Children and Social Work Bill [Lords]
Debate between David Burrowes and Tim LoughtonMonday 5th December 2016
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Children and Social Work Act 2017 View all Children and Social Work Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 69-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF, 80KB) - (22 Nov 2016)
Tim Loughton
The hon. Lady is right about that, but shiny, squeaky new babies have always been much more attractive to people who want to adopt than problematic teenagers who have been through all the trials and tribulations of broken families—perhaps abuse, neglect, mental health problems and behavioural disorders—and have been pushed from pillar to post in the care system. Those are the children we have most let down, which is one reason why the introduction of adoption scorecards was based not just on improving the number of children adopted, but on concentrating on those harder-to-adopt children: older children; large sibling groups; and children from black and minority ethnic communities. Too often these children were at the back of the adoption queue. I am glad to say that in recent years disproportionately they have found themselves more likely to get adopted than they were before. This is still not enough and there remains a lot to be done, but that was absolutely the right focus to bring in over the past few years.
Another thing I am concerned about is that despite all the good work the Government did on paralleling the kraamzorg system for health visitors in Holland, we have lost 722 health visitors since January and there has been a 13% decrease in the number of school nurses since 2010. They are really important people in early intervention—in identifying children with problems, and those for whom the support of social services and other caring services is essential, sooner rather than later.
Of course, I am also worried by the recent rise, again, in social worker vacancy rates in many authorities around the country, and too often the positions are taken by temporary social workers. Social work, particularly when dealing with child protection, is an area where staff need to forge empathetic relationships with those vulnerable children and families whom they are there to look after. Being pushed from pillar to post, from one home to another, from one social worker to another reviewing officer—or whoever it may be—only accentuates the instability and vulnerability of those children.
I worry when, even in this place, we are still too quick to point the finger of blame at the social workers because a child has been brutally assaulted or killed, as still happens in too many cases, by their carer, parent or close relative. We hear the talk of “wilful neglect”. There are social workers who are not doing their job properly, and there are social workers who are not up to the job and should not be in social work, and they should be removed from it, but they are a small minority. We should not make the rest of our excellent, hard-working, dedicated social worker force feel constantly that they are the ones to blame for many of these tragedies. We have to up everybody’s game, but they are part of the solution; in the vast majority of cases, they are not part of the problem.
It is odd therefore that at the heart of the original Bill, since eviscerated of clauses 29 to 33, which it would seem are about to make an unfortunate reappearance, were radical new proposals supposedly to test new ways of working, under the guise of promoting innovation. As I said earlier, the clauses were not remotely welcomed by the vast majority of people who are involved in the whole field of child protection. They were opposed by the British Association of Social Workers, the Care Leavers Association, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, CoramBAAF, which is the Government’s appointed adoption provider, the Fostering Network, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and Action for Children. In various polls, about 90% of working social workers did not support those clauses either, which was hardly surprising given that the clauses came out of the blue. There was no consultation on absolutely fundamental changes to the way in which we apply duties of care to vulnerable children in this country.
I pay tribute to the House of Lords, particularly to Lord Ramsbotham, for putting forward the amendments that saw those clauses taken out of the Bill. Lord Ramsbotham referred to clause 29 as nothing less than
“the usurpation of the proper parliamentary process.”
He asked
“how the courts are expected to respond where a young person or child in a particular local authority area is clearly disadvantaged by the arbitrary disapplication or modification of the law as it is applied in all other parts of the country.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 2016; Vol. 776, c. 1056.]
As I said earlier, a child needs protection wherever he or she may be in the country. We cannot have a competition between different areas on ways of looking after vulnerable children, some of which will not work and some of which might. Every child needs the protection of the law as set out by Parliament, and it should not be subject to a postcode lottery, as is convenient for certain local authorities.
In the debate in the other place, Lord Low said:
“It is perfectly possible to test different ways of working…within the existing legislative framework…it makes no sense to get rid of the duty.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 2016; Vol. 776, c. 1063.]
The squeeze on funding, which Members have mentioned, and which is, I am afraid, inevitable at the moment—[Interruption.] I am afraid that it is inevitable because of the disastrous way in which the Labour Government ran the economy into the ground. In too many cases now local authorities are providing only what is their duty; additional services are no longer on the agenda at all. Taking away that duty means that some of these fundamental things could not happen in the future.
Clause 29 as it was would have allowed local authorities to request exemptions from their statutory duties in children’s social care. Every Act of Parliament and every subordinate piece of legislation concerned with children’s social care from 1933 onwards could have been affected. The proposed mechanism for exemption orders was to be statutory instruments, which would have handed over enormous powers to the Secretary of State and the Department for Education. I am afraid that the Minister for School Standards is wrong: the DfE acknowledged that this part of the Bill directly concerns children’s fundamental rights. How can vulnerable children challenge those lack of services? I gave an example—it was one of many examples raised in the House of Lords—of independent reviewing officers. I am a big fan of IROs—I think we can do better, and there is a bit of a postcode lottery—as their role is to stand up and be the voice, or the advocate, of children who are not getting the services to which they are entitled and which they need from local authorities. If no IRO is available because an exemption has been applied for and granted, which means that the authority has no IROs, where is that child to go? There are not just IROs, but key legal protections that exist in the form of regulations now, including the ban on corporal punishment in foster care and children’s homes, protection for disabled children placed away from home, leaving care entitlements and complaints procedures. All of those could be granted an exemption and could disappear from fundamental rights, which we apply to protect vulnerable children now. This would be the first time in the history of children’s welfare that legislation made for all vulnerable children and young people could be disapplied in a particular area. This is a very radical proposal that warranted at least a Green Paper and a White Paper and proper consultation, but there was none.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the NSPCC and Action for Children said that
“the case that the Government is making presents considerable risk. Despite numerous conversations with ministers and officials, the evidence for the need for this power remains unconvincing and does not justify the potential risks of suspending primary legislation.”
The British Association of Social Workers said:
“If the clauses are re-introduced it will pave the way for significant and dangerous changes to the provision of children’s social care which would jeopardise hard fought victories for children’s rights spanning decades.”
How would the pilots for these provisions be monitored? How would we monitor whether children were still safe and what the results were for those children? It is no surprise that only one in 10 practising social workers surveyed by the BASW and by Unison thought this was a good idea. That is why I have severe reservations if the clause is to be returned to the Bill.
The Munro review took away much of the bureaucracy from social workers. It gave flexibility on the timing of assessments of children and how social workers could prioritise. It gave greater powers and confidence back to social workers to use their professional judgment to do what they thought best in the interests of vulnerable children. Sometimes they will get it wrong. I always say to social workers, “What I want to do, and what the Munro review was all about, is to give you the confidence to make a mistake—hopefully, not often, but to do it for the very best of reasons, not simply because that’s what it says on page 117 of the rule book and you needed to tick the boxes.” That is not what social work is all about. It is not a science. It is a complicated and challenging job.
If we are going to give social workers those flexibilities and allow them to act in different and innovative ways because they think that is the best way of looking after vulnerable children, we do not need to take away the statutory duties of the local authorities which are the corporate parents of those children, so that those new ways do not have to abide by the fundamental duties which ensure that social workers are doing the right thing and looking after those vulnerable children.
Finally, I shall look at a few specific clauses and ask the Minister some questions, which I hope he will refer to in his summing up. Clause 1 is about corporate parenting principles, which I welcome, but it is not clear exactly what they amount to in practice. Are they in addition to the section 23 commitments of the Children Act 1989 or do they replace them? I have used examples which I welcome: promoting physical and mental health, promoting high aspirations and securing the best outcomes for those children and young people. Nobody could vote against such things, but in clause 3 new section 23CZB(7) states:
“Where a former relevant child to whom this section applies is not receiving advice and support under this section, the local authority must offer such advice and support . . . at least once in every 12 months.”
Once in every 12 months will not go very far for a vulnerable child who needs intensive help. Subsection(4) makes provision for personal advisers. The problem is that too many children in care whom I met and children leaving care had never heard of personal advisers, let alone knew who their own personal adviser was.
In clause 4 new section 23ZZA(3) gives a local authority this extraordinary power:
“A local authority in England may do anything else that they consider appropriate with a view to promoting the educational achievement of relevant children educated in their area”—
motherhood and apple pie. Why do we require that sort of thing in legislation? It strikes me that a bit much of this is a bit too mushy and full of cotton wool—too many vague assumptions which in practice, particularly with funding pressures and duties taken away, will not amount to a row of beans, if we are not careful.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Obviously, the primary focus and concern is the duty of care to children, but there is also the issue of mothers who might well end up having successive children who end up in care. The local authority needs to have a responsibility for those vulnerable women, who may well be victims of a coercive relationship and have complex needs as a result. The sooner there is intervention and therapeutic care, the better, to avoid subsequent issues—maybe subsequent children and subsequent costs and concerns for all.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend, who has great expertise in this area, is right. Of course we cannot look at vulnerable children in isolation; we need to look at their families holistically. There are some really good examples. I hope that the Minister will stick to his word and provide funding for things such as FDAC, the family drug and alcohol court set up by the excellent Nick Crichton, a fantastic family district judge.
At FDAC, a mother—often a single mother—at risk of losing a child to the care system because of substance abuse or an abusive partner, say, is given a clear choice of an intensive package that will help her back on to the straight and narrow so that she can bring up her own child. It is a tough, challenging exercise. Alternatively, perhaps both parents will be involved. If they are able to do that, the whole family is put back together and the child stays, which is the best outcome. If not, that child will head for care.
I have sat in court, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who will speak shortly, seeing mums who have had six, seven or eight children taken into the care system. We have to tackle the root of that problem: why is it? Is it that the mother just does not know how to parent, in which case what are society, social workers and the troubled families programme doing to help her become a fit parent if she remotely can? If she cannot, that child must go to a safe family elsewhere who can give them a second chance of a beneficial and happy upbringing.
I would like to make a few other quick points, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am aware that there are not too many speakers for this debate, so I have an opportunity to elaborate on some important points a little longer than the Chair normally allows. I know how generous you are in these matters, which are of great interest to you.
Clause 5 is about the designation of a member of staff at school
“having responsibility for promoting the educational achievement”
of children in the care system. That is a good initiative, but it already exists for children with caring responsibilities and alas that does not work in practice. It is a good idea, but it has to have some teeth so that it means something on the ground: that children in the care system have special attention from a designated teacher who understands the particular needs of such children, who are often subject to bullying, mental health problems and everything else. There must be more than a clause on paper in a Bill: the proposal has to work in practice.
There are some good points on the child safeguarding review panels, although I have concerns about the independence of the panels. Certainly when we gave a commitment before the 2010 election that we would publish serious case reviews—opposed by the Labour party, although the reviews have now become the norm—one of my concerns was also about the calibre of the people producing those SCRs and the quality of some of the reports. Effectively, they were not properly monitored; they were monitored only on a local basis. Some time ago, I put forward the idea that a national body should oversee the quality and that there should be a national register of authors of serious case reviews with a requirement for continuous professional development; there needed to be training, which would be updated. Before now, anybody, effectively, could apply to be the author of a serious case review. We need to regulate that important area rather better.
Under clause 13, the panel
“must publish the report, unless they consider it inappropriate to do so.”
Given that, previously, when serious case reviews were published, they were seen only by a few people locally and Department for Education officials if we were lucky, it was really important that, other than in exceptional circumstances where there could be detriment to surviving children or families, the reviews should be published and the lessons learned to see how they could apply elsewhere. This new review panel is an exercise in doing that and in disseminating best practice rather better. I very much support that, and I would like more details on how it is going to work.
Then, however, we have the section about safeguarding partners. These appear to be replacing the local safeguarding children boards, which are a really important feature of bringing together local agencies to make sure that we have workable solutions and partnerships in place, particularly to deal with child sexual exploitation at the moment. We need to be convinced about how these new bodies are better than, or different from, local safeguarding children boards and, in particular, about how they are going to be funded. Clause 20, on funding, says:
“The safeguarding partners for a local authority area in England may make payments”
towards the expenditure of these bodies
“by contributing to a fund”
or making payments directly. It also says:
“Relevant agencies for a local authority area…may make payments”.
The problem with LSCBs at the moment is that not all the partners pull their weight. In too many cases, key partners are, first, not turning up at the table and, secondly, not helping to fund the work of the LSCBs. Too often, it falls to the local authority—the default partner —to pick up too much of the tab. If we are going to put these things on a statutory basis, can we make sure that it is laid out clearly and unequivocally that the funding contribution from, and the active participation of, all the relevant partners is absolutely essential?
I am also concerned because clause 21 says:
“The safeguarding partners for two or more local authority areas in England may agree that their areas are to be treated as a single area”.
How big can they be? It is important that LSCBs are able to come up with local safeguarding plans and local plans to tackle child sexual exploitation in their areas—plans that are relevant to Rotherham, given the particular problems there, to Rochdale or to wherever. If these bodies are going to be looking after huge areas, their effect will surely be diluted in key hotspots. The Bill also talks about having cross-border constabulary co-operation, but these are very large areas, and I am concerned about how big these new bodies could become.
On the part of the Bill about the new body, Social Work England, I think we need to improve the regulation of social workers. I am not sure whether this is the right way to do it, and I would like to see more details. The demise of the College of Social Work is a shame, and I think it would have performed a lot of this function if it had been allowed to continue and to thrive. A lot of effort went into setting it up in the first place.
I am also concerned about the independence of Social Work England. My understanding is that it will be an Executive agency of the Department for Education, and we need to have some clarity over that.
Unaccompanied Children
Debate between David Burrowes and Tim Loughton(8 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered unaccompanied children.
It is a great pleasure to secure the debate and to open it. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who supported the application to the Backbench Business Committee, but especially the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who helped to secure the debate.
Sadly, the issue of unaccompanied children has in many ways become a focal point of consideration in Parliament, not least in the House of Lords. We will shortly consider the amendment tabled by Lord Dubs in relation to the campaign for 3,000 unaccompanied children to be accepted in addition to previous requirements. This is the sad reality of the situation facing children as they take a precarious route across Europe. Only yesterday there was a report that 400 migrants and refugees died when their boat capsized; they were travelling from Egypt to Turkey. The reality is that today another two children will probably die while crossing the Mediterranean. That is the context and it is a focal point of concern.
The focus of this debate, although hon. Members will no doubt want to deal with issues around it, is our responsibilities for separated children as they arrive in this country, whether they come by means of a formal resettlement plan—we can talk further about where that could take us—or whether they come via irregular routes into the United Kingdom. I want to have a long-term plan. My hon. Friends will know all about the mantra of a long-term plan, particularly in relation to economic plans. I want to get that mantra into the parlance on this issue: would it not be wonderful if Parliament had a long-term plan for separated children? I look forward to hearing from my right hon. Friend the Minister about that. We need a long-term plan for some of the most vulnerable children.
If we look at the statistics, we see that it is right for Parliament to be concerned about these children. In February 2016, children accounted for more than one third of all refugees and migrants, compared with just one in 10 in June 2015. There has been a 57% increase in the number of these children seeking asylum in the past year in the United Kingdom. Undocumented unaccompanied children are often beneath the radar, certainly before they get anywhere near the age of adulthood. There were 2,168 asylum applications from such children in the year ending June 2015. That was an increase of 46% on the previous year. The Minister for Immigration will be very much aware, not least because it is on his desk, that this is an issue of increasing importance for the Home Office.
It is important that we are compassionate. The word “compassion” is mentioned a lot these days, and rightly so. We must have an ambition properly to accept our fair share of unaccompanied children. The Minister was very much leading in relation to the announcement on 28 January. We look forward to hearing further details on the commitment in the coming days. There was a promise to step up efforts to reunite lone children with their families in Europe and the United Kingdom. There was a commitment to bring children who are on their own in conflict zones straight to the United Kingdom to prevent them from making perilous journeys, and there was a promise of more expertise and resources to help to protect child refugees in Europe and the United Kingdom. It is important that we have the right ambition, and I look forward to hearing those details.
As well as the compassion in terms of the length of commitment, I want to look at the breadth and depth of that compassion. We should be in this for the long term. That is an issue for children as they arrive here. I want to see how that looks and what it could look like, to ensure that we meet the concerns that have been expressed, not least by the Children’s Society, to which I pay tribute and which I thank very much. Those concerns formed the basis of my application and that of others to hold this debate. Its recent report, “Not just a temporary fix”, makes the point in the title, highlighting the need for a lasting outcome for unaccompanied children in the UK. This issue can often be missed in debate. These children, who come from some of the most appalling backgrounds and are often traumatised, are at risk of exploitation, not least as they make these journeys. As they come into this country, we need to ensure that we have the right package of support for them.
A point highlighted in the report that I have mentioned is the transition to adulthood. That is unsettling and unpleasant for all children, but particularly for separated children who have fled war and persecution. They have faced exploitation and destitution and have no parent or carer in this country to safeguard their best interests. We need to step in to support them to avoid their being at risk of further exploitation and destitution.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on attracting such support for this very important debate. I am glad that he is talking about long-term stability. Does he share my concern, which I think he was touching on, that we may have arguments about the number of children we welcome into this country, but we need to address the rights of those children when they become adults, particularly if they have been in care? They do not qualify for housing. They do not qualify for the Staying Put scheme. They do not qualify for various benefits. They do not qualify for loans if they want to go on to higher education. Their vulnerability does not change on the day they become 18, nor the danger they are in if they go back to their country of origin. We need to have a better long-term plan for those children as they progress into adulthood in the safety of this country.
Mr Burrowes
I am grateful to my hon. Friend: he is already talking about a long-term plan for separated children. Undocumented children may well not even make an application for asylum, not least because they are under the cover of being children and have the protection of the state, but as they get close to the age of adulthood, an application needs to be made. Their status becomes insecure and uncertain and they are very much at risk of going through the care system and, sadly, out on to the streets, where they are prone to further exploitation. I will touch on that issue as well.
The support for those vulnerable children who have found their way by so-called irregular means differs from support under the formal resettlement programme. I pay tribute to the Government for the vulnerable persons relocation scheme and the 20,000 commitment. I think that 1,500 people have been resettled. That is part of a package that is not just about numbers. It is a serious package of support involving local authorities and communities. I understand that at the recent meeting in Geneva, attended by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees, the British Government were praised as an example of good practice that other countries need to follow for their serious commitment to long-term support for these vulnerable people. That needs to be matched, including for those who arrive by different means. People may not arrive through that formal scheme, but they are no less vulnerable; their concerns and needs are no different. It is important that we do not in effect discriminate against them because of how they arrive.
When a child arrives by means of a formal resettlement programme, they are offered a five-year humanitarian protection visa. The Government have previously responded to concerns about what happens when such children turn 18; the likelihood is that they will be granted indefinite leave to remain. However, undocumented children, particularly those who arrive in the United Kingdom unaccompanied and by irregular means, are granted unaccompanied asylum-seeking child leave. That leave fails to represent the long-term solution that we all want, as it is granted for a period of 30 months or until the child is 17 and a half years old, whichever period is shorter. At that point, whichever comes first, the child is treated as an adult migrant and is not subject to the same protection that they had, but their needs have not suddenly changed dramatically just because an age threshold has been reached or they have reached the end of their UASC leave. We will fail that vulnerable person unless we provide long-term support.
The Children’s Society has found that the widespread granting of UASC leave, with further determination delayed sometimes until just before the child turns 18, does not serve the best interests of children and leaves them open to risk. We need to look carefully at who we are dealing with, because UASC leave often fails to represent a long-term solution, and it leaves young people anxious and uncertain about their future, which will store up problems. Such young people are transitioning to adulthood, and they want to have a say. Any child wants safety, support and a loving home, which continues as they get older—for these children probably even more so, given their background. The Government increasingly do that for care leavers. This is not just something that ends at 18; it is a longer-term commitment. So many of these vulnerable people, wherever they come from, need longer-term support.
We must have a different understanding of children. We should not rely simply on their reaching the high threshold set by refugee conventions and the established legal understanding of “refugee”; we should also recognise the needs of separated children who may not necessarily meet that threshold. Such children are at particular risk. We have seen across Europe that, appallingly, some 10,000 children—we do not know the exact numbers—have gone missing, many sadly into the hands of traffickers and exploitation. Such children are at risk, and they must be treated as such. We must consider how to categorise and support them properly with a child protection status that recognises their inherent at-risk status, which will not end just because they have come to this country and a place of safety. That status continues because of their background and their need for support so that, when they reach the age of 18, or if their ordinary application for asylum fails, they do not run the risk of further destitution and exploitation. It would be an appalling dereliction of our duty if, after we help to provide sanctuary from the risk of exploitation and destitution, they face that same cycle of risk in this country.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Debate between David Burrowes and Tim Loughton(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Loughton
That is a good reason for going further. The debut of a married couple’s tax allowance in this Bill is a starting point, and it is the first recognition of marriage in this country’s tax and benefit system. I would like to include many more married couples, particularly concentrating on those with children under the age of five. That is where the allowance can have the greatest impact. We need to provide the greatest stability for young children in their most formative and impressionable years.
Mr Burrowes
The married couple’s tax allowance is a starting point, but I want to revise my hon. Friend’s description of this being its debut. Marriage was recognised in the tax system until 2000. We are only properly restoring what countries across the world, including more than 80% of European countries, recognise. We are simply going back to what was the case. We should not have moved away from that recognition in the first place.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend is right. He has been a pioneer in this area for a long time. The previous Government abolished the recognition, and they had 13 years to try to do something about recognising families in the tax system. Despite the easy words of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, the previous Government did absolutely nothing in practice. That is the record on which they should be judged.
Finance Bill
Debate between David Burrowes and Tim Loughton(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Loughton
And marriage was invented before bicycles, so why do we not support that, recognise it and value it, as we all do?
There are those who have come up with arguments against the figures, saying it is all about causation and effect. The millennium cohort research revealed that the poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples, so it is insulting to say that marriage is the preserve of the middle classes or better educated or better-off people.
This amendment alone will not solve all the problems that I have laid out. I am not naive enough to suggest that £150 or whatever the end result may be when this amendment becomes law in some form, as we hope, represents the difference between staying married or getting divorced, or getting married or cohabiting, but it does send a clear and strong message that we value families who take the decision to bring up their children within marriage. When I stood on our manifesto in 2010, and for many years before, my Front-Bench colleagues agreed with that. My amendment makes that a reality, beyond all doubt.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Is it not also a matter of fairness and social justice, because the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that 70% of the benefit of a transferable tax allowance would go to those currently on the lower half of the income distribution scale?
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that that dispels many of the myths being put around against the measure.
I hope that the Minister will take the new clause absolutely in the way it was intended. I do not intend to force it to a vote. I think that the Prime Minister has acknowledged the imperative of getting on with it now. I hope that, at last, our constituents can expect to benefit from the proceeds before the next election, both financially and with regard to our clear commitment to marriage, and that we can benefit from delivering on a popular, practical and achievable pledge, rather than the promise of jam in due course. If we can do that, it will be box ticked, job done.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Debate between David Burrowes and Tim Loughton
Mr Burrowes
I am afraid not, because I want to make progress to allow other hon. Members to speak.
Dutch registrars who were already employed before the legislation was passed are able to exercise their conscience and object. If it is good enough for those Dutch registrars, it is good enough for UK registrars. During the Bill Committee, one hon. Member suggested that people should realise that the writing is on the wall for their employment and that they should jolly well recognise that they will have to stick to the law and not exercise their own conscience, or get out now while they have the chance. That is disgraceful and amounts to serving people with a notice to quit. It means that this will be not just a marriage Bill, but an unfair dismissal Bill.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Is not the situation worse than that? In Committee, the Government, in effect, designed a hierarchy of exemptions. A Catholic surgeon is perfectly entitled to refuse to conduct an abortion paid for by public funds, but a Catholic registrar, who is similarly in public service paid for by public funds, could lose his position if he declined, out of a conscientious objection, to perform a same-sex marriage. Where is the fairness in that?
Mr Burrowes
I agree. This Bill is supposed to be about fairness and ensuring appropriate freedom and liberty, which goes beyond what happens in a marriage service.