Pensions (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Greg Knight

2nd reading
Friday 2nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend raises typically astute points that need to be considered. The short answer is yes, I have. If he will bear with me, I will come to that, because I have sought professional advice on the implications for those funds. I promise my hon. Friend that I will come to that; if he feels that I have not done so sufficiently, he can feel free to have another bash, so to speak.

Since the special rules were introduced, there have been significant advances in how the NHS treats and cares for people nearing the end of their lives, meaning that many terminally ill people now live for longer with their illness. Given the advances, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced in July 2019 that the DWP would undertake an in-depth evaluation of how the UK benefit system supports those nearing the end of their lives.

As part of that consultation, the Department sought feedback from the terminally ill, those who support them and clinicians. Much of the reasoning and findings from that report are directly applicable to the Bill.

The purpose of the evaluation was to consider the policy and implementation of the special rules relating to people defined as “terminally ill”. It aimed to take a holistic view of the support provided, and took into account direct contributions from people nearing the end of their life, who shared their first-hand experiences of accessing support via the special rules, as well as from charities and organisations supporting them. As well as receiving written evidence, the evaluation team held engagement sessions, including an event for people living with or affected by motor neurone disease; conducted telephone interviews with people nearing the end of their life; and met charities that provide support for people nearing the end of their life.

The study also took into account the views of healthcare professionals who work with and support people approaching the end of their life, through national expert palliative and end-of-life care clinical groups; and nearly 1,000 clinicians from a range of professions, in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, also had a chance to respond through a survey. Their views should not be underestimated, as they play a large part in respect of access to financial benefits under the special rules, which is the bit I want to look at in a little more detail.

The Department’s findings agreed with the purpose of the Bill, showing that there was a consensus across all groups that the Government should extend the current six-month rule and support for the Department for Work and Pensions to adopt a 12-month end of life approach that would allow people in the final year of their life to claim under the special rules. An added benefit of the 12-month approach was that it would also bring greater consistency with the definition of “end of life” used by the NHS and right across Government.

The overwhelming evidence of medical advances in the past 30 years, since the special rules were first implemented in 1990, demonstrates that the law in its current state is no longer fit for purpose. In general, public health has changed dramatically, both with the pandemic, and with the advances in pain relief and other trial drugs that now make living with a terminal illness for longer more likely. The leaps and bounds made in both the care for terminal patients, and the identification and diagnosis of these patients, have progressed extensively. All forms of palliative care have progressed, from how people nearing the end of their life are treated and cared for, and how their conditions are managed, to how clinicians define people nearing the end of their life. That is why the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) are so important: it is because of these huge changes that have taken place.

New approaches in care have been developed using the Gold Standards Framework and the Daffodil standards. The “Ambitions for Palliative and End of Life care: a national framework for local action 2021-2026” NHS guidance has also led the way in reforming caring for people nearing the end of their life. The Gold Standards Framework is a registered charity and has been the UK’s leading training provider for generalist frontline staff in caring for people in the last years of life for more than 25 years. Its aim is to enable a gold standard of care for everyone with any condition, in any setting, given by any care provider, at any time in a person’s last years of life. That is focusing on the medical side of things, and this Bill hopes to provide the equivalent standard in terms of pensions. Both frameworks have been integral to the improvement in palliative care and the greater life expectancy of terminally ill patients, because with better care and treatments, the longer people will live, and hence the need for the amendment proposed by the Bill.

One of the largest issues relating to the Bill is how clinicians define who should be eligible for the special rules. The DWP survey showed a consensus across all groups that the current definition is not fit for purpose, for several reasons. Some patients who have fluctuating conditions or uncertain life expectancy found it difficult to access the special rules, as their life expectancy was indeterminable. Many conditions progress rapidly and then plateau, and some conditions do that regularly. Two groups of patients who struggle with that are motor neurone disease sufferers and cancer patients. In preparing for today’s debate, I contacted the Motor Neurone Disease Association to ask how it feels about the change and how it will affect people diagnosed with MND. I am sure everyone in the House is familiar with the “Scrap 6 Months” campaign, led jointly by the MNDA and Marie Curie, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) mentioned and which is supported by thousands of campaigners across the country. They told me:

“This Bill will ensure that a greater proportion of people living with MND will be”—

able to receive—

“terminal illness payments from the Pension Protection Fund and Financial Assistance Scheme...

This is important given the context of the financial impact of living with MND, especially as symptoms of the condition increase”.

So, on that basis, they very much support the Bill.

Macmillan Cancer Support plays a large part in end-of-life care and has its national call centre based in my constituency in Shipley. It told me that it was supportive of the decision to widen the criteria from six months to 12 months, ensuring that those with a terminal diagnosis have timely access to financial support when they need it most.

In some cases, the six-month rule forced clinicians and patients to have very distressing conversations about life expectancy either too early or at the wrong time for them. There are two ways in which this issue can be tackled. The first is the 12-month rule, which is where we are with the Bill, mirroring the end-of-life approach used by NHS England. The second is taking out the timescale and instead using a clinical recommendation supported by guidance, which does not have an explicit timeframe attached to it—in effect, looking at the nature of somebody’s condition.

The first option is an increase in the term of life expectancy to 12 months, which is what the Bill would do. Obviously, this approach aligns the welfare state with the work of the NHS, and so would make it easier for organisations across the UK that support people nearing the end of their lives to understand the application of the special rules, because it makes them all consistent. Clinicians have many difficult conversations when discussing end-of-life care, and this could be added into those conversations instead of being had separately, also saving the NHS time.

However, I just want to point out that any time-bound rule could be subject to the same problems, as life expectancy can fluctuate and nothing is certain—even within a year. There is therefore an argument for basing it on a clinical diagnosis, rather than a fixed term, which by definition is always going to be slightly arbitrary.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Will my hon. Friend just clarify the position? Is he saying that he would prefer the Bill to be amended, or is he happy with it as it stands?

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. I support the Bill, because it is far better than the status quo, and it sensibly evens up those situations, which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury intends with the Bill—in effect, to ensure that the rules for benefits and pensions are the same and that one does not diverge from the other. My point is that this should not be the last word on the matter, because it may not necessarily be the best outcome. It is a sensible measure to take, but there is a bigger issue here about whether—across benefits and pensions—this is the right approach to take. My point is that we should not be wedded to the idea that a time limit is the right way to do it. This matter therefore warrants consideration as to whether fixed-time limits are the right way to go.

The benefits of an open-ended time period clinical recommendation is that it would allow greater access to pensions under special rules for those who have an uncertain prognosis, many of whom still have difficulty accessing benefits, whether it be six months or 12 months. The drawback of that approach is that a broader definition of terminal illness would make it difficult for clinicians to make decisions about who is eligible, which could lead to people missing out.

The aforementioned survey of clinicians’ views on this matter relating to the benefits system found that, when asked what they thought the time criteria should be under special rules, 38% of respondents preferred a 12-month model, 34% preferred a model without reference to a time limit, and only 10% supported the existing six-month model. That goes to the heart of what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire was saying, which is that, whereas everyone agrees that the six-month rule should be changed, and that therefore my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury is absolutely right to bring forward the Bill, there is not much in it between whether people think it should be 12 months, or there should not be a specific time limit. Those views should be expressed in this debate for further consideration, given the subject we are debating.

The conclusion on this point from the Department was to make a legislative move to the 12-month rule, which is a perfectly reasonable decision to make based on that survey. That is now codified in the Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2022, and the exact same reason has been applied in my hon. Friend’s Bill. Changing the six months to 12 months is clearly the most popular option, based on that evidence, and it brings it into line with the rest of the benefits system. It would maximise the opportunity to improve awareness of the special rules and provide consistency in their application. We should be making it easier for people nearing the end of their lives to access their pension benefits and any other financial aid they are entitled to under the special rules system.

The second argument taken into consideration for access to special rules was awareness and communication. The DWP evaluation showed that much more could be done to improve awareness, and respondents felt that the information and guidance regarding access to special rules could be improved. Again, we might want the Bill to say something about making people aware of the change in the rules, because it is no good having those changes if nobody is aware of them. That is something else that needs to be considered.

Of course, charities are vital in helping people to make a special rules claim, as people are often unaware that there is financial assistance and support available from the Department for Work and Pensions for people nearing the end of their lives. However, clinicians can also play their part. Apparently, as written in a DWP report, some are not aware of special rules or have limited knowledge of them. When the Department aligned benefits with the 12-month end of life approach, it expected to be able to improve awareness among clinicians by taking advantage of training and educational resources and that, through those resources, the language should also be simplified. That was the Department’s conclusion and I assume the same will be valid in this case too.

On the point about the report, I should also mention that the clinicians raised concerns over the term “terminally ill”, which is used in the Bill. They say that the term is being used less and less these days, and patients are now more commonly referred to using terms such as “end of life.” That is a change within the field of palliative care, and one that maybe could be taken into account with the language in the Bill and in the rules that the Government use.

What actually happens when someone tries to submit a special rules claim? Is that something the Bill could make easier too? People nearing the end of their lives, or those who support them, provide the DWP with medical evidence that provides details of their clinical condition, treatment and response to treatment. That is most commonly done by a clinician completing an SR1 form. That form can be completed by GPs, by hospital doctors, or by registered nurses working in roles such as advanced nurse practitioner, Macmillan nurse, clinical specialist nurse, or practice nurse with expertise in long-term conditions management. That form can be submitted in either paper or electronic copy, and, in England, by NHS staff using an online tool.

As I said, some clinicians are not aware of the special rules or have limited knowledge of them. Therefore, the clinicians who provide SR1s do not always fully understand the special rules and what needs to be included in them. That means some patients find getting an SR1 or other medical evidence more challenging than it should be. In the DWP’s survey of the clinicians who had completed an SR1 form, the majority believed it was of value; 73% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that the form is

“an effective way of providing evidence to support a patient’s benefit claim under the Special Rules criteria”,

but 12% disagreed or strongly disagreed. When asked to explain their reasons for their views, the majority said the form was perceived as easy and clear to use, but some considered that it failed to capture certain information that they felt was important, particularly where the patient meets the definition but is receiving active treatment, or where it is necessary to explain the details of a condition other than cancer.

If the Bill succeeds, as I hope it will, and the change is made from six months to 12 months, that will offer an even bigger chance to develop a more cohesive approach between the Department of Work and Pensions and clinicians, to ensure that the right people are claiming special rules. In order to get benefits, there must be requirements for claims and ways to claim. The Department found that more support around making a claim would improve the experience. It also received feedback on what happens once a special rules claim is made. There was a consensus from those who fed back into the evaluation that having access to an online portal or some information on the progress of their claim would be helpful.

I promised my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire that we would talk about the fiscal side of the Bill. I contacted Tim Middleton, the director of policy and external affairs at the Pensions Management Institute, about that—I thank him for giving up his time. Two questions must be considered about the financial repercussions of the policy. First, how many applications for full commutation on the grounds of serious ill health are received by the Pension Protection Fund scheme each year? I was told that the number is in double figures—it is really not many. I should say that Tim Middleton has been working in the pensions industry since 1987, and he has only ever encountered three cases of a special rule being applied to a Pension Protection Fund scheme, so we can safely say that it is not a big number.

The second question, which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire rightly asked, is were the application period extended from six months to 12 months, as the Bill anticipates, what additional costs would the Pension Protection Fund incur? A member being able to apply within the extended 12 months of a diagnosis, rather than six months, would be a change. Tim Middleton, who is an expert in the field—of course, if the Government have any different figures, we would all be delighted to hear them— has said:

“Whilst there is likely to be an increase in cost, it does not seem likely that this would be significant, and, in any event, for a scheme as large as the PPF, it is expected that these costs could be easily absorbed.”

That should give my hon. Friend some comfort that the scheme will not be burdened beyond its means, but it certainly needs to be considered. It would be helpful if the Minister let us know whether her assessment is the same as the one I have been given. By way of context, in the European Court of Justice judgment in the Hampshire case in 2018, it was estimated that the additional annual cost to the Pension Protection Fund would be £215 million, and that it would affect approximately 1,200 members. The Bill changes would see nothing like that figure.

For completeness, I looked at whether anything other countries did could be usefully included in the Bill, based on their practices and experiences. Comparing the terminal illness definitions of countries with comparable systems, I found that Belgium uses the phrase “palliative status”, which is defined as

“expected survival of a maximum of 2 months, due to one or more irreversible disorders and with the intention of dying at home”.

The Netherlands defines it as

“with an expectation to die within 12 months”.

Australia and New Zealand use an “average life expectancy of less than 2 years”. In Canada, a terminal medical condition is a disease that

“cannot be cured or adequately treated and is reasonably expected to result in death within 6 months”.

Spain refers to people who will

“benefit from palliative care for example, those with an incurable, advanced and progressive disease; limited life forecast; low possibility of response to specific treatments… frequent crisis of needs; intense emotional and family impact; impact on the care structure; high demand and use of resources”.

From those definitions, we can see that there is no clear international definition of what constitutes a terminal illness for the purposes of a welfare system, whether that is a benefit system or a pensions system. Some countries, as we can see, have taken a time-based approach, and others have gone for a clinical definition. This is a wider area that needs more consideration generally, but my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury’s Bill is exactly right to make the point that the two systems—the benefit system and the pension system—should be exactly the same. There is absolutely no reason why they should not. Whatever system we have in future, I very much hope that we will always be able to keep a consistency of approach, because otherwise it is not fair.

On the Bill’s commencement, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire was absolutely right—to be fair, my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury set it out clearly in speaking to the Bill, so it is not as if anything was being hidden—to focus on the fact that the measures

“come into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.”

I share his concern. We all think something is a good idea, the House of Commons passes a Bill, as does the House of Lords, but lo and behold, nothing happens. I think most of our constituents will find that to be an intolerable situation.

Can the Minister explain why we must have such a woolly starting point in the Bill? I cannot see the need for it. Why can we not have a specific starting date? Surely, at the least, a “no later than” date—based on the reasons any delay might be needed—could be inserted. It is important that the Minister explains why we cannot have a specific date, why there might be a delay, and why we cannot have a “no later than” date added to the Bill. I am pretty sure that we will all want to consider that again either in Committee or the subsequent stages.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Has my hon. Friend examined clause 2(7), which gives the Secretary of State the power to make transitional arrangements, so that a nine-month period could be introduced for a specific time. I do not understand why we are giving the Government that flexibility. If the House and the other place approve the Bill, and the monarch signs it, it should become law and be implemented.

[Philip Davies]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. One duty of Members in scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account is to ensure that on a day like today, when people are anxious to get through as much as possible, the Government do not sneak into the Bill a few powers to change things more easily in future—powers that perhaps the House might not otherwise want to give them. At the moment, this House passes far too many things that give the Government of the day sweeping powers to change things without coming back to the House for meaningful scrutiny. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to be wary of those measures.

This is a fairly short Bill, but the most extensive part is clause 2, which basically gives the Government powers to vary this and that, introduce the measures when they want, and so on. We should always be nervous about legislation that is a convenience for the Executive rather than a benefit for our constituents. It is incumbent on the Minister to explain why the Government need those powers. Is there a specific reason that each of those powers has been added to the Bill, or is it a typical catch-all—“Let’s shove the lot in there just in case we might need it at some point in the future”? We should always be wary of such measures. If there is a good reason that each subsection in clause 2 is needed, let us hear it so that we can all make our own minds up about them. If they are not needed and have just been shoved in for a bit of convenience in case the powers are needed at a later date, perhaps the House might want to say, “Well, we don’t think you should have those powers. If you want to do something different, you should come back at a later date and make that case.” I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on that.

Those are perhaps things that we could come back to in the Bill’s remaining stages, but in the meantime, I certainly support the thrust of what my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury is doing. He should be commended for focusing on something that is important to many people and will make a massive difference to their lives, and he will be thanked by many in my constituency and beyond. On that basis, I support the Bill’s Second Reading.

Guardianship (Missing Persons) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Greg Knight

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

Let me set out from the start that these are probing amendments and I do not intend to push any of them to a Division. By anyone’s admission, this is quite a meaty Bill, running to 25 clauses, but we have had no scrutiny of it in the Chamber. It received its Second Reading on the nod, without any debate whatsoever, and here we are, with time pressing on, and we have had no opportunity before now to debate any of its provisions. I therefore tabled some probing amendments to tease out from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) why some of the Bill’s provisions—the timescales, for example—are as they are.

Amendment 1 would remove subsection (4), which states:

“A person who is detained, whether in a prison or another place, is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as absent from his or her usual place of residence and usual day-to-day activities.”

I want to tease out from my hon. Friend the reasoning behind the subsection, because there was no scrutiny of it on Second Reading.

In passing, I should say that we are discussing the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Bill, and a Missing Persons Guardianship Bill is going through the House of Lords. I am not sure whether that Bill’s provisions are different from this Bill’s, but perhaps Members in the other place are trying to achieve the same thing.

In 2014, the Government held a consultation entitled “Guardianship of the property and affairs of missing persons” in which, as far as I could see, the issue addressed by subsection (4) was not mentioned once. Furthermore, I checked the reasoning behind the inclusion of the subsection with the House of Commons Library, but the staff there confirmed that they had not been able to find out anything about its background. They could not explain why it was in the Bill, beyond its inclusion as an example.

After speaking to Library staff at further length, they said:

“The Bill defines a missing person as someone who is absent from their usual place of residence or their usual day-to-day activities. The reason for being absent may be because the person is detained. However, in addition, as in other cases, the first or second condition set out in subsections (2) or (3) must also be met. In most cases, the first condition is likely to be relevant—that is, that the person’s whereabouts are not known, or not known with sufficient precision to enable contact to be made.”

That was the Library’s explanation of why the subsection might be in the Bill but, given that the staff there were not entirely clear about it, I thought it important to table an amendment so that we could hear my hon. Friend explain it at first hand. That is why I see it as a probing amendment.

Amendment 2 would insert into clause 2:

“Before hearing an application for a guardianship order the court may require the applicant to take such further steps by way of advertisement or otherwise as the court thinks proper for the purpose of tracing the missing person.”

That would ensure that all reasonable steps had been taken to try to locate the missing person.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

On reflection, does my hon. Friend agree that the court probably has that power anyway? Someone seeking to obtain an order must surely have to show the court that they have taken all reasonable steps to discover where the missing person is..

[Philip Davies]

I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton will be able to confirm that, which is why I described the amendment as a probing one. I want it to be clear, on the record, that that is the case, because it was not entirely clear from looking through the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) is right—I am sure he is—but, as I said, it is a probing amendment so that we can get it confirmed on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is why I proposed a shorter period rather than a longer one.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I think that my hon. Friend has inadvertently misled the House. As I read the Bill, the term of four years is a maximum, and the court has power to make an order for any length of time up to four years.

[Philip Davies]

Yes, that is right. If I did mislead the House, I certainly did not intend to. I thought I had made it clear that it was a maximum of four years, but if I did not, I apologise to my right hon. Friend and to the House. He is right: it is a maximum, and it does not need to be exactly that. However, that does not necessarily overcome the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) that a decision for four years could be made in good faith and is then superseded, possibly causing an issue.

Again, I pray in aid the consultation on these matters. It received a range of views on the appropriate duration of guardianship appointments. Two respondents said they agreed with the proposed maximum term of four years, while there were suggestions from four other respondents, including for a shorter period of just one or two years, with one proposal of eight years. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton is saying that we should split the difference and go for four years, and that is the consensus—I do not know. As I said, there are examples in other countries. In Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, the administrator or manager is appointed initially for up to two years, which can be extended for a further two years. I wonder whether that might have been a more sensible way of going about it. It is the same in Irish law, with an initial two years that can be extended for a further two years. That might be better than a straight four years right from the word go.

My amendments are in no way seeking to cause any problems for the Bill; they are simply to give it some scrutiny that up to this point it has not had, as I am sure my hon. Friend will be the first to concede. Legislation does deserve some scrutiny, particularly when it is as meaty as this. I look forward to his and the Minister’s response to the issues I have raised and their explanations for some of the details in the Bill.

Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Greg Knight

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I suspect that you are right about my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, Mr Deputy Speaker; he has been leading me astray for many years now.

The serious and relevant point that I want to make is that the principles in many respects remain the same. I accept that there is the difference in terms of the criminal law that my hon. Friend outlines—and that you outline, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point I was trying to make—perhaps in a ham-fisted way—is that the principles are similar in terms of retrospective legislation and whether we should go down that route.

In conclusion, I support the Bill and am all for changing the law on this, and I still maintain today that this law that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury is rightly dealing with should never have been the law; it was an absolute outrage that it ever was the law of the land, and I am all for changing it. But I am concerned that there might be, not necessarily unintended consequences, but unintended precedents set by trying to change it retrospectively.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the essence here is that we should not be seeking to pass provisions that are retrospective unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and where our hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has failed is in explaining what is compelling about his amendment?

[Philip Davies]

My right hon. Friend sums it up perfectly. There are two ways of looking at this. One of them is the way he looks at it, which is that we should not pass retrospective legislation unless there is a compelling reason to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch appears to be taking the view that we should not pass it unless there is a good reason not to. We seem to be on opposite sides of the coin, and I am with my right hon. Friend on this: unless there is a cast-iron reason why we should pass retrospective legislation, we should avoid doing so in case it sets some dangerous precedents further down the line, and my hon. Friend has clearly not met that test. Therefore, even though I have absolute sympathy with what he is trying to do and agree with the sentiment behind his amendment, I urge Members to resist it on this occasion and leave the Bill as it is.

Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Greg Knight

Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

He is not. We are very grateful to him for clarifying that he is not interested in the debate. There is no wonder the SNP is so authoritarian.

The Istanbul convention has a two-pillar monitoring system to ensure that all members live up to their commitments. The aim is

“to assess and improve the implementation of the Convention by Parties.”

We therefore have two groups: GREVIO, which is initially composed of 10 members and which will subsequently be enlarged to 15 members when the 25th country has ratified the convention, and a political body—the Committee of the Parties—which is composed of representatives of the parties to the Istanbul convention.

The last thing we need is another group from a supranational body that is set up to make it look as if that body is doing something on issues but that just becomes a talking shop. It is not the implementation of the Istanbul convention that will make any real difference to levels of violence generally—and certainly not to levels of violence against women—but harsher sentencing of perpetrators. The idea that having a group of experts pontificating about how well or badly something has been implemented will make any material difference to the levels of violence in the UK is for the birds.

GREVIO’s task is to monitor implementation, and it may adopt general recommendations on themes and concepts of the convention. The Committee of the Parties follows up on GREVIO reports and conclusions, and adopts recommendations to the parties concerned.

There are different procedures that these two bodies can use to monitor each country’s implementation, such as a country-by-country evaluation procedure whereby GREVIO considers evidence submitted by the relevant countries. Should it find the evidence insufficient, it has the power to organise country visits and fact-finding missions.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Is the UK represented on either or both of those bodies, and if so, who is our representative? Did my hon. Friend consult with such person or persons concerning the terms of his new clause before he tabled it?

[Philip Davies]

My right hon. Friend is usually much more up on these matters than I am, so I always bow to his superior knowledge, but my understanding is that we would get members on these bodies only once we had ratified the convention. If he knows differently, I am happy to allow him to correct me because, as I say, he is usually more right than I am on most matters.

Another procedure that GREVIO can adopt is a special inquiry procedure that can be implemented when there is reliable information indicating that action is required to prevent a serious, massive or persistent pattern of any acts of violence covered by the convention. In this instance, GREVIO can request urgent submission of a special report by the concerned country.

Obviously I do not believe that the Government should ratify the convention at all, but should we do so, I do not want these foreign supranational bodies to come over and start lecturing us about things when in fact we are usually doing an awful lot better than any other country in the world on such matters. We often see this with the United Nations. By ratifying the convention on the terms of this Bill, we will open ourselves up to visits, fact-finding missions and interference by a foreign body lecturing us about what we should be doing, and perhaps even instructing us that we should be doing this, that and the other.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is rather sad if the House of Commons, and Parliament generally, thinks it is so poor at holding the Government to account on these things that it cannot do it itself and has to farm out the job to a foreign body. That would be a rather strange approach and from a Parliament that was lacking in self-confidence. The Women and Equalities Committee—I will not go into the issue of its name today—would be more than capable of holding the Government to account on the work they are doing on combating violence against women, and violence against men for that matter. We do not really need foreign politicians and foreign bureaucrats sticking their noses into what we are doing .

[Sir Greg Knight]

Is not my hon. Friend rather contradicting himself, because if we were to adopt the convention, it would not be a foreign body lecturing us, would it? It would be a body on which we had representation and were able to make our views known.

[Philip Davies]

I do not accept that. Having said that my right hon. Friend is virtually always right, I fear that this is one of the rare occasions when he is not. These things all sound wonderful when one signs up to them, but one does not necessarily understand the full implications of doing so. As an illustration of that, we might focus on the European convention on human rights. It would be very difficult for anybody to disagree with anything in that convention, but we did not realise at the time how it would grow and start to get ahead of itself, interpreting things in a way that could never have been envisaged and getting above its station. That creates all sorts of problems further down the line. In this context, my fear is not necessarily all about what is in the Istanbul convention, although I do have concerns about that—I am more concerned about the way in which a foreign body will interpret its role and start growing to a level that was never envisaged either in the convention or in the Bill. The votes for prisoners issue in relation to the European convention on human rights perfectly illustrates how these things can grow in a way that we never envisaged. I therefore do not accept the premise of my right hon. Friend’s intervention.

New clause 6 is absolutely essential to maintaining our sovereignty in the United Kingdom and to making sure that that is set out clearly in the Bill so that there is absolutely no doubt that we retain all sovereignty in these matters and in what we are implementing.

New clause 10 follows on from that. I would have hoped that the SNP and the campaigners for this Bill would very much welcome it, because it says:

“Any recommendations…by GREVIO…or the Committee of the Parties…must be debated in Parliament before any Government response is given.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North argued that Parliament should be in charge of these matters. If we sign up to this Bill as currently drafted, Parliament will be excluded from anything that goes on. Once we have ratified the convention and the Bill is passed, Parliament will suddenly become redundant. If a foreign organisation is producing reports saying that the Government are not meeting what they signed up to—if that is the view of GREVIO and the Committee of the Parties and they produce a report along those lines—then surely it is only right that the matter is debated in Parliament so that Parliament can have its say on whether it agrees before the Government respond to GREVIO and the Committee of the Parties.

I cannot see why anybody who is in favour of this Bill and is campaigning for it could possibly object to giving Parliament more scrutiny over the process and more power to hold the Government to account. If anybody who supports the Bill would like to intervene and tell me what objection they have to new clause 10, I would be very happy to hear it and try to deal with it. If people do not have any objections to it, they will obviously remain quiet and we can proceed on that basis—we can press it to a vote and hopefully get people’s endorsement. I will give people the opportunity again: if anybody has any objection to new clause 10, perhaps they could speak now. If they do not, we will press it to a Division and hopefully get full support for it. It looks as though we have that.

Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Greg Knight

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for alerting me to that fact, of which I was unaware. I was just coming on to that point, because it seems that the figures are worse than that in the United Kingdom.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend clarify something? Is he saying that if this Bill were gender-neutral, he would support it?

[Philip Davies]

Yes, I am very much saying that—that is the thrust of my point. I absolutely would support the Bill if it were gender-neutral, but it clearly is not, and we need only read the convention to see that fact and to have heard the speeches we have heard so far today to realise that it has nothing to do with gender neutrality.

In 2008, Stonewall found that one in four lesbian and bisexual women have experienced domestic violence in a relationship, with 49.3% of bisexual women experiencing severe physical intimate violence. On abuse during childhood, the recent MOJ report, “Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2015”, notes:

“The perpetrator of physical abuse against females was almost as equally likely to be the mother as the father (33% and 36% respectively).”

This is not as clear-cut as some Members would want us to believe, but the Bill supports the narrative that they want to keep talking about. What they say bears no relation to the facts, but it very much helps a narrative that they want people to take away. At some point, some of us have got to say, “No, we are not prepared to allow these distortions to continue. We are going to argue what the actual facts are, not what people would want the facts to be.”

If people do not want to listen to me—which I understand that they often do not, because I say things that they do not want to hear—perhaps they might have more sympathy for a marvellous lady called Erin Pizzey. In 1971, Erin Pizzey opened the world’s first women’s refuge in Chiswick specifically dealing with all victims of domestic violence. Perhaps because of her background, she has the credentials, which I am not afforded the luxury of being granted, to be given a hearing. She went to the United States at the invitation of the US Government and embarked on a Salvation Army-sponsored tour of 21 cities to help set up shelters for victims of domestic violence. She did the same when she moved to Italy, and she returned to England in 1997. More recently, in March 2007, she opened the first Arab refuge for victims of domestic violence in Bahrain. I hope that people may listen to her if they will not listen to me. In 2011, she said in a press release on the international day for the elimination of violence towards women:

“25th November 2011 is the international day for the elimination of violence towards women. Like everybody else who reads this statement I am of course totally in favour of the elimination of violence towards women but unlike the instigators of this event I believe that we should be eliminating violence against everyone and that includes men and children.

“I applaud the efforts of Viviane Reding who is the Vice-President and Commissioner responsible for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship, Cecile Grebolvel who is the Secretary General of European Women’s lobby and Mikael Gustatsson who is Chair of Parliamentary Women’s Rights and gender equality commission in their efforts to protect women but I am puzzled as to why this enormous empire of women with the huge self important titles manage to avoid any discussion of the effects of violence upon the family, fathers and children.

If we have any hope of tackling the tragic effects of domestic violence we have to face the facts that women can and are also guilty of violence against their partners. To concentrate only of women as victims is to deny the fact that children are also abused by their mothers. We can no longer afford to cover up the huge scandal that has existed for the last forty years where only men have been held up as perpetrators of all violence.

My hope is that sufficient political pressure will be brought to bear upon these women who sit in great positions of power to acknowledge that we do indeed need to make November 25th a day when we all agree internationally that there should be zero tolerance for violence against anyone and that we will all work to make the family a safe and harmonious place.”

I think that we should listen to that very carefully indeed. It sums up entirely my view on this issue. That is a woman who has far more credentials than many people in this place, having set up the world’s first women’s refuge.

In response to a parliamentary question asked by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), the Government said that they remain committed to ratifying the convention and set out what more needs to be done:

“The previous Government signed the Istanbul Convention to show the strong commitment it placed on tackling violence against women and girls and this Government remains committed to ratifying it… The UK already complies with the vast majority of the Convention’s articles but further amendments to domestic law, to take extra-territorial jurisdiction over a range of offences (as required by Article 44), are necessary before the Convention can be ratified. The Ministry of Justice is currently considering the approach to implementing the extra-territorial jurisdiction requirements in England and Wales and will seek to legislate when the approach is agreed and Parliamentary time allows.”

According to the Library, article 44 of the convention, on which the Government were placing great weight, states:

“Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to establish jurisdiction over any offence established in accordance with this Convention, when the offence is committed:

a in their territory; or

b on board a ship flying their flag; or

c on board an aircraft registered under their laws; or

d by one of their nationals; or

e by a person who has her or his habitual residence in their territory.”

Paragraph 2 states:

“Parties shall endeavour to take the necessary legislative or other measures to establish jurisdiction over any offence established in accordance with this Convention where the offence is committed against one of their nationals or a person who has her or his habitual residence in their territory.”

Paragraph 3 states:

“For the prosecution of the offences established in accordance with Articles 36, 37, 38…and 39…of this Convention, Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that their jurisdiction is not subordinated to the condition that the acts are criminalised in the territory where they were committed.”

Paragraph 4 states:

“For the prosecution of the offences established in accordance with Articles 36, 37, 38 and 39 of this Convention, Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that their jurisdiction as regards points d and e of paragraph 1 is not subordinated to the condition that the prosecution can only be initiated following the reporting by the victim of the offence or the laying of information by the State of the place where the offence was committed.”

Paragraph 5 states:

“Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to establish jurisdiction over the offences established in accordance with this Convention, in cases where an alleged perpetrator is present on their territory and they do not extradite her or him to another Party, solely on the basis of her or his nationality.”

Paragraph 6 states:

“When more than one Party claims jurisdiction over an alleged offence established in accordance with this Convention, the Parties involved shall, where appropriate, consult each other with a view to determining the most appropriate jurisdiction for prosecution.”

Paragraph 7 states that

“this Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised by a Party in accordance with its internal law.”

It is, apparently, because of article 44 that the Government are dragging their feet.

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Greg Knight

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Lady needs to get out more, to be perfectly honest. She would find that there is widespread concern about the issue. She can vote accordingly and should not have anything to fear from a debate or a vote. I do not see why she should seek to object to either thing—that is what we are supposed to be here in Parliament to do, after all.

As you know better than anyone, Mr Deputy Speaker, I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate in the Chamber, but I am well aware of the time limitations and that other Members want to speak. I have given way once, but I will try to resist the temptation to give way many times because I want to hear what others have to say, too, and there is a lot to get through.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I am sorry to test my hon. Friend’s resolve so early in his speech, but this is an important point. On reflection, does he not agree that his new clause on halal meat—[Interruption]—and kosher could have been better drafted? If we are to have labelling, is it not important that the labelling specifies whether the meat was pre-stunned halal or non-pre-stunned?

[Philip Davies]

I have resolve, but I can seldom resist giving way to my right hon. Friend. Animal welfare is a big issue for lots of people, but it is not the only one. Many other faith groups are concerned about the blessing given to the meat before sale, and his proposal would not address their particular concerns. My new clause has been drafted with all such people in mind, because the issue is bigger than one only of animal welfare. Animal welfare is an important element, but not the only element. I will come on to that later.

I want to start, however, with new clause 12, which relates to ticketing. The hon. Member for Walthamstow said that my new clause had nothing to do with her new clauses, but nothing could be further from the truth—it very much has. We know what her long-term agenda is, because she let it slip in an intervention: ultimately, she wants to see the end of ticket touting and the secondary sale of tickets. I think that that would be a massive retrograde step. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, on which I serve, looked into the matter in the previous Parliament and found that such activities were a legitimate area of business. The Office of Fair Trading, as well as the Committee, found that it works in the consumer’s best interest.

Sittings of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Greg Knight

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Knight]

I have already given way a number of times, but I shall continue to do so, as I see that two of my hon. Friends wish to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Knight]

I am not sure whether I agree with my hon. Friend. I am Knight by name, night by nature. Perhaps I have hung around with too many musicians, but I tend to like working during the evening.

[Philip Davies]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is plenty of work to be done that can easily see us through until 10 pm? I am not entirely sure why Members should have nothing to do after 6 pm, given all their constituency work. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that what we are being asked to do is choose between the competing claims of Select Committees, the House and Westminster Hall? At present there is plenty of time for Members to participate in all three, but a change in our hours would not allow that to continue.

[Mr Knight]

As I said at the outset, any change will have consequences. My hon. Friend has correctly identified one of those consequences, namely the clash with Committee sittings on Tuesday mornings.

Let me now, for the benefit of all Members, say something about the mechanics of the voting that will take place later. I have had a discussion with the Patronage Secretary, the Chief Whip, and because there is to be a genuine free vote for Government Members and also, I trust, for Opposition Members, and because there are differences of opinion in the Government Whips Office, he has agreed that the Government Whips will act as Tellers on motions 1 to 7. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) will therefore not need Tellers for the vote on her motion to change Tuesday sittings, although if she wishes to push her later amendment, she will need Tellers for that. The Government have taken a view on September sittings, and if any Member chooses to divide the House on my motion on the subject, Tellers will also be needed then. I hope that that is helpful to all Members.

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Greg Knight

Friday 20th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I agree and I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman clearly supports my amendment. Our job in this House is to ensure that we have proper safeguards in place, based not on wishy-washy assurances but on provisions on the face of the Bill. We do not want to find that when we have passed something we have been sold a pup on an issue that is too important to the future of the United Kingdom for a decision to be based merely on assurances. I do not want to go on as I do not want to test the patience of the House or of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point because she has conducted herself so well and I do not want to scupper the chances of our debating the next group of amendments. On that basis, I shall leave my comments there, but I want to make it clear that if the my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute withdraws his amendment I would like to pursue my amendment 30, which is the second amendment in this group.

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36), but the Deputy Speaker withheld his assent and declined to put that Question.