Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Bill

Debate between Craig Whittaker and Wendy Morton

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 3rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Craig Whittaker]

I am extremely pleased to be able to contribute to this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) for bringing his private Member’s Bill to this House for what is now its Third Reading.

The Bill seeks to make provision for the procedure to be followed by local authorities when varying the charges to be paid for off-street parking and parking on designated highways. It amends provisions within the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. In order to consider the merits of the Bill, it is initially necessary to consider the existing powers that local authorities have with regard to parking, and how they differ from the existing regulation. Sections 41 and 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 awarded new powers to local authorities to vary car parking charges at designated on-street parking places and in off-street car parks. The discussions on the provisions that would become the 1991 Act were fairly limited, and the only debate came on Report in the Lords, when the then Government introduced a new clause on off-street car parks. The then Transport Minister, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said that the provision

“applies to variation of charges at off-street parking places. Local authorities making orders prescribing charges at off-street parking places will, in future, be able to vary those charges subsequently by the simpler public notice procedure—to be prescribed by 978 regulations made by the Secretary of State and subject to the negative resolution procedure—instead of having to make a new parking places order.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 June 1991; Vol. 529, c. 977.]

The powers that were provided through the 1991 Act are contained in sections 35C and 46A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended. The current procedures regarding the ability of local authorities to amend parking charges are stipulated also through regulation 25 of the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedures) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996—specifically, SI 1996/2489. When seeking either to increase or decrease charges, these regulations require local authorities to do following. First, they have to publish a notice of variation at least once in a newspaper that circulates within the area where the charges are to be altered at least 21 days before the proposed changes are due to come into effect. The relevant notice must also specify the date when it is due to come into force. It must stipulate which parking places the notice relates to, and outline the alterations to the charges that will take effect for each parking place. Finally, the local authority must take steps to ensure that copies of the notice are displayed in the affected areas and that these remain in a legible condition until the date when the changes come into effect.

Through amending the existing powers of the Secretary of State at sections 35C and 46A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Bill revisits the current regulations and seeks to reduce the bureaucratic burden placed on local authorities that are seeking to reduce their parking charges. Furthermore, the Bill allows for a new condition that means that local authorities will need to consult if they are looking to increase their parking charges under an existing traffic order. The intention behind the Bill is fairly clear. It seeks to give councils more flexibility to innovate with regard to the parking strategies and to make it easier for them to reduce car parking charges in order to react to particular circumstances or events, many of which we have already heard about today.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth rightly pointed out, parking policies have the potential to enhance the economic viability of our high streets, and the benefits to town centres and communities who strike the correct balance with regard to parking charges can be considerable. Before entering this House, I worked in the retail industry for 30 years, during which time I witnessed at first hand the impact that parking strategies can have on the high street. The independent retailers, traders and small businesses that are the lifeblood of our town centres rely on a balanced parking policy that promotes the regular turnover of parking spaces, manages traffic flow successfully, and ensures that the level of charges is reasonable and proportionate in relation to the retail offer that is available to consumers. My own local authority, Calderdale, has sought to introduce a range of additional charges over recent years, and has miserably failed to strike such a balance—a point I will return to shortly.

Before I do so, it is worth exploring the link between town centre prosperity and car parking provision in more detail. Of course, a plethora of different factors influences the comparative success of a town centre. It is therefore incredibly difficult to evidence a clear link between parking policies and the success of town centres. In 2013, a number of organisations, including the Association of Town and City Management, the British Parking Association, Springboard Research Ltd and Parking Data and Research International collaboratively produced a report entitled, “Re-Think! Parking on the High Street: Guidance on Parking Provision in Town and City Centres.” The report explored what evidence could be collated and what could be learned about the relationship between car parking provision and town centre success. Through analysing a range of data using a representative sample of town centres and considering primary indicators—that is, the factors that are judged to have the largest impact on the health of a town centre—the report provides some preliminary evidence that suggests important trends and provides a solid foundation for more comprehensive research.

Due to the wide range of variable factors at play, the report was tightly drawn to focus on a number of specific influences. For example, instead of considering all durations of parking, the report expressly focuses on the first two hours. It was felt that by doing so, it would cover those who had parked to go shopping and eliminate other parking habits—such as commuter parking—from the data. The variables considered included the cost of parking and the quality of spaces. Of the many indicators of town centre performance, the report measured the two key statistics of footfall and spend. Finally, the towns included were carefully selected to provide a representative sample of the town centre landscape across the UK. The report included towns in each region, spanning the entire retail hierarchy from major city to district centre level.

Because of the precise methodology and the fact that the variables chosen reflected only part of this wide and complex picture, we must naturally be cautious about the report’s findings. However, it does suggest some interesting trends. First, parking operators are making available parking provision that equates to the levels of footfall in the location. Secondly, there is no clear relationship between the car parking charges set by owners or operators and the quality of a location’s offer. Some mid-range and smaller town centres may be overcharging. Finally, the mid-range and smaller centres that charge more than the national average in relation to their offer suffered a higher-than-average decline in footfall in 2011, the year in which the data were collected.

Although we must acknowledge that the report does not constitute conclusive evidence that the cost of parking has a tangible influence on town centre prosperity, it opens up an avenue for further research and conforms to the anecdotal or common-sense opinion about the likelihood of such a link. Although the report’s suggestion that town centres with higher-than-average parking costs experienced an average decline in footfall in 2011 will hardly come as a surprise, further research is required before it can be categorically stated that any such link exists. Furthermore, the scale of the detrimental impact that higher costs may have on high streets and consumer habits is unknown and requires further investigation. Each town centre is unique and exposed to widely differing external factors, so something that is true in one context may not be true in another, but the initial trend suggested by the report should act as a wake-up call for local authorities.

That point leads me on to the record of my local authority, Calderdale Council, which has a rather chequered history when it comes to parking charges. On Second Reading a few months ago, I challenged the notion that local authorities do not use car parking charges to generate additional revenue. Although I cannot comment on the choices that other local authorities have made in the last few years, I can say a few words about Calderdale’s unflattering record in that regard.

In 2012, the cabinet of Calderdale Council approved a raft of additional car parking charges. The title of the cabinet committee paper was “The Parking Income Generation Study”. [Hon. Members: “Disgraceful!”] Indeed. The first line of the report made explicitly clear the council’s intention to

“generate additional revenue from parking.”

The proposals included a wide range of additional charges in areas in which parking had previously been free, with the aim of generating an additional £841,000 per annum. Although some of the measures outlined in the report were a genuine attempt to manage existing parking and traffic difficulties, including long-standing problems around Calderdale Royal hospital, many related to areas in which there were no identifiable problems with parking or traffic management. Such measures included the introduction of evening parking charges in previously free car parks in small market towns in my constituency, such as Brighouse, Todmorden, Ripponden and West Vale.

As Members know, local authorities are permitted to spend parking income only on certain things. The relevant legislation is section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which states:

“A local authority shall keep an account of their income and expenditure in respect of parking places for which they are the local authority”.

Subsections (4) and (5), which set out what a surplus may be spent on, are particularly relevant. If a council has used money from the general fund to plug a deficit in parking operations, a surplus may be used to pay back that money. It may be spent on meeting all or part of the cost of the provision and maintenance by the local authority of off-street parking accommodation.

If a local authority believes that the provision of further off-street parking accommodation is unnecessary or undesirable, a surplus may be used for the following purposes: to meet costs incurred, whether by the local authority or by some other person, in the provision of public transport services; for highway or road improvement projects in the area; to meet the costs incurred by a London authority in the maintenance of roads; for environmental improvement in the local authority area; or, in the case of such local authorities as may be prescribed, for any other purposes for which the authority may lawfully incur expenditure around parking.

Of course, some of the charges implemented by local authorities fit more comfortably than others within the remit of section 55 of the1984 Act. In the examples from my local authority that I gave few moments ago, it could be argued that although the measures to address parking problems around a busy hospital fall within both the letter and the spirit of the law, the proposals for cashing in on the lucrative market of evening parking charges in a busy town centre are more questionable and rather difficult to justify.

Local authorities such as Calderdale, will, I suspect, continue to try to defend their parking charge increases, however tenuous the link with the legislative guidelines and any genuine desire to improve the traffic management and parking situation in their area. The judgement in 2013 in the case of Attfield v. London Borough of Barnet, which the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) has mentioned, clarified the position of local authorities that seek to use their powers to charge local residents for parking explicitly to raise surplus revenue for other transport purposes funded by the general fund. Mrs Justice Lang said that a council could not set out with the objective of raising parking charges in order to generate a surplus to fund other transport schemes.

David Attfield, who brought the case against Barnet, admitted that he was able to win the case because the council was open about the fact that it was increasing charges to provide additional revenue. Calderdale Council’s cabinet committee paper, to which I alluded earlier, was equally explicit about the overt intention to raise charges to provide additional revenue. I suspect that had the proposal been formally challenged in the courts, an outcome similar to the verdict in Attfield v. Barnet would have been reached. Residents and community groups, not to mention opposition councillors on local authorities across the country, may wish to pay particular attention to the ways in which local authorities attempt to justify such increases in the future, because I am sure that Barnet Council is not unique in seeking to use motorists as cash cows.

In the absence of further legal challenges to local authority practices, it is up to residents and councillors to hold local politicians to account. The additional charges approved in Calderdale in 2012 formally took effect in 2014. Within months, the discontent of local residents and businesses adversely affected by the charges prompted opposition councillors to trigger a vote of no confidence in the ruling Labour council administration. The vote was carried, and within weeks of the new parking meters being installed, they were removed again on the orders of the new Conservative-led administration; that was just one example of local democracy in action. However, such is the finely balanced political landscape of Calderdale Council that, just a few years later, the same Labour cabinet is again in control and seeking to reimpose many of the same additional parking charges.

The latest proposals for additional charges hit several towns in my constituency, including Brighouse, where the local business group, the Brighouse Business Initiative, has worked incredibly hard to reinvigorate the town centre and to increase footfall. The efforts of Brighouse traders have seen the town centre flourish, and several farmers markets are run every year that bring people in from across the country.

To the dismay of traders, residents and local councillors, the council seek to impose on-street parking charges in the town centre, despite wide acknowledgement that there are currently no problems with the flow of traffic, nor with the turnover of parking spaces for consumers. Saying that the local business community is furious would be an understatement. Traders are rightly concerned about the damaging effect that the proposals could have on their businesses and livelihoods. Despite making their feelings known to the council, local Labour politicians seem content to proceed with their plans regardless of the scale of any opposition.

The Bill provides for local authorities to consult interested parties if they are seeking to increase the cost of parking charges to ensure that the impacts on towns are fully considered. That can only be a positive step forward. Local businesses, residents and councillors understand their town centres and communities. They are able to recognise which measures will work and how their local high-street economy can be properly managed. It is only right that they are consulted on any potential increases in charges and that detailed consideration is given to the impacts of such proposals on their town centres.

I appreciate that many local authorities already engage in thorough consultation with their communities on such issues, and I applaud them for doing so. However, I assure Members that that does not happen everywhere, so I wholeheartedly welcome the provisions in the Bill to ensure that local communities are involved in the decision-making process. I am sure that local communities such as Brighouse will strongly welcome the measure and the opportunities that it presents to them to ensure that their views are considered.

On Second Reading, the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), raised questions about how the consultation process might work. He was entirely correct to say that further detail on the consultation process is required, and I trust that the Minister will elaborate on that point later.

As well as making provision for consulting local communities, the Bill seeks to make it quicker and easier for local authorities to lower their parking charges to promote the economic viability of town centres. Specifically, it provides for a reduction in charges without the need for the current 21 days’ notice. That reform will provide local authorities with the flexibility to react more quickly to changes and with the ability to innovate in providing additional support to town centres.

Many market towns in my constituency, such as Todmorden, Hebden Bridge and Elland, are still getting back on their feet following the devastating floods on Boxing day in 2015. I note that despite the flooding, Hebden Bridge won the small market town category of the Great British High Street awards last year, so well done to the town. However, many businesses the towns struggled in the months immediately after the floods when footfall on the high street was significantly reduced. The proposals would have allowed the local authority the flexibility of deciding quickly how car-parking charges in those towns could have been used as a tool to support local businesses. That could have involved free parking on certain days or a limited reduction in charges.

[Wendy Morton]

To pick up the point about flexibility and a local authority being able to reduce car-parking charges in response to a situation such as the flooding, does my hon. Friend agree that another advantage of doing so would be for volunteers who come from outside the communities to help them through a very difficult patch? One of my local councillors had a collection of materials to help in that situation. He went up there, and it would have been a great gesture for the council to be able to make.

[Craig Whittaker]

A massive point about the floods was the great outpouring of support for our communities from the whole of the UK—we had not tens, dozens or hundreds of volunteers, but thousands and thousands of people coming to the Calder Valley, as no doubt other areas did as well. People came from Cornwall and even from overseas to help. There were firemen and other people bringing food, mops, buckets and cleaning materials. People were out helping, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that giving something back to them—for example, free car parking—would have been a gesture, though an incredibly small one compared with the huge support they gave us as communities at that awful time.

As I was saying, ideas such as parking on certain days or a limited reduction in charges could have been considered and implemented with minimal fuss under the powers awarded to local authorities through the Bill. Such measures would have provided traders in the towns with a real boost at the very time they were struggling to attract football—excuse me, footfall; we do not particularly want football, because we do not have a football pitch—back to the high street and to get back on their feet.

It is now over 12 months since flooding hit the Calder Valley, and the effects are still being felt by many businesses. Elland bridge, which is one of the main gateways to the town centre of Elland, was destroyed by the floods and remains closed to traffic, in effect cutting Elland in half, which is similar to what we have seen in such places as Tadcaster. Traders and small businesses in Elland have struggled with significantly lower levels of footfall over the past year, not least as a consequence of the closure of the bridge. Under the Bill the local authority could have sought to introduce an imaginative strategy to bring people to the town. This would have provided a huge lift to the traders and the community, and it would have been a clear signal that the town was open for business.

It is absolutely vital that councils have the flexibility to reduce or suspend charges at short notice to stimulate the high street. That may be done in relation to exceptional circumstances such as those that I alluded to, or it might be done to support a community event or festival—for example, charges could be reduced in the run-up to Christmas. Furthermore, the provisions would allow councils to experiment and innovate. In many towns there is a significant difference between the levels of occupation in different car parks and on-street parking bays in the same locality. The Bill would allow councils to develop temporary incentives to increase the awareness of under-utilised assets and to see which parking strategies best suit particular areas in a town.

Requiring 21 days’ notice and the announcement to be published in a local newspaper and posted in the appropriate area is both overly bureaucratic and totally unnecessary in this day and age. When the council is competing with the private sector, as it is in many areas, this puts them at a significant competitive disadvantage, as private firms can currently vary charges as they see fit.

Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

Debate between Craig Whittaker and Wendy Morton

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 20th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for introducing the Bill. It repeals provisions in sections 146 and 147 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that purport to preserve the right to dismiss a seafarer from a UK-registered merchant navy vessel for an act of homosexuality. Although neither of the provisions has any effect as a consequence of other legislation, most notably the Equality Act 2010, repealing them would prevent any possible misunderstanding about their current effect, as has been said, and thus would tidy up the statute book.

There are other good reasons for repealing the provisions, but first it is necessary to reflect on the legal background and legislative developments of the past 50 years that have enabled us to consider doing so. Sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the 1994 Act have been rendered obsolete by the gradual development of LGBT rights. Fifty years ago, section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalised homosexual acts in private in England and Wales. However, section 1(5) of that Act ensured that committing a homosexual act was still an offence in military law, while section 2 stipulated that a homosexual act on a merchant ship continued to be an offence.

Moving forward a generation, we come to the 1994 Act—the very Act to which the Bill refers. That Act covered a plethora of areas, including young offenders, bail arrangements, justice, police powers, trespassing, squatters, terrorism and prisons, to name just a few. Part 11 of the Act covered topics relating to homosexuality. Perhaps most notably, section 145 reduced the homosexual age of consent from 21 to 18. It has since been lowered again to 16. Elements of sections 146 and 147 removed the criminal liability that remained under the 1967 Act.

Sections 146(4) and 147(3) were added to the Bill that became the 1994 Act as a result of non-Government amendments. I understand that the proposer of the amendments was concerned that making homosexual conduct legal in the armed forces and merchant navy might mean that homosexuals could not be dismissed for engaging in such conduct, or that that could not be used as the basis of prosecution under military discipline. The same provisions were designed to restrict the meaning of the rest of the 1994 Act, and as a consequence they have no effect on any other measure. Indeed, the wording of sections 146 and 147 makes it possible, by means of other legislation and Government policy, to prevent anyone from being dismissed solely on the basis of homosexual conduct.

As has been mentioned with regard to the armed forces, in September 1999, in the case of Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the ban on homosexuals in the UK armed forces broke the European convention on human rights, which safeguards the right to privacy. Until that point, the position of the Ministry of Defence had always been that homosexuals in the military were bad for morale and that they were vulnerable to blackmail from foreign intelligence agencies. Indeed, the armed forces policy guidelines on homosexuality stated that the homosexual lifestyle was “incompatible” with military life

“because of the close physical conditions in which personnel often have to live and work, but also because homosexual behaviour can cause offence, polarise relationships, induce ill-discipline and…damage morale and unit effectiveness.”

As a result of the ban, dozens of homosexual servicemen were forced to leave the services every year as a consequence of the prejudice that they encountered. Following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the UK Government formally lifted the ban on 12 January 2000.

With regard to the merchant navy, dismissing a crew member from a merchant ship because of a homosexual act—that is, specifically because the act was homosexual, as distinct from dismissal for participating in a sexual act irrespective of sexual orientation—would constitute sexual orientation discrimination, which contravenes regulation 4 of the Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011 in Great Britain. In Northern Ireland, regulation 6 of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 achieves the same outcome.

The provisions of the 1994 Act thus have no current legal effect. Over the years, both sections have been gradually amended until they have reached their present composition, whereby they make reference only to the merchant navy. The measures in those sections that dealt with offences relating to military discipline were repealed by the Armed Forces Act 2006, and all references to the armed forces were removed by section 14(3) of the Armed Forces Act 2016.

Section 14(3) of the 2016 Act was the consequence of a Government amendment tabled on Report. It was initially thought that it was not possible to repeal the aspects of sections 146 and 147 of the 1994 Act relating to the armed forces because they were tied up with the merchant navy, which was outside the scope of the 2016 Bill. The Government subsequently agreed to decouple the two issues, so they dealt in the 2016 Act with those aspects of sections 146 and 147 of the 1994 Act that related to the military and stated that the aspects dealing with the merchant navy would be addressed as soon as possible.

The Bill that we are debating advocates a similar approach to that taken by the Government in the 2016 Act. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), suggested last year that the Department for Transport intended to deal with references to the merchant navy as soon as possible, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has beaten the Department to it with his Bill. I am pleased to note that the Government intended to address the matter as soon as possible, and I welcome the comments made in that regard by the Under-Secretary in this Chamber, and by the Minister of State for Defence, Earl Howe, in the other place. I also welcome the cross-party support for that approach and the comments made by the hon. Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) during proceedings on the 2016 Act.

As I have stated, neither section 146(4) nor section 147(3) has any legal effect because of other legislation. Both provisions are obsolete, and their removal would tidy up the statute book. That fact alone is ample justification for introducing the Bill, but there are other far more significant reasons for doing so. Even though the provisions have no effect, their policy implications are ambiguous. Indeed, they could easily be interpreted as a clear statement that being homosexual is incompatible with employment on merchant vessels, and that homosexuals are unwelcome in the merchant navy.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is doing a sterling job of setting out the background to and the detail of the Bill. Does he agree that it is important to recognise that, as is the case in most of society, the position of LGBT sailors has markedly improved over the last 20 years? That is not to say that I will not support the Bill—I will—but that fact is clear from the merchant navy code of conduct, which sets out much more up-to-date disciplinary and grievance processes, as well as guidelines for preventing bullying and harassment.

[Craig Whittaker]

What my hon. Friend might not know about my past is that I grew up in Australia and my father was in the merchant navy. I am going back many years, but I know from some of the old seafaring stories he used to tell me when I was a much younger man that bullying in the navy, particularly the bullying of homosexual and bi people, was absolutely rife, which was totally unacceptable. I therefore absolutely agree that the conditions for LGBT personnel on merchant vessels are now far better than they were in the days when my father was in the merchant navy, but I dare say that the Bill will make those conditions even better.

The “Code of Conduct for the Merchant Navy” was approved in 2013. It was agreed between Nautilus International, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the UK Chamber of Shipping, and approved by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The code takes into account the unique nature of working on a merchant ship and the fact that seafaring is a civilian occupation that imposes on seafarers certain demands that are not found in land-based jobs. To pick up my hon. Friend’s intervention, one of the key aspects of working on a merchant vessel is that those doing so live and work together with their fellow colleagues, so if they do not get on and there is bullying and intimidation, there is far greater stress for those on the receiving end of the bullying, because of the confined environment of the ships they work on.

Furthermore, “Guidance on Eliminating Shipboard Harassment and Bullying”, which is produced by the International Chamber of Shipping and the International Transport Workers Federation, affirms the importance of eliminating discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. It states:

“All seafarers have the right to work without suffering harassment and bullying”.

It also outlines

“the serious consequences for the physical and emotional health of seafarers”

subject to such bullying. The guidance makes it explicit that harassment and bullying based on a person’s sexual orientation is unacceptable, and sets out formal complaints and investigations procedures to ensure that all incidents of homophobic bullying are dealt with properly.

It is absolutely clear that the sentiment expressed in sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the 1994 Act is not shared by those in the shipping industry and is incompatible with their current policies, aims and values. The implication of the provisions as they currently stand—that being homosexual is incompatible with employment on merchant vessels—is outdated and unhelpful, so removing them and any possible ambiguity should be welcomed. Both the code of conduct and the guidance make it clear that LGBT people are welcome in the merchant navy. Any suggestion to the contrary is clearly wrong, and efforts to avoid any possible misunderstanding by removing such references from the statute book will, I am sure, receive the support of the industry.

There are a number of practical reasons for removing the sections and therefore for supporting the Bill. As several Members have already told me, doing so is also highly symbolic. In a sense, that aspect is arguably the most compelling reason for supporting the Bill. As I have outlined, legislation and Government policy relating to LGBT people have changed substantially during the past 50 years. However, the fact that we are discussing this issue today demonstrates that there is still a way to go.

Beginning with the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which decriminalised homosexual acts in private, we have witnessed many important milestones for LGBT rights over recent decades. I have already mentioned some of them, such as equalising the age of consent, removing the ban on serving in the armed forces and outlawing all other discrimination practices. Other measures implemented prior to 2010 include, but are not limited to, the repeal of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, the right of same-sex couples to adopt children, and civil partnership legislation.

Since 2010, there have been further measures to enhance LGBT equality, as well as a consistent desire from the Government to tackle any remaining prejudices and discrimination. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury said, £2.8 million has been made available to tackle homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying in primary and secondary schools in England as part of a three-year project that will finish in March 2019. The Government have worked alongside LGBT organisations to combat online abuse and harassment through the launch of the Stop Online Abuse website. Sport England has been asked to ensure that the involvement of LGBT people in sport receives an equal emphasis as part of its efforts to encourage wider involvement in sport.

Furthermore, for those who doubt how far we have come in a relatively short period, it is worth reflecting on the fact that our armed forces came second in the world’s first league table of the most LGBT-friendly militaries in the world in 2014, 14 years after the ban on serving in the military was formally overturned. We now have the Women and Equalities Committee, which is able to hold the Government to account on their approach to these issues. We have seen the development of the world’s first LGBT action plan produced by Government, and a number of measures to address the specific challenges that trans people face in their everyday lives.

The Government have also built on the posthumous pardon of Alan Turing with their announcement in October that those convicted for consensual same-sex relationships before the change in the law would be formally pardoned through an amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill. However, the most high-profile measure was the introduction of marriage for same-sex couples. The latest figures for England and Wales suggest that, since the first same-sex marriages took place in March 2014, over 15,000 marriages were recorded in the 15 months following the change in the law. The total figure will now be somewhat higher.

Sadly, we cannot change the events of the past or the discrimination and prejudice that LGBT people often experienced in society. We can, however, change the present. We can seek to tackle discrimination and intolerance where it still exists, and we can lead by example in this House when it comes to challenging legislation that is plainly inappropriate and inconsistent with the values that we hold today. For obvious reasons, approving this Bill will not generate the headlines that many of the legislative changes of the past have generated, and nor will it be remembered in the same way, but it is symbolic none the less. Its purpose is very much in keeping with the other legal and policy developments and changes within society that have radically improved LGBT rights over the past 50 years.

The Bill must be seen through the prism of that changing landscape. It is a small but important change to ensure that LGBT people are protected from discrimination in the workplace. If the Bill is passed, it will no doubt be seen in years to come as part the gradual journey of improving LGBT rights in this country and of ending the historical prejudice that LGBT people have experienced. I am pleased to have been able to contribute to the debate, and I am pleased to support the Bill.

Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Bill

Debate between Craig Whittaker and Wendy Morton

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 25th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

That is an interesting point. I shall deal later in my speech with the definitions of “journalist” and “citizen journalist”.

My Bill seeks to increase transparency and openness, but—I must stress this—not to place an unnecessary burden on local authorities that work very hard and often have to handle a great many requests for information.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

I know that the Bill is about openness and transparency, but—this is in the same vein as the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare)—has my hon. Friend conducted an analysis of the extra cost and burden that would be placed on local authorities that are already burdened with huge numbers of freedom of information requests, as she has just said, and the requirement to publish numerous responses?

[Wendy Morton]

That is another interesting point. We need to get the balance right. We want openness and transparency, but we do not want to place an unnecessary burden on local authorities. On the basis of indications that I have received, I do not believe that the Bill would impose a huge burden on them. As for the cost, they will still be able to charge for requests for information, and I shall say more about that later.

A complete list of the local bodies that would be affected is set out in schedule 2 to the 2014 Act and includes local authorities, police bodies, fire and rescue authorities, parks authorities, combined authorities, and parish councils with an annual turnover of £25,000 and above. It is worth recognising that the Bill provides for that threshold.

Section 26 of the Act enables “any persons interested” to “inspect the accounting records” of such bodies, and to request copies of any part of those records or related documents. However, under previous case law it has been determined that the definition does not include journalists, although it would include, for example, local business rate payers or others who pay fees or charges to the body in question. Section 25 gives local electors the right to inspect and have copies of a wider range of accounts-related information from their council, such as the auditor’s opinion or any public interest report. They can also question the auditor and make an objection to the accounts, which the auditor is required to investigate unless he deems it to be vexatious or a duplicate of another request. That, I think, is an important provision, because it provides some safeguards for local authorities.

In all cases, whether the requester is an interested party or a local elector, the relevant authority is able to charge

“a reasonable sum for each copy”

of any document that is made. I hope that that goes some way towards answering my hon. Friends’ questions.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention and for speaking in the debate on my previous Bill; I hope she will support me again this time. Reasonableness is important, and including the words “vexatious” and “duplications” should offer some reassurance, but if the Bill makes progress we could seek more clarity on this in Committee. We all work under tight budgets these days, so a balance always needs to be struck between openness and transparency, and unreasonably high charges.

Members may wonder why I am introducing this Bill—why I have given up another Friday to stand here in the House of Commons, as I happen to quite enjoy Fridays. Members may also be a little puzzled as this is a rather technical amendment to audit legislation.

Hon. Members may recall my predecessor as MP for Aldridge-Brownhills, Sir Richard Shepherd. He has probably not had a mention in this place since I made my maiden speech, but my constituents often remind me about him. Sir Richard was a staunch defender of whistleblowers and fought for a more transparent and accountable government and greater freedom of information: if we googled him, we would find many references to the work he did in this place on those topics. His principled stance on those issues resonated with many inside the Chamber and outside, and I am keen to see that that continues. The Bill speaks to those interests by seeking to make local government more transparent and subject to more effective public scrutiny of their spending, and I am sure we can all recall occasions or circumstances when such scrutiny might have been able to help.

The new rights I propose for journalists would provide access to the accounting records of any local authority, thus giving them an important tool. They would be able to access spending information across the piece that would aid their journalistic investigations and the publishing of their findings would provide local electors with information that might enable them to question the auditor or raise an objection, thus enabling them to better hold their local authority to account for poor spending decisions.

Why “journalists” and how do I define that term? I am conscious that Members might want to know why I do not propose extending the inspection rights to everyone or whether “journalist” is a suitable category for the definition of interested person.

Proposed new subsection (1A) defines a journalist for the purpose of this new right as

“any person who produces for publication journalistic material (whether paid to do so or otherwise).”

As well as accredited members of the press, the term is intended to cover citizen journalists, by which I mean bloggers who meet the conditions, although it would not extend to anyone who simply has social media access.

[Craig Whittaker]

My hon. Friend makes a valid case for what she is trying to achieve, but why journalists? Why not open it up to everybody to access these accounts? If we really want to be open, honest and transparent, surely we should not put any criteria or restrictions in place.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting and fair point, and I would not be against looking at that further in Committee, but I think it is the best way to strike a balance between openness and transparency, and making requests reasonable for councils to deal with. Furthermore, a journalist or citizen blogger would be requesting information that they would then share with the wider public.

NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill

Debate between Craig Whittaker and Wendy Morton

Friday 22nd January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

I agree wholeheartedly, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing with us the example of a hospital charity in her constituency and the fantastic work it does.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) for his amendment that would oblige the Secretary of State to carry out public consultation before making regulations consequential to the removal of his power to appoint trustees to NHS bodies. I understand where he is coming from. In my time as a councillor, many were the days when we discussed the pros and cons of public consultation. On the one hand, we often want more public consultation, but there are times when, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said, we feel it leads nowhere. It is an interesting point, though, and one that has provoked some lively debate. We, as elected representatives, often ask these questions about public consultation.

[Craig Whittaker]

I am reminded of my family’s frequent trips to Disneyland Paris when my three children were much younger. Their favourite ride was the Peter Pan ride. They played a game to see who could first spot Wendy quivering on the end of the gangplank as Captain Hook chased her into the sea. Does my hon. Friend think that Wendy might be quivering that little bit harder at the thought of yet more public consultation?