Family Justice Reform

Debate between Jim Shannon and Ian C. Lucas

Wednesday 15th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and explanation. There is no reason why we cannot support that—indeed, I am going to say those things right now. I fully support what he has put forward.

In the example of the lady who moved in and paid into a mortgage, everything in her relationship was in the name of her partner—their house, their car and every other loan they took out. At the end of the relationship, which ended through no fault of her own, she ended up with absolutely nothing. I find that quite annoying, and I want to put that on record. There should be no young woman or man who has paid off someone else’s mortgage, only to receive marching orders because the grass is greener on the other side.

I ask the Minister to consider working with all the devolved Assemblies—as long as we have a Northern Ireland Assembly, of course—to tighten up protection and responsibilities for long-term co-habiting partners. At the very least, people should be made aware that the common-law principle is a myth. When they chose to move in with someone rather than to formalise their choice, they are left open, and legal redress is a long and drawn-out process. There is a process, but it is laborious, convoluted and difficult to see through. In my introduction, I said how complex the situation is; the stories of the people who come to tell me what they have had to go through to try to get to the end of the road are quite unbelievable.

People can prove they have lived in a house through direct debits and other bills that they pay, but that process should not be difficult or open to badness—if I can use that terminology—from one partner, leaving the other partner homeless and hopeless.

[Ian C. Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case. There is a horrible consensus emerging in the debate, particularly on common-law marriage. The idea emerged from I know not where, but it has never ever existed. The other important aspect is that the whole process is hideously expensive. For someone to establish their rights through the courts, which may be possible through a resulting trust or a constructive trust, is impossibly expensive for most ordinary people.

Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Jim Shannon and Ian C. Lucas

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ian C. Lucas]

I agree entirely.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He is right that this is a massive issue. “Dispatches” highlighted the concerns that many people have about the PIP assessment. The same firm is contracted to carry out PIP assessments in Northern Ireland, where we have one of the highest DLA claimant rates in the whole United Kingdom because of the troubles. Like me, does he feel—perhaps the Minister will respond to this—that there is a great need for those who carry out the tests to have a higher level of competency?

[Ian C. Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is clearly a major problem, and MPs are seeing that in their constituencies across the United Kingdom. The purpose of securing such debates is to draw to the Minister’s attention to the mistakes made by Government. All Governments make mistakes—mistakes were made under a Labour Government—and there is a real mistake in this particular case that he needs to address.

Human Rights: Saudi Arabia

Debate between Jim Shannon and Ian C. Lucas

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lucas]

In an increasingly globalised world, international recognition of workers’ rights, wherever they work, is an important step that needs to be taken. International progress is lagging in a world in which more and more people are moving around and working in different places. Recognition of international charters would be a good step.

[Jim Shannon]

Picking up on the point made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) in his intervention about the Saudi Government holding a conference, it is important that what they say at the top filters right down to the bottom, and that the police and local authorities ensure that people have freedom of expression and of religion, which they clearly do not have at the moment.

[Ian Lucas]

It is important that there is cultural change to ensure that views other than the prevailing are respected and that due precedence is given to minorities at all levels in society.

We have heard already that Saudi Arabia has been designated a country of concern in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s “Human Rights and Democracy Report 2013”. The Foreign Affairs Committee has published a report into UK relations with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, and I share its concern about the human rights situation in those countries and agree with many of the questions that it asks about the Government’s approach. It would be helpful for the Government to clarify what recent assessment they have made of Saudi Arabia’s compliance with the UN convention against torture. More generally, what is the Government’s policy on ministerial and prime ministerial visits to countries of concern? What is the FCO’s guidance on arms exports to countries of concern?

I want to discuss the case of the princesses, which was ably set out by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. I have met Princess Alanoud and have raised the issue privately with the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, but I have been dissatisfied with the responses that I have received about how to resolve this upsetting case. The Government seem reluctant to make any representations to the Saudi Arabian Government about the matter. Will the Minister clarify whether he has made any such representations? I am delighted that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham would form part of a delegation on the matter and I would be happy to join such a delegation. The particulars of this case are upsetting and are causing great damage to how Saudi Arabia is viewed. The matter needs immediate attention.

During the United Nations Human Rights Council session in Geneva in March, Saudi Arabia accepted recommendations to improve its human rights record. Progress is being made and the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham referred to the steps that he thinks are being taken. A profound problem still remains, however, and the Government seem reluctant to raise such issues directly with Saudi Arabia. That reluctance does not extend to incidents in other countries, such as the recent tragic case in South Sudan and cases in Iran. If the United Kingdom is to speak with authority on human rights issues, it is important that it is consistent across the middle east and the world. From my travels in the middle east, I know that what we say is undermined if we apply different standards in different situations. Our approach to human rights in Saudi Arabia must be consistent and authoritative and we must be clear that human rights are central to our relationship with the kingdom and that matters must improve substantially.

Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion

Debate between Jim Shannon and Ian C. Lucas

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who made an excellent speech in which he referred to the maxim of Queen Elizabeth I about windows and souls and that is powerful to this day.

We owe a great debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) for bringing us here today to participate in this very powerful debate, which has been wide ranging because this is a worldwide issue. It is important that we express the very strong views that are coming into my constituency office and, as we have heard, into constituency offices right across the country about the importance of freedom of religion, conscience and speech.

I would like to raise one specific issue with the Minister and make one request. We have heard a number of references to the abductions of the children in Chibok in Nigeria. I have sensed a strong feeling across the House that we would like to have more information on this issue and the opportunity of meeting the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), who is Minister for Africa, to hear about precisely what is happening and about what discussions are taking place between him and the Nigerian authorities to try to assist in taking it forward. This is a matter of profound concern. I would be grateful if the Minister took that request back to the Foreign Office and we could have an urgent meeting about it.

The right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) made a fascinating speech to which I listened very closely, particularly when he talked about his perception of the universal declaration on human rights and the optimism that existed after the second world war. That is something that we have too little of in our political thought nowadays. At a dreadful time—a period of reconstruction—our predecessors made a profound commitment. Many of the countries we have mentioned, including Saudi Arabia and China, committed to the universal declaration on human rights. We need to remind them that they did so voluntarily and that progress can be made.

Pessimism sometimes prevails on this issue, but we have also heard some references to the Arab uprising—the Arab spring—and the middle east, which is my particular focus. I want to share with the House a positive story about the middle east. It relates to Tunisia, where the Arab spring started when a man called Mohamed Bouazizi burnt himself to death. That led to the deposing of the then president, Ben Ali, and the beginnings of the Arab spring. The past three years in Tunisia have been difficult. Prime Ministers have come and gone, Presidents have moved on, and individuals and parliamentarians have been killed because of the political views they have expressed. However, I am pleased to report to the House that the leader of our sister party, Mustapha Ben Jafar, whom I was pleased to meet recently, has been able to put together a constitution that is broadly welcomed on a cross-party basis and has been approved by parliamentarians and parties right across the piece. It is an Islamic country, but the constitution respects freedom of conscience and religion and that has been achieved against a very difficult backcloth at a very difficult time.

I pay tribute to the United Kingdom Government for the support they have given to the Tunisian Government. I have visited the embassy there, so I know that a great deal of work has been put in and that it has been a very difficult process. The investment in the Arab Partnership and the work undertaken by the Foreign Office and the Government have been very positive indeed. Although we have heard some dreadful accounts of what is happening across the world, that positive picture shows that progress can be made. We need to retain such resilience—that much underrated political quality—and ensure that we carry it forward. We should remember that our revolution between 1649 and 1660 took 11 years and that it went backwards and forwards and then back again. These things take time.

[Jim Shannon]

Although the Tunisian constitution enables people to practise Christianity, there are examples of persecution whereby some people in positions of power have been unwilling to let that happen. Will the shadow Minister use his influence with his contacts there to ensure that that point is addressed?

[Ian Lucas]

Absolutely. A written constitution is a wonderful thing, but applying it and embedding its principles are even more important. I will certainly do what the hon. Gentleman asks.

We have heard some excellent contributions, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who discussed the Ahmadiyya Muslims, about whom I learned a great deal today.

I have seen the film, “Coma”, starring Geneviève Bujold. We need to hear more about the dreadful, horrific picture of North Korea described by the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). The name of that country recurred throughout the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) made, as ever, a passionate contribution. We heard so much about the current situation in the Central African Republic, which is of major concern.

The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) also told us about North Korea, and her commitment on the issues under discussion is widely known. I was moved to hear of the communication she received from South Korea: we are, indeed, listened to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) made an excellent speech about human rights and how this is a rights issue. That takes us back to the central importance of the universal declaration of human rights in 1948. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) made an important point about how it is not negotiable. It must run through this country’s entire political policy, if we are to maintain our position in the world. We need, therefore, to be consistent in our application of it and to have some tough conversations with friends as well as opponents. Such difficult things sometimes need to be considered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) told us of concerns north of the border and the contribution of the Church of Scotland, which, like Churches across the United Kingdom, is very concerned about the issues. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who is not in his place, also has a long-standing interest in the matter and he paid tribute, as we all should, to Open Doors, which provides such important information.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to Nigeria. I hope we can work together to try to resolve the dreadful situation there, which must be so bad for the parents of those children who are missing.

The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) drew the Back-Bench contributions to a close with his deep knowledge of Tanzania. It is always interesting to hear about his Huguenot background. Perhaps it is down to the Huguenots that we invented the industrial revolution and the French did not, which is a very good thing.

For all such reasons, this debate has been very valuable. It is wonderful that there has not been much disagreement across the House. However, a great range of views has been expressed, and we need to realise that we are not divided on these issues. I am afraid that the hard conversations are for Governments. We can debate the issues in this Chamber, but those difficult conversations take place between one Government and another, when a Government do not live up to the standards that we want to see.

I have already paid tribute to the UK Government’s excellent work in Tunisia. There is a very difficult situation in Egypt, where a great deal of work has also been carried out. It will be very good if the same principles can be applied in Egypt that were applied in Tunisia. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the steps that will be taken to carry forward the principles of Government policy with which so many of us agree.

Spinal Cord Injuries

Debate between Jim Shannon and Ian C. Lucas

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lucas]

I was just talking about the extraordinary work of the Midlands Centre for Spinal Injuries, which I witnessed some years ago and which continues. In connection with the immediate response to serious accidents where people have spinal cord injuries, a miraculous transformation can be carried out, provided that the right level of care is offered by specialists in the immediate aftermath of the accident.

The continuing effects of spinal cord injuries are important, and I want to concentrate on those today. Spinal cord injury results in a combination of the loss of motor, sensory and continence function, making it unique among long-term conditions. It is also a non-improving condition. Once rehabilitation is completed and health care needs have been identified, they are unlikely to decrease. Indeed, they are likely to increase over time, with complications brought on by ageing and as the condition continues. It is essential, therefore, that needs are well managed by a dedicated and trained team who understand spinal cord injuries. That will ensure that health complications and significant cost implications for the national health service are avoided or minimised.

How care is administered is a major concern to many people living with spinal cord injuries. It is not just the individual who is affected by the spinal cord injury; often, the family and the immediate community around that individual must cope with profound pressures. There is an increasing worry that health care provision is becoming a postcode lottery, with clinical commissioning groups interpreting the national framework differently to meet their budgets, rather than the specific needs of spinal cord injury patients.

The landmark legal case of Pamela Coughlan in 1999 set a precedent for how patients with a certain level of injury should expect to be treated. Ms Coughlan, a C5/C6 complete tetraplegic with no significant additional health needs, took her primary care trust to court when they attempted to transfer care provision responsibility from NHS continuing health care, within which health care is free, to the local authority, where charges may have applied.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Member for Wrexham and I spoke beforehand about this issue and I wanted the information to be recorded. Perhaps the Minister will take it on board as well.

We have a specialised 15-bed unit that looks after the whole of Northern Ireland and its population of 1.7 million people. That unit has everything: trauma, orthopaedics, neurosurgery, neurology and an intensive care unit. There are dedicated teams for physio, nursing, occupational therapy, social work, psychology, dietetics, art therapy and complementary therapies. All that happens under one roof for all the people in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Wrexham said to me, “That is the sort of thing we need in my area.” I wanted to put that case on the record. Perhaps the Minister could look to Northern Ireland as an example of something that has been done and done well.

[Ian Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Going back to Ms Coughlan and the issue of continuing care, the ruling found that patients with a certain level of spinal cord injury have health care needs of a “wholly different category” than can be legitimately provided for by a local authority. These are profoundly and almost singularly serious conditions. Even spinal cord injured people with greater health needs than Ms Coughlan are finding themselves assessed as ineligible or seeing their care packages severely restricted, without any evidence of reduced need.

As local health budgets for continuing health care are being squeezed and, in many cases, reduced, many of these people are experiencing reduced care packages and unfair, and potentially unlawful, decisions on eligibility for continuing health care. There are many examples of continuing health care packages being denied or dramatically reduced after reassessments, without evidence of clinical improvement.

One individual who has been affected is John Burns. He addressed the all-party parliamentary group on spinal cord injury last year, and it is occasions like that that show the importance of all-party parliamentary groups. They allow individuals such as John to speak to Members of Parliament and explain the difficulties.

John, who is married with three teenage sons, is a C2 tetraplegic following a water sports accident while on holiday with his family in 2007. Due to the extent of his injuries, John was initially put on a ventilator and awarded NHS continuing health care. After a period in a spinal cord injuries centre, John was discharged into a care home and was successfully weaned from his ventilator. Although he remained paralysed from his neck down, his continuing health care funding was consequently withdrawn, and he was told to expect to remain in a nursing home for the rest of his life. Without the appropriate funding, John was unable to receive the care and support he needed to be with his family and return home. He described that period as being like a “prisoner,” as he was denied time with his wife and sons in his own home. That is the type of individual that we, as a community, should be aiding, rather than denying them health care.

In a meeting with the Spinal Injuries Association, the then Minister of State with responsibility for care services, the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), expressed concern about John’s case. Thanks to the involvement of the Spinal Injuries Association, an independent nurse was assigned to assess John’s case and immediately argued in his favour that funding should be reinstated. Yet John had to go through that process to restore the care that had been taken away from him. One can imagine the worry and distress experienced by John and his family during that period.

Despite the precedent of the Coughlan judgment, a large number of spinal cord injured individuals with health care needs demonstrably equivalent to or even greater than those of Pamela Coughlan are still denied NHS continuing health care. The culture of ineligibility continues. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that, where appropriate, spinal cord injured people have access to NHS continuing health care and that the legal ruling is adhered to? Is there a process for monitoring the level of care that individuals with severe spinal cord injuries are receiving from their immediate provider? How will the Department monitor the level of provision that is being given?

The Government must ensure that locally produced policies do not impose inappropriate and potentially unlawful care packages on a spinal cord injured person. Will the Government ensure that clinical commissioning groups adhere to the Coughlan judgment when deciding NHS continuing health care eligibility for spinal cord injured patients? Does the Minister believe that there should be a presumption of eligibility for tetraplegics when determining continuing health care? In addition to their injuries, such individuals and families should not have imposed on them the burden of worrying whether the care they received in the past will continue.

There is also concern that multidisciplinary teams assessing spinal cord injured patients for continuing health care frequently exclude health professionals with expertise in spinal cord injury when reaching their decisions. Along with the judgments that set legal precedents for NHS continuing health care, such as the Coughlan judgment, assessors and decision-making panels must carefully consider evidence from spinal cord injury clinicians and health care professionals from the NHS spinal cord injury centres. It is important that those individuals, who are so skilled in providing care, have input into the process of deciding what care the NHS is to supply in future. Will the Government take action to ensure that health professionals with expertise in spinal cord injury are included in multidisciplinary teams throughout the process?

There have been instances in which local commissioners have introduced policies that randomly restrict the amount of money available for “care at home” packages to the cost of non-complex care in a nursing home, disregarding the special care needs of spinal cord injured people and their right to family life. In an increasing number of clinical commissioning groups, local implementation policies place restrictions on the size of “care at home” packages, often based on arbitrary caps set against the equivalent cost of a placement in an establishment such as a nursing home. That has happened, for example, in the Sheffield clinical commissioning group cluster and in north-west London despite Department of Health practice guidance outlining the rights of people to choose where to live and to take risks, and despite the court’s indication that an individual’s human rights need to be balanced against cost.

The excellent spinal research charity Aspire commissioned Loughborough university to independently consider the impact on people with spinal cord injury of being discharged to nursing homes. The research found that living in a nursing home has a damaging psychological and physical impact on people with spinal cord injury. Spinal cord injury patients should not be expected to live in institutions rather than with their families. Generally, such people view care homes as a last resort.

The individual must be at the centre of the assessment process. Improving the implementation of NHS continuing health care will benefit its members, the clinical commissioning groups and the wider spinal cord injury community. Such issues affect people across the UK. They cause families and individuals profound worry, and they must be addressed urgently. The legal ruling must be adhered to, and the culture of ineligibility must end.

UK Relations: Libya

Debate between Jim Shannon and Ian C. Lucas

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lucas]

I am delighted that last week, the UN voted unanimously to end the no-fly zone, which has now been lifted. The new resolution is another important landmark towards Libya’s democratic future. The state has a historic opportunity to build on human rights and to ensure that freedoms are protected. We in the United Kingdom have a great tradition of working with developing democracies to try to establish democratic values, and I know that the Minister will support that.

Britain’s future involvement in Libya is important. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), warned in September how a liberated country can quickly become a lawless and violent one. We have seen the end of armed conflict in Libya, and we are now seeing a steady transition to democratic government. The country must now embark on the delicate process of developing institutions. We know from our own history how difficult that is in the aftermath of civil war—Oliver Cromwell was not able to build enduring institutions in the UK. The problems that Libya now faces are serious, so we need to ensure—I think that the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) put this well—that the Libyan people are at the forefront of addressing them. It is important that we support their work in developing institutions.

Will the Minister make clear how he sees our role with Libya developing? Will the emphasis be on bilateral relations with Libya, or will we continue to work through NATO or the UN? What is the current format for the working relationship with the new Libyan Government, and how will that develop?

There is a great appetite in the House for developing relations with Libya. It is a matter for not only the Government, but Parliament as a whole. I am sure that there will be interest throughout Parliament in developing the nascent democracy in Libya. There is great interest in establishing working links, as well as economic links, with Libya. Companies in my constituency already export to Libya and have done so for a number of years, which, to pick up what the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham has said, is something that we need to develop. There is no shame in that. The Defence Secretary was right to say that there are business opportunities in Libya, and I am pleased to hear that Lord Green has already visited Libya and is assisting in the rebuilding of that country in a way that suggests that we can contribute as a nation. We have an opportunity in both the democratic and commercial spheres to assist with the development of Libya.

[Jim Shannon]

After the Kuwait war and the tremendous contribution made by British armed forces to that victory, a number of British companies in Kuwait felt that they would have an economic advantage, but it did not happen. Following other contributors to this debate, does the hon. Gentleman feel that more could be done to ensure that British companies benefit?

[Ian Lucas]

It is important that we grasp the opportunity to contribute commercially, which means creating jobs in our own constituencies. We, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to be outward-looking on occasions such as this. Perhaps we should not focus purely on issues such as Europe, when big issues are happening around the world. We should look at the opportunities in Africa, China and beyond. It is important that, in these extraordinary times, we use the increasing communication with countries such as Libya for the benefit of our own constituents.

VAT (Charities)

Debate between Jim Shannon and Ian C. Lucas

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here this evening, Mr Deputy Speaker.

First, I would like to declare an interest as an unpaid patron of two charities in Wrexham—The Venture and Dynamic. Many Members will be involved in charities in their own constituencies. There are, in fact, 177 charities registered in my constituency, although, of course, many more provide services there. All MPs see the positive work that charities do. In Wrexham, I have seen the development of services provided by charities since I was elected in 2001, often co-ordinated by the Association of Voluntary Organisations in Wrexham. Many services are provided in partnership with the NHS, such as the Nightingale House hospice in the town, and some work with the local authority.

There has been an expansion of the work of charities in recent years often to cover work that previously was carried out by the Government—at local or, indeed, national level. It is this concept that, I believe, the present Government wish to accelerate through the development of the Prime Minister’s concept of what he calls the big society. This process has created an anomaly. Services previously provided by local government benefited from an exemption, under section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, allowing local authorities to reclaim irrecoverable VAT incurred for non-business purposes. The rationale was that the VAT burden should not fall on local taxpayers. In a world where services are increasingly provided by charities, it seems unfair to require charities to bear that burden. Although the problem has existed for some years, it will necessarily be made bigger as more services are provided by charities, rather than by central or local government.

What undoubtedly makes the problem more acute is the Government’s decision to increase VAT from 17.5 to 20%. That was a choice made by the Government. At the same time as deciding to increase VAT, the Government chose to announce a decrease in corporation tax, which benefits Barclays bank, for example, but does not benefit charities, which do not pay it. The Charity Tax Group has calculated that the increase will cost charities £143 million—money that will go directly into the pockets of the Government. I would like to place on record my thanks to the Charity Tax Group for the considerable work it has done in raising the issue. As a first step towards addressing the problem of irrecoverable VAT, will the Minister agree with me that the Government should not benefit from charities having to pay more VAT? If the big society is to mean anything, how can charities be expected to bear an additional financial burden while being required to provide additional services?

I contacted local charities in the Wrexham area to try to assess the impact of the VAT rise on them, and a number came back to me with figures. Earlier I mentioned Nightingale House hospice—probably Wrexham’s best known local charity—which provides excellent care to local individuals suffering from cancer, many of whom end up dying. We all have hospices in our areas that provide excellent care, and the Nightingale House hospice told me that the increase in VAT would cost it around £10,000 a year—money going directly to the Government.

Hardest hit, however, will be those charities that provide goods and services for sale to vulnerable people. Vision Support is a charity that helps those across north Wales with a visual impairment. It has a large trading arm and supplies specialist equipment to the blind and partially sighted, such as phones and computer aids. Its VAT liability was £155,371 for the year ending 31 March 2010. The Government’s action means that the charity would have to pay an extra £22,195.86 in VAT—money that it cannot use to provide services to some of the most vulnerable in the community that I represent. Again, the money goes directly into the pockets of the Government. Can that approach really be justified?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman has clearly outlined the issue for charities, but along with charities, there are probably literally hundreds of thousands of volunteers who do great work in constituencies across the United Kingdom. Does he agree that the change will affect not only charities, but volunteers and the good work that they do, and that this underlines the need for a VAT exemption for charities?

[Ian Lucas]

Certainly. We want to encourage volunteers in our society. They contribute hugely to community spirit, but it must be demoralising for them to have the hard-earned funds that they have raised taken away from them.

The issue is one that the Government should try to confront and deal with. It has been dealt with in particular circumstances in the past; for example, it was recognised by the last Labour Government, in their listed places of worship grant scheme. This paid the equivalent of the VAT expended on repair projects for listed places of worship back to those organisations. I have received representations from the Church in Wales asking the Government to extend that scheme beyond its end date of March 2011. Will the Government commit to pay charities generally the extra VAT that they obtain from those charities as a consequence of their own decision to increase the level of VAT? If the Government do not do so, that will diminish the capacity of charities to carry out their work.