment. They provide for two months to be the proper limit for notice in that case. That seems reasonable, in the sense it will be more than two months from Royal Assent to the first day on which the suspension operates. However, I do not see that two months is particularly sacrosanct, and if that is all there is between the two amendments, I hope that by the time we get to Report later in the afternoon, it will be possible to reach an agreement. The old arbitrators’ agreement is the one that might work. Between one month and two months, six weeks would be a reasonable compromise.
It seems that this matter can readily be compromised and I see no necessity for workers to be told that they are expected to work on these Sundays. They would have to do that anyway if they had not opted out under the ordinary regime. They may have better arrangements within the retail business than statute requires, but we are concerned only with the statutory safeguards. All that is really required is that there should be a reasonable notice period for a worker who has not already given their notice but who wants not to work on the suspended Sundays for reasons connected with that. So long as a reasonable period of notice is given to him or her, that seems sufficient. I hope it will be possible to compromise on this point and forget the question of the employer having to give written notice that the employer expects the worker to work on these Sundays, because that would happen in the ordinary course of events anyway. The only difference between these Sundays and ordinary Sundays is that the hours are a bit longer. I see no need for notice and therefore, so far as I am concerned, it should be possible to reach a reasonable period of notice as a matter of compromise between the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and the one proposed by my noble friend.
Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I have form to the extent that during the 1980s I took a prominent part from this side of the House in putting forward primarily the views of the Co-operative movement. My noble friend Lord Davies of Coity referred to the victory in 1986, when the Bill brought forward by the Conservative Government was defeated. What we now have in law is, to put it crudely, a compromise that tries to meet the aims and objectives of a number of points of view. That, of course, like all compromises, needs to be worked on. It took some years. In 1994, we had the Bill. I am a registered compromiser, if compromising will make progress.
Many people have assumed that this was the end of the argument and that what was produced and is in law was going to stand, but we should not underestimate the durability and tenacity of the major retailers in this country. They would never accept the original proposal and are unhappy with the present law. I know, because of my connections on this matter, that they have been at it all the time, quite rightly, lobbying, discussing, and producing arrangements.
My question is who the Bill seeks to serve. One argument is that a number of people from all over the world will expect to be able to shop not merely for six hours on a Sunday but for 12. I asked the Library to let me have a piece of paper, which told me of the experience in those countries now. In Austria, shops are closed on a Sunday except at railway stations and airports. In Denmark, opening on a Sunday is generally prohibited, although most shops are open on eight Sundays before Christmas. In France, it is limited to selected retailers; in Northern Ireland, shops are open on Sundays from 12 till six o’clock; in Italy, shops are permitted to open for 12 Sundays per year in exceptional tourist areas; in Norway, shops are open on Sundays in December; in Portugal, high streets generally have no trading on a Sunday; and in Spain, shops on high streets are open from 10 till two o’clock on a Sunday once a month.
So when we try to anticipate whether the British people are satisfied with the existing law on a Sunday, who are we trying to appease or serve? Although I am a great supporter of retailing in general and have taken a part in various positions, we must not underestimate the fact that this can be the thin edge of the wedge in future. If it is proved afterwards that no harm has been done, those who want complete opening on Sundays, as they have always wanted, will take that as a green light. So while I appreciate what the Minister has said and done—and he has been very fair and not tried to bamboozle us—my word of caution is that we need to watch this situation like a hawk, and the major retailers, which have a great stake in this, with their business and profits. We have to be very careful that we do not go down the slippery slope and find distress.
There was an organisation in the 1980s that is still going strong, called Keep Sunday Special. The case that is made for Sunday being special, especially for shop workers, need not be stated again. It is a danger. I do not oppose the Bill, because I believe that it has good intentions, but we need to be very careful that we do not start something and finish up with less than we want.
Sunday Trading (London Olympic and Paralympic Games) Bill [HL]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak after the grandmother of Sunday trading, having survived so long since 1994. It is not without reason that there was a long debate about this subject prior to 1994 in which the grandmother played a very important part. However, when it came to debating the Bill in Parliament, Divisions arose. They were on a free vote because matters of conscience were thought to be involved in the subject matter of the Bill. In due course, these reasons were elaborated. The principal religious reason was the basis for a weekly day of rest, which was clearly set out in an article in the Times not long ago by our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, the Chief Rabbi. Of course, religious days of rest are not exclusively Christian by any means. Other religions that embrace such days of rest also have them as a precious part of their heritage. In the Christian tradition, Sunday of course is referred to in connection with the commemoration of the resurrection of our Lord.
Since 1994, Governments have raised the question of whether the restrictions in the 1994 Act should be altered. The Labour Government consulted on this matter and I remember Alistair Darling saying that it had found no appetite for change. This Government have also consulted on at least two occasions—first, in the retail review and, secondly, in the red tape review. On both occasions it appears that no appetite for change was revealed. On the great deliberation with which the Sunday trading provisions had been reached in Parliament, I must say that I found it slightly insensitive that they should have been regarded as red tape.
As the right reverend Prelate has mentioned, other aspects include family life. There are few occasions in the nature of our routines when families have the freedom to get together. On the whole, Sunday is certainly the day on which that is more possible than on most other days. Again, as the right reverend Prelate has said, that is a very important part of the structure of our society. I for one would not wish to have anything to do with arrangements that make that more difficult to carry on.
As has been said, the opening of large shops is what, after great deliberation, was prohibited or restricted by the 1994 Act. It was on the basis that small shops should be allowed to carry on. That has been the balance of our Sundays ever since.
Many people will come from countries that have their own restrictions on Sunday trading. Indeed, as the Minister said, Germany has quite strict restrictions on Sunday trading. It did, of course, relax them—it was not said exactly to what extent—in connection with the World Cup. That is a factor to be taken into account. Many people will be coming from other countries to our country for the Olympics. We hope that they will come in great numbers and that the whole event will be a complete success. Those people—some with restrictions of their own, some without—will see the normal balance of life still flourishing all the way through the Olympics.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and others in saying that the general arrangements for the Olympics have been extremely good. Some of the arrangements will still be tested—the traffic arrangements, in particular, will be tested very severely, I have no doubt—but the organisation that has been responsible for planning the Olympics has done so extremely well and I hope that the event will reward it through the extent of its success.
The idea that this should happen for eight Sundays has only recently been raised. As my noble friend Lord Cormack said during the Minister’s opening address, it is not as though the date of the Olympics has been unknown until the Budget. It reminds me of the story of the man who saw a boy running for the train. He said, “You are running fast enough now, but did you start early enough?”. We seem to have left that part out of the equation. This matter requires sensitive treatment in the ways of time as well as in the other ways to which the Minister referred. The Bill as introduced has now shown itself as requiring amendment and the Government propose to amend it.
As to the issue of workers in large shops, my noble friend Lord Newby has given the figures. One of the disturbing figures from the survey of 20,000 workers is that many of those who do not wish to work on Sunday feel pressured to do so and will feel increased pressure on the Sundays of the Olympics. After all, the family is an important unit in relation to the Olympics as well as to every other successful event in a similar situation.
The question of what good, if any, this will be for the economy is a matter of speculation. Your Lordships will have no doubt carefully studied the Explanatory Notes that have been printed on the Bill. They tell us that an impact assessment is not necessary. Notwithstanding that, my noble friend Lady Wilcox’s department has in fact carried one out and the report is at appendix C. Your Lordships might be surprised that it is hard to find appendix A and appendix B, but it is even harder to find appendix C because it is not there at all. So the impact assessment from the department is, so far, private.
The idea that the opening of big shops will be a signal that Britain is open for business strikes me as bizarre because it is a temporary measure. After the eight Sundays have passed, will that be a signal that Britain is shut for business? I certainly hope not. We need all the business that we can get, but that does not mean that we need to destroy or damage our own way of life in order to achieve it.
The procedure used in connection with the Bill distresses me considerably. It is a pity that we should have to look at this matter in a rushed way on this occasion. The workers in the industry, as well as everyone else, have to be taken into account, and I strongly feel that the letter that we have received from the union that represents the principal number of workers in the industry has to be taken into account. As I say, I am distressed by the way this has happened. Deep considerations underlie the arrangements that we have had in this country for some time—when I say “this country”, I mean England and Wales—and I am distressed that these arrangements should not be on display for people who come to visit us for the Olympics.
Notwithstanding that, I hope the Olympics will be very successful. However, I am not sure that this Bill will contribute to that particularly.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend’s committee on its excellent report. I am also extremely glad to notice the development of a consultation system on detailed tax provisions. When I was at the Bar, I spent quite a lot of my time trying to understand the tax provisions that were then extant in order to try to advise people as to how they might conduct their affairs. It was not easy then but, looking at the tax legislation that has come along in the quite long time since, the problems are no easier now than when I was looking at them. I hope that this system will indeed make it easier for advisers reliably to tell people what their tax liabilities will be if they pursue a particular course of action.
My principal point is not on what is in the Finance Bill but, rather, on what I would have liked to see in it in relation to marriage being recognised. The noble Lords who preceded me have shown that this Government agreed in their coalition, as I understand it, to recognise marriage in the tax system. I am in the happy position of having been born before 1935, so I may have the benefit of the provision to which the noble Lord who immediately preceded me spoke. I am therefore not talking about anything affecting me personally. However, I believe that this is a very important and fundamental part of dealing with the situation in our society. Those of your Lordships who were in the House then will remember that, towards the end of the previous Conservative Government, I spent quite a lot of time trying to put through a Bill to ameliorate the situation when marriages broke up. I am glad to say that the Bill was passed and is still on the statute book but, so far, it has not been implemented. I hope that may some day be rectified.
What is apparent is that if nothing is done soon on this matter, the projections are that the tax burden on one-earner married couples with two children on average wages will rise so that it is more than 50 per cent above the OECD average by 2012-13. If your Lordships look at that as against the burden in the OECD on a single person, it will increase to an incredible 80 per cent while the comparable burden in the OECD is just 52 per cent. It is obvious that this is going to get considerably worse. The primary reason for that is that when tax goes up on the individual, unless the marriage is recognised it becomes worse from the point of view of comparing a married couple with two children and a single person with no dependents.
It would perhaps take some development of the Inland Revenue computer system to recognise marriage easily in the tax system. I believe that it is important to make the necessary preparations. Apparently they are able to do it for older people without too much difficulty, as far as I can judge. I hope that they may be able to do it for the younger people as well, but I believe that that may require some preparation.
The commitment given by the coalition could wait until towards the end of the coalition period which, as we know, in the first instance will be in May, at the end of the five-year Parliament that has been provided for. That five-year period is the timetable within which this ought to be done if it is to be implemented. From my point of view, the system is so damaging to the institution of marriage that the sooner it is done, the better. Therefore, rather than leave it to the very end of their commitment, it would be extremely wise and beneficial for the Government to do it soon. I hope that my noble friend can give us some encouragement that the Government intend to do just that.
Financial Crime: Legislation
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I have sat through this debate and found it extremely interesting. I took part in the proceedings on the Bribery Act, and I would certainly like to see it brought into effect as soon as possible. It was passed with support from all parties in its present form.
I am an honorary fellow of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. I think that I am right in saying that this House struck a very strong blow against tax avoidance in a case called Ramsay some years ago when it said that artificial transactions were to be ignored when it came to assessing the tax of a company or an individual. I just wonder what has happened to that principle. Has it been submerged by the terrific complication in the tax statutes that has taken place over recent years?