Fathers in the Family

Debate between David Burrowes and Andrew Selous

Wednesday 1st March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Burrowes]

I will. There is also good work in—

[Andrew Selous]

The Farmer review.

[Mr Burrowes]

My hon. Friend reminds me about the Farmer review, which is looking in particular at the relationship with fathers and at making that link. It is about that responsibility for another. The opportunity for rehabilitation is so important in the long term.

Involving fathers is a route out of poverty, as has been mentioned. Therefore, we must recognise that it makes social and economic sense to take the role of fathers seriously. In dealing with family relationships and crucial moments such as the birth, the early days, weeks and months, maternity services should involve paternity services. Barnardo’s makes that point clearly. The relationship with midwives and health services must involve fathers. Children’s centres, which the Government are looking at, and family hubs must take seriously how to involve fathers. There are some good examples in my constituency and elsewhere of involving fathers in such work. Fathers can play a crucial antenatal and postnatal role. Sadly, that has become too much a middle-class preserve, with the national childbirth trusts and others involving fathers. All of us may have been involved in that, but sadly fathers from more disadvantaged backgrounds are not involved. We must look practically at how to get fathers involved from the early stages before birth and afterwards.

Preventive work in terms of education is also important. As I should have said at the beginning of my speech, I pay tribute to the Centre for Social Justice for championing the role of fathers, along with other organisations, such as the Relationships Alliance—reference has been made to it. We must recognise the preventive role. Education can play an important role in that. Today, the Government rightly responded to cross-party calls to require relationship education in primary schools, providing a foundation for sex education. That is crucial in terms of the role of fathers and understanding that from a very young age.

The Minister has a cross-cutting role in this area. There is an issue of equality here. She has responsibility for equality. We have made a cross-party call on a practical issue of equality—the joint registration of births. That has been on the table since 2009—schedule 6 to the Welfare Reform Act 2009 provides for the joint registration of births. That happens automatically for mums, but why not for unmarried fathers?

Ultra Low Emissions Vehicles

Debate between David Burrowes and Andrew Selous

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered ultra-low emission vehicles.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I am grateful to have been granted this debate. Before I begin, I should say that in a conversation I had earlier today with the Minister’s colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes)—I understand that this is his policy area—he agreed to have a meeting with me shortly on this issue, and I am grateful for that.

It is nearly five years since I initiated a debate on ultra low emissions vehicles in the Chamber. I have strongly championed the new technology throughout that time. In my debate in May 2011, I said that the issue mattered for four main reasons: first, because it is part of the answer in tackling climate change; secondly, because it is at the heart of creating the new industries of the future; thirdly, because it helps the United Kingdom respond to the challenge of energy security; and fourthly, because it helps our constituents reduce the cost of driving. In that debate, no one, including me, mentioned the important contribution that ultra low emissions vehicles can make in improving air quality, which is an issue that is rapidly rising up the political agenda, not least because 40% of local authorities are currently breaching air quality guidelines. A quarter of children in London are breathing illegally polluted air, meaning that their lung capacity may never recover. The air quality in London last week was worse than that in Beijing.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

One of my local schools is in an area that breaches the limit. In fact, my constituents, particularly those living off the North Circular Road, are breathing some of the worst air in London, if not the country. Does my hon. Friend recognise that the highest cost to the health of Londoners and those across the country is paid by those in our most deprived communities, who on average are exposed to 25% higher levels of air pollution than people elsewhere?

[Andrew Selous]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is often the most disadvantaged communities that suffer the worst air quality. That is another reason why the issue is so important.

In May 2011, there were 57,000 ultra low emissions vehicles on our roads. Nearly five years later, that figure has increased to 87,000. The Government’s central projection of 5% of all cars in the UK being ultra low emissions vehicles by 2020 means that we need to have 1.6 million such vehicles on our roads by then. The Committee on Climate Change recommends that 9% of the cars on our roads should be ultra low emissions by 2020. That equates to 2.8 million cars. Even 9% is unambitious compared with Japan, which has a target for 20% of all its cars to be ultra low emissions vehicles by 2020. While I am very happy to give the Government due and proper credit for what they have done in this area, my purpose in holding the debate is to challenge them to lay out a much clearer road map as to how we are to get to at least 1.6 million ultra low emissions vehicles on our roads by 2020.

In response to a parliamentary question I asked recently, the Department for Transport declined to indicate how many ultra low emissions vehicles it expects to be on our roads by the end of this year, in 2018 or in 2019. I think it would be helpful to have a more detailed road map of how we will achieve the 2020 target.

Marriage Week

Debate between David Burrowes and Andrew Selous

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for his tremendous speech, which I strongly support.

The most powerful statistic in this whole area is that, of all the parents who are still together when their children reach the age of 15, 93% are married. That says so much about why marriage matters. As MPs, we are here for all our constituents—we are here for the single mums who do an amazing job, and we are here for people who are not married—but it is right to celebrate marriage as a massively important social institution that builds resilience and is clearly really good for our children.

Three quarters of 20 to 24-year-olds say that they want to marry, so the aspiration for our younger people is very much there. Likewise, three quarters of lone parents and almost nine in 10 step-parents agree that it is appropriate and necessary for the Government to send the message that having two parents is important. That is all worth putting on record.

The Austrian political economist Joseph Schumpeter said that in a modern consumer economy, people might end up living for the present rather than having projects for the future. That involves things like saving less and borrowing more. Critically, he said that there would be less willingness for people to make long-term commitments to one another. Of course, the greatest long-term commitment that we can make is a marriage in which we bring up children.

There is so much more that we can do, including really good marriage preparation and really good marriage MOTs. We all get our cars serviced once a year; we spend time and money on it because we think it is important. But how much more important it is to have a look under the bonnet of our marriages, to make sure that what started off romantically, but might now feel a bit like running a small business with an ex-girlfriend, stays on track.

[Mr Burrowes]

My hon. Friend has been a great champion of marriage for many years. He also has experience in Bedfordshire with voluntary organisations that try to help couples, particularly those who have just had a child. Some Government funding was coming through for such projects; does he know whether any progress has been made?

[Andrew Selous]

I am very pleased that the last Prime Minister doubled the amount of spending on relationship support across Government, as my hon. Friend already mentioned, but there are real pressures on the sector and on the Relationships Alliance. I will meet the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions next week to discuss those issues.

Transferable Tax Allowances

Debate between David Burrowes and Andrew Selous

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is a time-limited contract, unlike other marriages, but the issue is that there are also good fiscal reasons why this partnership, or relationship, should seek to have as a priority the implementation of this promise, despite the differing views in the coalition.

We need to tackle the Deputy Prime Minister’s argument; he freely expressed his views in one way, so we are free to express our views in another. As has already been mentioned, he said in December 2011:

“we should not take a particular version of the family institution, such as the 1950s model of suit-wearing, breadwinning dad and aproned, homemaking mother, and try and preserve it in aspic.”

It is important for us to make the point very clearly and to emphasise, as hon. Friends do, that the Deputy Prime Minister and others, such as the Opposition, are wrong about the two-parent family and wrong about the motives of others. Indeed, their arguments are old and very much out of touch with the British public, and they are themselves increasingly preserved in aspic. We are not harking back to the outdated 1950s model, and it is very condescending to caricature not only our views in that way but the married people up and down the country and those who want very much to support marriage. Marriage is a popular institution—increasingly so—and it is one that the public welcome.

We simply believe that marriage is best for children and for society, and the evidence supports us. A review by the Institute for Fiscal Studies of the research in this area, which has already been mentioned, shows unequivocally that

“children raised by two happily and continuously married parents have the best chance of developing into competent and successful adults.”

The evidence provides clear support for implementing policies that encourage couples to stay together, and shows that married couples with children are far more likely to stay together than their unmarried counterparts.

It has already been quoted, but it is important to keep repeating the evidence of the “Breakthrough Britain” report, which was published by the Centre for Social Justice. It demonstrated that children born to unmarried parents have a nearly one in two chance of seeing their parents split up by the age of five, whereas for children whose parents are married the figure is only one in 12. That is a huge difference that the state cannot ignore; indeed, the state needs to recognise it properly.

We all recognise that stability clearly matters. Most single parents undoubtedly do a fantastic job raising their children in difficult circumstances. We are not here to judge or to make moral judgments on people’s relationships, but the evidence is very clear that on every significant measure children who are brought up in married families do better on average than those brought up in other relationships.

[Andrew Selous]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is particularly an issue of social justice for poorer people? Wealthier people—if they are able to do so—can of course transfer their unearned income to their spouse in the form of dividends, rents, interest and income, and make use of a transferable allowance, whereas poor people cannot. This is therefore about doing the right thing by poor people, because wealthier people can already take advantage of what we want for everyone.

[Mr Burrowes]

I agree, and it is very important that we recognise the clear data that make that point. The Centre for Social Justice has said that the difference in family breakdown risk between married and cohabiting couples is such that even the poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples. It is very important to recognise that this issue is one of social justice.

We recognise that most of the serious social problems that face us have their roots in the breakdown of the family. It is important for Conservatives to recognise and to make the point clearly that we support marriage. Far from making the case for the 1950s model of supporting marriage that I referred to earlier, we want a thoroughly modern and progressive measure that is underpinned by social justice.

As my hon. Friends have said, we are out of step with the majority of other developed countries. Most of the individuals living in OECD countries who are in a system that does not recognise spousal obligations are in either the United Kingdom or Mexico—and that cannot be right. Among highly developed economies, the UK is on its own in operating a tax system that ignores spousal obligations.

As my hon. Friends and I have said, this is an issue of social justice. The Institute for Fiscal Studies and others have made it very clear that, if a transferable allowance were implemented, 70% of the benefit accrued would go to those who are currently in the lower half of the income distribution level. The introduction of a transferable allowance would also reduce the number of children living in households below 60% of the median income, and that is where we want to be.

It is important that we properly urge the Chancellor—my hon. Friends and I have clearly done that this morning—to make good our collective promise and introduce a transferable allowance for married couples with young children. That is where the focus is. We recognise that it is not adequate simply—in a minimalist way—to have a partial transferable allowance that would be worth—what?—£150 a year, or £3 a week. That would also open us up to some criticism. We need to focus on and target married couples with young children.

Care of the Dying

Debate between David Burrowes and Andrew Selous

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to talk about care of the dying. It is marked that so many hon. Members are attending the debate on a subject that so many people in our constituencies would rather not talk about.

Last year, a ComRes poll found that 67% of people are scared of being told that they are dying. More significantly, 83% are scared of dying in pain. As a nation, we need to get better at talking about dying, death and bereavement, but Parliament can take a lead in breaking the cycle that can result in a lack of care. With the public reluctant to discuss end-of-life care, many professionals do not feel confident to deliver it. Services are not available to everyone who needs them. The aptly named Dying Matters coalition, across the public, voluntary and private sector, should be commended and supported when it has its annual awareness week in May.

Too often in health care, dying equals failure rather than a normal process. This attitude ignores those who will not respond to treatment, but who can still be cared for significantly. Although death may be a tragic inevitability, palliative and hospice care can ensure that the remainder of life is still worth living. We have an opportunity today to show the mark of a civilised society and care for the vulnerable and largely forgotten—the dying.

The growth of palliative care, not legalisation for assisted suicide, should form the central debate about care for the dying. As a country, we must do all that we can to allow the terminally ill to live a dignified life until death, to make the intolerable tolerable and to replace hopelessness with hope and desperation with serenity. Too often, this essential part of health care is forgotten, or simply shrouded by the more high-profile issue of assisted suicide. Reading media reports this year, one could be forgiven for thinking that that is the only option for those suffering with terminal illness. Rather than legislating for an abrupt end to life, we need to find better ways to help care for the dying.

The good practice of palliative care, which hon. Members will no doubt illustrate this morning with constituency examples, makes the point that we in this country believe that life should be treated with dignity at every stage through to death. Some 50 years ago, Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the modern hospice movement, said:

“You matter because you are you, and you matter to the last moment of your life. We will do all we can not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die.”

What a refreshing contrast from what we have heard recently from those advocating assisted suicide. Take the chilling words of Baroness Warnock, who said:

“If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives—your family’s lives—and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.”

Suggesting that we have a “duty to die”, she said:

“I think that’s the way the future will go, putting it rather brutally, you’d be licensing people to put others down.”

Well, that is not a future I want to be a part of, and I am sure many of those present today agree. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] If we adopted the law of Oregon, the trickle of people wanting to be killed in places such as Dignitas would become a flow—some estimate that more than 1,000 people a year would take that path.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most worrying things is that, if what he is talking about is introduced, many older people may feel that they are a burden and that they should bring an end to their lives?

[Mr Burrowes]

Indeed. We need to retain the present law, which continues to provide a strong deterrent to the exploitation of vulnerable people, while giving prosecutors discretion in hard cases. Parliament has agreed, through a detailed Select Committee inquiry and three votes in the past six years, to retain that protection. We have to recognise that it is easy, in the comfort of Parliament, to make fine-sounding points about terminal illness. I recognise that there are no easy answers for those who feel they are not valued and who may feel that they may be wasting resources or are a burden on their family or society. However, they are the very people who most need the protection of the law and the provision of good-quality palliative care. How do we best safeguard their dignity and autonomy?

When we talk about dignity in the context of a health debate, it can all too often be restricted to privacy and physical care, but palliative care recognises a wider, proper understanding of dignity. Good palliative care recognises the social, emotional, spiritual and psychological needs that put an embrace around a terminally ill patient, rather than the proposed arbitrary, so-called safeguards that put a straitjacket around patients and doctors. For example, the prognosis for a terminally ill patient is notoriously difficult to determine. The best safeguard is through specialist palliative care that helps a patient live with uncertainty. Take the case of a motor neurone disease sufferer who wants to end his life but, unknown to his GP, has developed fronto-temporal dementia and whose thinking has become distorted. Such a condition could only be noticeable if someone knew that patient very well before the illness. The best safeguard to help the patient live with those fluctuating moods and thoughts is specialist palliative care. The proper way to empower patients’ choice and protect the vulnerable is through driving up palliative care standards, not new legislation.

In 2010, the Economist Intelligence Unit ranked Britain, rightly, as top of the league of countries for the provision of end-of-life care. Much of the credit is no doubt due to the expansion of local charitable hospices that provide more than £700 million of care, the majority of which is donated by the communities that they serve. Additionally, more than 100,000 people donate their time to local hospices each year.