Browse content similar to 24/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Line | From | To | |
---|---|---|---|
From after to the end of the subsection and insert, any members | :00:12. | :00:18. | |
of the public who are registered to vote in local elections in the | :00:19. | :00:23. | |
United Kingdom. With this, Mr Speaker, I will also address | :00:24. | :00:28. | |
Amendment three and four, extending the range of individuals able to | :00:29. | :00:34. | |
benefit under section 26 of the act, 2014, which my honourable friend is | :00:35. | :00:40. | |
seeking to achieve. I shall also look at Amendment five, six, seven | :00:41. | :00:43. | |
and eight looking in detail at what we mean by the expression and | :00:44. | :00:47. | |
journalist in clause one. My honourable friend from Bury North | :00:48. | :00:50. | |
will deal with the definition of journalistic material and I shall | :00:51. | :00:57. | |
leave him to address it. Amendment number nine deals with the | :00:58. | :01:01. | |
arrangement for exercising the right to inspect and 11 extends the period | :01:02. | :01:05. | |
within such rights can be exercised beyond 30 days. Amendment 12 would | :01:06. | :01:11. | |
enable documents which are claimed to be commercially confidential to | :01:12. | :01:14. | |
be inspected but not copied. Amendment 13 will extend the right | :01:15. | :01:19. | |
to inspect past contracts and 14 will leave the definition of | :01:20. | :01:23. | |
commercial confidentiality in common law, not altered. Amendment ten, | :01:24. | :01:29. | |
arguably the most radical of these amendments, would extend the right | :01:30. | :01:32. | |
to inspection beyond local government, to the audit of accounts | :01:33. | :01:37. | |
of any health service body as defined in the 2014 act. It will be | :01:38. | :01:45. | |
obvious from that brief summary of the amendment is that they are all | :01:46. | :01:51. | |
faithful to the long title of the Bill, to extend local or garment -- | :01:52. | :01:59. | |
local documents under the act 2014. My amendments are also inspired by | :02:00. | :02:03. | |
recent experiences of how secrecy in local government is undermining the | :02:04. | :02:08. | |
ability of members of the public to is scrutinised properly what is | :02:09. | :02:14. | |
happening and properly hold councils to account. They also seek to | :02:15. | :02:17. | |
address some of the issues raised in the second reading debate on the | :02:18. | :02:25. | |
25th of November. Turning to... I will give way to the honourable | :02:26. | :02:29. | |
member. I am grateful to my honourable friend for giving way. He | :02:30. | :02:33. | |
touches on the second reading debate. Which I hope to address in | :02:34. | :02:38. | |
my remarks later today. Does my honourable friend share my concern | :02:39. | :02:44. | |
that the matters which were raised in the second reading debate were | :02:45. | :02:47. | |
not addressed when this was dealt with in committee? I think my | :02:48. | :02:53. | |
honourable friend is on to a good point. In the second reading quite a | :02:54. | :02:56. | |
lot of reference was made to the fact we will discuss this in | :02:57. | :03:00. | |
committee. I know my honourable friend from Dorset North said if I | :03:01. | :03:04. | |
am put on the committee I would like to raise this as an amendment. But | :03:05. | :03:09. | |
he was never put on the committee. And I think the committee stage | :03:10. | :03:15. | |
lasted for all of 21 minutes, Mr Speaker. If the records are correct. | :03:16. | :03:19. | |
I did not think there could have been a proper scrutiny. Despite that | :03:20. | :03:24. | |
there were some interesting remarks made at committee stage, some of | :03:25. | :03:27. | |
which I will refer to shortly. I will give way to the honourable | :03:28. | :03:32. | |
member. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to make it very clear | :03:33. | :03:38. | |
that we had at committee stage a debate, no member was precluded from | :03:39. | :03:45. | |
putting down an amendment and we had a good turnout on the day that we | :03:46. | :03:51. | |
took the debate through committee. But I will be responding to his | :03:52. | :03:55. | |
points more in detail when I have the chance to speak. It was actually | :03:56. | :04:03. | |
only 11 minutes, I am told, that it lasted! I'm sure my honourable | :04:04. | :04:11. | |
friend will be able to explain further in due course. Currently, Mr | :04:12. | :04:17. | |
Speaker, a person who is registered as an elector in a local authority | :04:18. | :04:21. | |
area has the right to inspect and have copies of a wider range of | :04:22. | :04:26. | |
accounts, related documentation, under section 25 of the act, and | :04:27. | :04:31. | |
therefore has no additional benefit under section 20 six. This amendment | :04:32. | :04:36. | |
addresses the issue of electors in other local authority areas. Unless | :04:37. | :04:38. | |
they can show they are persons they can show they are persons | :04:39. | :04:45. | |
interested within the meaning of section 26, they have no rights. But | :04:46. | :04:49. | |
at no time in my submission has it been more important for such | :04:50. | :04:52. | |
electors in other local authority areas to see what is going on | :04:53. | :04:58. | |
elsewhere. With the abolition of the audit commission, which provided | :04:59. | :05:00. | |
easily assessable comparative data for local authorities, it has become | :05:01. | :05:06. | |
more difficult to make comparisons, despite comparative data being so | :05:07. | :05:09. | |
important to issue accountability and policy-making. I will give way | :05:10. | :05:15. | |
to the honourable member. I chair the public accounts commission. We | :05:16. | :05:18. | |
have been looking at issues of accountability of local government. | :05:19. | :05:22. | |
My honourable friend makes a good point. The National audit office | :05:23. | :05:26. | |
audits all of central government departments, a massive task, and is | :05:27. | :05:31. | |
now effectively the auditor of local government. Whilst I favour this | :05:32. | :05:35. | |
reform there is much less detailed inspection of local government | :05:36. | :05:39. | |
audits and finance. That is undoubtedly a fact and my honourable | :05:40. | :05:45. | |
friend is right to raise this. I am grateful for that intervention. He | :05:46. | :05:48. | |
speaks with great knowledge and experience on this matter. This | :05:49. | :05:54. | |
amendment, Mr Speaker, in a sense is supported by my honourable friend | :05:55. | :06:00. | |
for Calder Valley. Col 1211 in the second reading debate, he intervened | :06:01. | :06:03. | |
and said might not the Government in the interests of honesty, openness | :06:04. | :06:07. | |
and accountability consider opening things up completely well beyond the | :06:08. | :06:12. | |
intention of the Bill so anybody can access this information? And the | :06:13. | :06:19. | |
Minister, my honourable friend for Nuneaton said I shall come onto that | :06:20. | :06:22. | |
a little later and explain why the balance is right. Unfortunately, Mr | :06:23. | :06:28. | |
Speaker, apart from asserting the measures in the Bill are | :06:29. | :06:31. | |
proportionately never got on to that particular important point. And I | :06:32. | :06:35. | |
hope the Minister on the front bench today will be able to redress that | :06:36. | :06:43. | |
shortcoming. I was also somewhat perplexed by the comments from my | :06:44. | :06:45. | |
honourable friend on the front bench today, the Minister representing | :06:46. | :06:54. | |
Britain cool, -- the Minister said he participated in the Bill on the | :06:55. | :07:01. | |
7th of February and in congratulating our honourable | :07:02. | :07:04. | |
friend, he said I am reminded of Margaret Thatcher, who in her maiden | :07:05. | :07:07. | |
speech introduced the public bodies admission to meetings act 1960, in a | :07:08. | :07:14. | |
similar vein. It was about opening up local government to journalists | :07:15. | :07:18. | |
and other interested parties. With the greatest of respect to my | :07:19. | :07:22. | |
honourable friend I think the core of Margaret Thatcher bottom-macro | :07:23. | :07:24. | |
Bill was making sure our public access and that is what -- Margaret | :07:25. | :07:30. | |
Thatcher's Bill was making sure our public access and I think we need | :07:31. | :07:36. | |
more open public access in the same sense the late Baroness wanted | :07:37. | :07:39. | |
public access to the actual meetings of local authorities. Her references | :07:40. | :07:46. | |
in the public bodies admission to meetings act to journalists were | :07:47. | :07:52. | |
talking about making sure that accredited newspaper representatives | :07:53. | :07:58. | |
attending such council meetings should be provided with reasonable | :07:59. | :08:00. | |
facilities for taking their report and so on. I do not think it is fair | :08:01. | :08:10. | |
with the distinguished former Prime Minister in supporting the Bill and | :08:11. | :08:15. | |
not supporting this amendment. I suspect the noble Baroness would | :08:16. | :08:19. | |
have been a strong supporter of the moment number two, which am putting | :08:20. | :08:25. | |
forward today. But this amendment is also highly relevant in the current | :08:26. | :08:28. | |
climate where many councils are seeking to reorganise into new | :08:29. | :08:34. | |
structures. As you know as well as anybody, Mr Speaker. Bucks, Dorset, | :08:35. | :08:43. | |
Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire, Kent at district council level and no doubt | :08:44. | :08:47. | |
a lot of others in future are toying with this idea of reorganising into | :08:48. | :08:54. | |
new structures. And at present it is very difficult for local taxpayers | :08:55. | :09:00. | |
to get hard access to information about what is happening in another | :09:01. | :09:05. | |
council. Despite the fact that local council might be aspiring to take | :09:06. | :09:11. | |
over the assets and income of the Council where the taxpayer is | :09:12. | :09:14. | |
resident. I will illustrate this point with an example from | :09:15. | :09:20. | |
Bournemouth. In speaking of Bournemouth, can I say how proud we | :09:21. | :09:24. | |
all are, those who live near Bournemouth, at the way in which our | :09:25. | :09:30. | |
honourable friend for Bournemouth East conducted himself on Wednesday. | :09:31. | :09:38. | |
That is an example of public service at its best. And I fear what I am | :09:39. | :09:44. | |
about to say compares unfavourably with the conduct of my honourable | :09:45. | :09:51. | |
friend. On the 9th of February, Bournemouth and Poole Council made a | :09:52. | :09:55. | |
submission to the secretary of state to incorporate Christ Church Council | :09:56. | :09:58. | |
in a new unitary authority comprising of Bournemouth, Poole and | :09:59. | :10:00. | |
Christchurch. They say they effectiveness cannot | :10:01. | :10:16. | |
be achieved in anyway other way. Bournemouth has a replition of being | :10:17. | :10:20. | |
profligate, spend thrift and secretive. The topical example is | :10:21. | :10:25. | |
the decision announced earlier this week to make its Chief Executive | :10:26. | :10:29. | |
redundant, it came out of the blue, the Chief Executive is to be made | :10:30. | :10:34. | |
redundant and he is going to be given a ?394,000 pay-off. That is | :10:35. | :10:43. | |
comprising ?85,000, six months' pay because aparentedly they don't want | :10:44. | :10:49. | |
him to work any longer and he is to receive ?63,000 in statutory | :10:50. | :10:53. | |
redundancy pay, although no reason has been given as to why the | :10:54. | :10:58. | |
position is redundant. He is also going to receive ?246,000 in account | :10:59. | :11:03. | |
of early release of pension funds. I have no criticism of the Chief | :11:04. | :11:07. | |
Executive. I think he's on to a good thing. And I'm sure fifs made an | :11:08. | :11:13. | |
offer like that, Mr Speaker, I would be sorely tempted by it. Somebody | :11:14. | :11:20. | |
quick, make an offer. But Bournemouth proposal, currently | :11:21. | :11:23. | |
before the Secretary of State, which is actually signed by Bournemouth | :11:24. | :11:28. | |
Council leader, and five other council leaders in Dorset, be | :11:29. | :11:33. | |
adviceages Christchurch tax payers having to subsidise Bournemouth | :11:34. | :11:37. | |
residents for up to 20 years by paying higher council tax than the | :11:38. | :11:41. | |
people in Bournemouth and Poole. So they will effectively have to meet | :11:42. | :11:46. | |
the bill for the Bournemouth Chief Executive's redundancy. And the | :11:47. | :11:51. | |
extraordinary thing about this, Mr Speaker, is that there was no | :11:52. | :11:54. | |
meeting of the council to discuss whether or not they wanted to make | :11:55. | :11:59. | |
the post of Chief Executive redundant. There was no even meeting | :12:00. | :12:03. | |
of Bournemouth Cabinet to discuss this and there has been no | :12:04. | :12:08. | |
discussification for the substantial pay-off, although I understand there | :12:09. | :12:13. | |
is to be a meeting of the council later next week, where they will | :12:14. | :12:19. | |
approve retrospectively or try to approve retrospectively the decision | :12:20. | :12:23. | |
to which I have already referred. But fortunately, in our locality we | :12:24. | :12:28. | |
have an excellent newspaper, the Daily Echo and they heard about this | :12:29. | :12:33. | |
and told the world that there are all sorts of headlines. And talking | :12:34. | :12:39. | |
about the ?390,000 pay-off, which as I said earlier is a slight | :12:40. | :12:45. | |
underestimate, but, anyway, it gets the message across, and they do | :12:46. | :12:50. | |
disclose, in I think Teed edition that the council is going -- noed's | :12:51. | :12:59. | |
-- today's edition, that the council will now discuss this following the | :13:00. | :13:01. | |
revelations by the newspaper earlier this week. But one is still left | :13:02. | :13:14. | |
with the question as to how has this arisen and it goes to local | :13:15. | :13:17. | |
accountability. It seems what happened is that the Chief Executive | :13:18. | :13:22. | |
has fallen out of favour with the leader of the Bournemouth borough | :13:23. | :13:25. | |
council because he sought to question the lead ears conflicts of | :13:26. | :13:31. | |
interest with his businesses. And the leader of Bournemouth borough | :13:32. | :13:37. | |
council runs a company, or an organisation called Hospitality | :13:38. | :13:43. | |
Solutions and this morning I interrogated the website of | :13:44. | :13:48. | |
Hospitality Solutions and it sets out all the things that Hospitality | :13:49. | :13:51. | |
Solutions does but particularly it gives advice on town planning | :13:52. | :13:56. | |
consultation for new build hotel and leisure development, planning | :13:57. | :14:00. | |
support to maximise site potential, planning applications and report, | :14:01. | :14:06. | |
project planning and management and building and refurbishing management | :14:07. | :14:10. | |
and it says "To arrange an initial discussion without any obligation, | :14:11. | :14:16. | |
the person to contact is none other than John Beesley, FIH, who is the | :14:17. | :14:23. | |
leader of the council." And it was earlier last month - in fact an | :14:24. | :14:28. | |
approval was given, I think actually it was in January, the 23rd January, | :14:29. | :14:37. | |
I think. Yes, 23rd January. The Bournemouth planning board gave | :14:38. | :14:45. | |
approval to a ?40 million hotel and apartment redevelopment in | :14:46. | :14:52. | |
Bournemouth and on the site of the former Belvedere Hotel, to build a | :14:53. | :14:59. | |
141-room hotel with leisure facilities, a sky bar and 66 | :15:00. | :15:03. | |
residential flats, a businessment car park and so on. -- a basement | :15:04. | :15:11. | |
car park and so on. I understand that the developers of that site | :15:12. | :15:16. | |
sought and obtained the advice of known other than the leader of the | :15:17. | :15:21. | |
council when developing their ideas. And the leader of the council, not | :15:22. | :15:25. | |
wearing his hat as ledder of the council, but wearing his hat as a | :15:26. | :15:29. | |
planning consultant, gave them advice and encouraged them to go | :15:30. | :15:35. | |
along and make their pitch to the planning department. The planning | :15:36. | :15:40. | |
department knowing of his involvement as a consultant, | :15:41. | :15:42. | |
although of course not being influenced by the fact that he was a | :15:43. | :15:50. | |
leader of the council. I suspect what has happened is, Mr Speaker, | :15:51. | :15:56. | |
that this and various other things that have been going on has raised | :15:57. | :16:01. | |
an eyebrow on the part of the Chief Executive and he was about to start | :16:02. | :16:06. | |
an investigation into the conduct and conflict of interest of the | :16:07. | :16:13. | |
leader of the council and the leader of the council effectively has used | :16:14. | :16:17. | |
public money in order to ensure that the Chief Executive's best interests | :16:18. | :16:22. | |
are served by taking the money and not inquiring any further into these | :16:23. | :16:30. | |
issues. I think, Mr Speaker, this is a current example of what is | :16:31. | :16:35. | |
happening across the country in local Government. I don't know, | :16:36. | :16:45. | |
whether, Mr Speaker, you read Roughman Burrows in the Private Eye. | :16:46. | :16:49. | |
There was so much information, it is almost like that they have to have a | :16:50. | :16:56. | |
second supplement on Rotten Boroughs. That there is so much | :16:57. | :17:01. | |
material coming out that it is unable to get into the public dedo | :17:02. | :17:06. | |
main, because of the pressure that is put upon local newspapers, if | :17:07. | :17:10. | |
they cause trouble with their local council, then they may suffer | :17:11. | :17:14. | |
discrimination, because there won't be any advertising for any local | :17:15. | :17:17. | |
council jobs in their newspaper and so on and they won't get access to | :17:18. | :17:25. | |
information. THE SPEAKER: Order, the reference by the honourable | :17:26. | :17:30. | |
gentleman to the Rotten Boroughs Column is of itself orderly but it | :17:31. | :17:34. | |
might help and inform the debate if that reference to be related more | :17:35. | :17:41. | |
specifically to the terms of the important amendment to which the | :17:42. | :17:45. | |
honourable gentleman is speaking, Mr Christopher Choke. I take that | :17:46. | :17:50. | |
point, absolutely, Mr Speaker. Will my honourable friend allow me. I | :17:51. | :17:54. | |
want to speak directly to his amendment in terms of understanding | :17:55. | :17:57. | |
what other local authorities are doing. Now I see the minister is | :17:58. | :18:05. | |
sitting in his place. We've had hugely controversial arguments about | :18:06. | :18:08. | |
whether to have a mayor and I and others managed to defeat that but | :18:09. | :18:13. | |
there is now a proposal,s this only a rumour that North Lincolnshire | :18:14. | :18:17. | |
mayp want to take over West Lindsey, which I represent, or merge with it. | :18:18. | :18:23. | |
I as an elector of West Lindsey, have absolutely no way of knowing | :18:24. | :18:26. | |
what is going on in North Lincolnshire and I personally think | :18:27. | :18:31. | |
- I personally think that if this is now being discussed in private, that | :18:32. | :18:36. | |
electors in West Lindsey, who are crucially concerned with this, | :18:37. | :18:41. | |
should have a right to know what is going on. My honourable friend makes | :18:42. | :18:46. | |
a very good point and that is, in essence, what I have been saying | :18:47. | :18:50. | |
about the position in Bournemouth. Because if Bournemouth is going to | :18:51. | :18:54. | |
take over or merge with Christchurch in a unitary authority, then the | :18:55. | :18:59. | |
people in Christchurch need to know the nature of the debts and | :19:00. | :19:03. | |
liabilities of Bournemouth borough council, and the sort of way in | :19:04. | :19:09. | |
which it conducts its proceedings. Particularly, on the issue of | :19:10. | :19:14. | |
planning, because one of the key losses in such a merger would be the | :19:15. | :19:19. | |
loss of cries church borough council's control over its -- | :19:20. | :19:23. | |
Christchurch borough council's control over oits engreen belt and | :19:24. | :19:27. | |
planning property. And that I think is one of the biggest concerns that | :19:28. | :19:31. | |
my local residents have got, that they fear that, effectively, they | :19:32. | :19:36. | |
will lose control over the quality of their local environment which, at | :19:37. | :19:41. | |
the moment they can control through local planning policy. So, Mr | :19:42. | :19:47. | |
Speaker, the point of this amendment is to try and ensure that anybody | :19:48. | :19:53. | |
can get access to this information, rather than just limiting it to | :19:54. | :19:58. | |
journalists. Obviously the information to which I've been | :19:59. | :20:03. | |
referring earlier will only become available after the - when the audit | :20:04. | :20:08. | |
for this financial year is conducted. And that may be rather | :20:09. | :20:13. | |
later in the day than most people would wish. Will my honourable | :20:14. | :20:22. | |
friend give way? Of course I will As he will know, many local papers are | :20:23. | :20:26. | |
stretched financially and many are deterred for publishing things | :20:27. | :20:30. | |
perhaps about maybe, including the leader of Bournemouth council, | :20:31. | :20:32. | |
because they feared being sued and they don't really have the resources | :20:33. | :20:36. | |
to defend themselves. Yoo my honourable friend agree with me that | :20:37. | :20:42. | |
why it is so important that not just journalists have access to this | :20:43. | :20:45. | |
material, but the public do, so they can make their own minds up, and not | :20:46. | :20:51. | |
being reliant on a newspaper which can afford to publish something | :20:52. | :20:55. | |
which may end up with them being in court. Of my honourable friend is | :20:56. | :20:59. | |
right. We in this place are trying to do a job to hold these councils | :21:00. | :21:02. | |
to account. I put down a parliamentary question earlier this | :21:03. | :21:10. | |
year trying to find out what the - How much arears and non-domsic rates | :21:11. | :21:13. | |
there were in Bournemouth. I got the answer I think it is about ?10 and | :21:14. | :21:19. | |
?12 million in uncollected, non-domsic rates, to the credit of | :21:20. | :21:24. | |
the council, within weeks, they had issued summones against all the | :21:25. | :21:29. | |
people who own arears. I like to think I might have had some | :21:30. | :21:33. | |
influence in that but they are talking about ?10 or ?12 million | :21:34. | :21:37. | |
worth of business, non-domsic arears at a time when they are saying it is | :21:38. | :21:43. | |
absolutely essential that we save 1% of turnover by abolishing existing | :21:44. | :21:49. | |
sovereign councils. It's farce K and trying to get these councils | :21:50. | :22:02. | |
themselves it's farcical. Trying to get the councils to address the | :22:03. | :22:07. | |
issues is difficult. And trying to get the scrutiny economies part of | :22:08. | :22:14. | |
the localism act, in 2011, that hasn't worked because often the | :22:15. | :22:17. | |
scrutiny committees are occupied by people who don't really understand | :22:18. | :22:21. | |
or are not interested in genuinely holding the council to account and | :22:22. | :22:26. | |
there is also the problem that the scrutiny committees are not entitled | :22:27. | :22:29. | |
to look into issues relating to planning, which is often one of the | :22:30. | :22:36. | |
most controversial local issues. And there are lots of other things I | :22:37. | :22:39. | |
could say about neighbouring councils. But I won't trouble the | :22:40. | :22:45. | |
House with all that now. I see that my honourable friend for Mid Dorset | :22:46. | :22:50. | |
is here and North Poole. And I'm sure he may wish to add to this | :22:51. | :22:54. | |
catalogue in due course, if he contributes to this debate. | :22:55. | :23:01. | |
But the essence of this amendment is that everybody should be able to get | :23:02. | :23:06. | |
access to this information, and it shouldn't just be limited to | :23:07. | :23:10. | |
journalists. And other interested parties. | :23:11. | :23:17. | |
Now, the idea ideas, as I think I said before, are very much supported | :23:18. | :23:23. | |
Miyamoto honourable friend for Calder Valley who wanted to extend | :23:24. | :23:31. | |
these rights to everybody and I anticipate, probably, the response | :23:32. | :23:33. | |
Miyamoto honourable friend, the sponsor of the bill is going to make | :23:34. | :23:40. | |
to this point because during the second reading of the -- the | :23:41. | :23:45. | |
response from my honourable friend. . He said, if the frights extended | :23:46. | :23:52. | |
to anyone there would be great potential to make mischief to | :23:53. | :24:04. | |
multiple requests to ask for documents without an ability to | :24:05. | :24:07. | |
make... I implore my honourable friend to | :24:08. | :24:12. | |
reflect on what show said. It was a sweeping genisation and where is the | :24:13. | :24:16. | |
evidence that the freedom to look at documents would be abused and if it | :24:17. | :24:20. | |
was, there are already safeguards dealing with vexatious behaviour. | :24:21. | :24:25. | |
So, that, in summary, is amendment number 2. | :24:26. | :24:30. | |
Amendment 3, would not go so far as amendment 2, but would extend the | :24:31. | :24:34. | |
limited extension to which the bill gives to journalists to politicians. | :24:35. | :24:40. | |
The example I gave above is obviously relevant, earlieer, is | :24:41. | :24:45. | |
obviously relevant to this but another example concerns the | :24:46. | :24:50. | |
difficulties which councillors in one area have in obtaining | :24:51. | :24:53. | |
information about has happened or is happening in other parts of the | :24:54. | :24:57. | |
country. And something like, for example, fair funding for schools, | :24:58. | :25:01. | |
there is a very lively local debate on about that but it is very | :25:02. | :25:05. | |
difficult to drill down into the data in other council areas to find | :25:06. | :25:10. | |
out exactly how well orred aboutly one's own schools in one's own area | :25:11. | :25:13. | |
compare with others. I think there is a very good reason | :25:14. | :25:22. | |
for saying politicians should be able to have equal access... I will | :25:23. | :25:28. | |
give way to the honourable member. I am grateful to my honourable friend | :25:29. | :25:32. | |
for giving way. This whole Bill before us this morning arises from | :25:33. | :25:40. | |
the problem in defining terms. I wonder if my honourable friend has | :25:41. | :25:45. | |
given any thought to exactly what constitutes a politician. For | :25:46. | :25:50. | |
example, does it include somebody that is a candidate in an election, | :25:51. | :25:55. | |
or only elected politicians? My honourable friend has tried, very | :25:56. | :26:04. | |
successful, probably, to torpedo my amendment! I accept the implied, or | :26:05. | :26:11. | |
even expressed criticism he is articulating. But I would fall back | :26:12. | :26:18. | |
on the general common law, Mr Speaker. And rely upon the general | :26:19. | :26:24. | |
common law interpretation of a politician and say that is probably | :26:25. | :26:27. | |
the best way of dealing with it without having to define | :26:28. | :26:33. | |
specifically in the terms of the Bill and amendment. Turning to | :26:34. | :26:38. | |
amendment four, this clarifies the law by making it clear persons | :26:39. | :26:43. | |
interested also includes nondomestic rate payers. The reason I raise this | :26:44. | :26:49. | |
is this is an issue which was the focus of the court case on the | :26:50. | :26:57. | |
application of HTV Ltd and Bristol city council, reported E W H C, 129. | :26:58. | :27:04. | |
Paragraph 48 of the judgment of the justice on May the 14th in 2004 | :27:05. | :27:10. | |
said, I have reached the conclusion that the interest which the claimant | :27:11. | :27:14. | |
has as a non-domestic rate payer is sufficient to bring it within the | :27:15. | :27:20. | |
concept of persons interested. Mr Speaker, Bristol city council in | :27:21. | :27:24. | |
that case argued to the contrary, citing insubordinate changes to the | :27:25. | :27:28. | |
nondomestic rate legislation in the Finance act of 1988. With | :27:29. | :27:35. | |
forthcoming further changes introducing 100% business rate | :27:36. | :27:37. | |
retention and the pooling of business rates across local | :27:38. | :27:41. | |
authorities, I think it is worth using the opportunity of the Bill to | :27:42. | :27:48. | |
clarify and put on the record that the existing legislation does | :27:49. | :27:51. | |
expressly incorporate the rights of non-domestic rate payers. That is | :27:52. | :27:58. | |
the background to amendment four. Five, six and seven are alternative | :27:59. | :28:04. | |
ways of limiting the term "Journalist" in this Bill to real | :28:05. | :28:11. | |
journalists. It is noteworthy that in the public body admission to | :28:12. | :28:20. | |
meetings act of 1960, section 14 C, Julie accredited representatives of | :28:21. | :28:23. | |
newspapers attending for the purpose of reporting proceedings for those | :28:24. | :28:25. | |
shall be afforded reasonable facilities. And the NUJ, National | :28:26. | :28:32. | |
union of journalists website sets out what is needed to establish that | :28:33. | :28:37. | |
you are indeed an accredited journalist. Says, an accredited | :28:38. | :28:47. | |
journalist must have implied identification, a business card, | :28:48. | :28:51. | |
implied ID badge and letter of signing on corporate letterhead | :28:52. | :28:55. | |
which must identify the immediate outlet, name, address and phone and | :28:56. | :28:59. | |
there must be proof of assignment sampled and published within the | :29:00. | :29:04. | |
last six months or a current master including the reporter's name and | :29:05. | :29:06. | |
title or official letter of assignment from a media outlet. | :29:07. | :29:13. | |
These are necessary for a person to be admitted to four example a press | :29:14. | :29:16. | |
conference as an accredited journalist. It seems to me, Mr | :29:17. | :29:21. | |
Speaker, if we are going to extend these rights to journalists, we | :29:22. | :29:26. | |
should being carried showing those journalists to be accredited rather | :29:27. | :29:33. | |
than amateur. -- we should be encouraging these journalists. We | :29:34. | :29:39. | |
are moving into a completely digital age. Where people can set up blogs, | :29:40. | :29:50. | |
Facebook pages, this is inevitable bust up my honourable friend is | :29:51. | :29:53. | |
slightly living in the past now, where we now talk about the NUJ and | :29:54. | :29:59. | |
having to be accredited. He is trying to put his finger in the dam. | :30:00. | :30:03. | |
It is not going to work. You need complete openness and transparency. | :30:04. | :30:09. | |
It is not the first time anybody has suggested I'm living in the past! | :30:10. | :30:17. | |
Taking my honourable friend's point, I think if you are going to give | :30:18. | :30:24. | |
privileged access, which is what our honourable friend is seeking to do, | :30:25. | :30:28. | |
intending privileged access over other members of the public to | :30:29. | :30:35. | |
journalists, I think that with those we need to have as journalists | :30:36. | :30:38. | |
people who are qualified in the sense they understand the law and | :30:39. | :30:46. | |
they are not just people who are perhaps prejudiced and not objective | :30:47. | :30:49. | |
and don't have the standards we normally expect of journalists. That | :30:50. | :30:56. | |
is my feeling about it. But if we are going to give them special | :30:57. | :31:03. | |
privileges, that they should be accredited. But I have expressed | :31:04. | :31:08. | |
this in alternative ways so we could also refer to them as professional | :31:09. | :31:14. | |
journalists. Various, Mr Speaker, as you may know a society called the | :31:15. | :31:20. | |
Society of professional journalists. That society requires a professional | :31:21. | :31:24. | |
journalist must adhere to a strict code of ethics to retain public | :31:25. | :31:30. | |
trust, confidence and reliability. I'm sure my honourable friend would | :31:31. | :31:34. | |
think it is important journalists should adhere to a strict code of | :31:35. | :31:39. | |
ethics. And to make sure of this the process of gatekeeping is upheld | :31:40. | :31:44. | |
within mainstream media. It relies on all experienced journalists and | :31:45. | :31:47. | |
editors filtering nonfactual information from news reports before | :31:48. | :31:54. | |
publication, or broadcast. I don't want to go into the issue of fake | :31:55. | :32:00. | |
news, Mr Speaker. But I think that is probably more important now than | :32:01. | :32:05. | |
ever, that we should make sure there is some basis for the reports which | :32:06. | :32:09. | |
are put forward by journalists and how it is going to be policed if not | :32:10. | :32:18. | |
by a body like the National union of journalists, and so on. Ordinarily I | :32:19. | :32:26. | |
feel that I can follow and to some extent anticipates the honourable | :32:27. | :32:28. | |
gentleman, such as the frequency with which I have heard his speeches | :32:29. | :32:34. | |
over three decades. But on this occasion my senses have deserted me. | :32:35. | :32:37. | |
I thought the honourable gentleman was going to tell as family members | :32:38. | :32:41. | |
of society has. Mr Christopher choke. I was not going to go into | :32:42. | :32:48. | |
that level of detail! -- Mr Christopher... There are quite a lot | :32:49. | :32:55. | |
of points I seek to make. I am sure however many members of the society | :32:56. | :33:00. | |
has, if this Bill is amended in the way I suggest it will have even | :33:01. | :33:06. | |
more. I give way. My honourable friend is beginning to lose me. It | :33:07. | :33:14. | |
seems to me he made a very good case for his earlier amendment, to | :33:15. | :33:17. | |
provide access to as many people as possible, which I am with him on. He | :33:18. | :33:21. | |
appears now to argue about restricting the number of people | :33:22. | :33:25. | |
that have access to these things which seem supply in the face of his | :33:26. | :33:30. | |
earlier amendment. Can I clarify that he supports his earlier | :33:31. | :33:32. | |
amendment rather than this one, which might be seen as a prohibitive | :33:33. | :33:39. | |
amendment? Absolutely. I support my earlier amendment... And the reason | :33:40. | :33:45. | |
I put forward these alternatives was in the event of my earlier amendment | :33:46. | :33:51. | |
is not being accepted by... That is very defeatist! It is, indeed! It is | :33:52. | :33:57. | |
uncharacteristic of me to be defeatist. This is a belt and braces | :33:58. | :34:07. | |
thing. If we are going to give access, privileged access, to a | :34:08. | :34:11. | |
group of people, I think that group of people, if it is going to be | :34:12. | :34:14. | |
journalists, as my honourable friend would want, I think rather than | :34:15. | :34:18. | |
having anybody basically being able to call themselves a journalist, | :34:19. | :34:24. | |
should in fact be an accredited professional, or indeed a qualified | :34:25. | :34:29. | |
journalist. I will give way to the honourable member. I am very | :34:30. | :34:35. | |
grateful for that. I hope you will not be defeated on his first | :34:36. | :34:39. | |
amendment and I would encourage them to strive for it and I think he will | :34:40. | :34:43. | |
get a lot of support. But if the first one fails, surely the next | :34:44. | :34:47. | |
text option is for as many people in the terms of journalist to have | :34:48. | :34:52. | |
access, surely that is a better fallback position than trying to | :34:53. | :34:58. | |
restrict it even more? I understand my honourable friend's point. But my | :34:59. | :35:04. | |
feeling is, why should we, in order to maximise access, why should we | :35:05. | :35:10. | |
distort the meaning of journalist? By saying that any member of the | :35:11. | :35:13. | |
public can describe themselves as a journalist and then come within the | :35:14. | :35:17. | |
terms of this Bill rather than making it clear that really we want | :35:18. | :35:23. | |
all members of the public? If we are talking about journalists, I think | :35:24. | :35:28. | |
we owe it to them to make sure we retain a standard amongst | :35:29. | :35:32. | |
journalists with accredited journalists... Has my honourable | :35:33. | :35:38. | |
friend noticed that the title to clause one of this Bill, inspection | :35:39. | :35:42. | |
of records by journalists and citizen journalists? I hope when I | :35:43. | :35:48. | |
come to my amendment he will see that I have gone in exactly the | :35:49. | :35:52. | |
opposite direction rather than trying to narrow the definition I | :35:53. | :35:59. | |
have tried to widen it out. That is probably why I did not seek to | :36:00. | :36:06. | |
address my honourable friend... Mr Speaker, I am sorry that we can't | :36:07. | :36:11. | |
reach a consensus on this particular group of amendments. I think there | :36:12. | :36:15. | |
is strong consensus regarding the earlier ones. And finally on this | :36:16. | :36:21. | |
point, and I draw the attention of the House to the fact the N UJ does | :36:22. | :36:29. | |
have a code of conduct... Of course. It will be an interesting point he's | :36:30. | :36:34. | |
making about professional qualifications and accreditation of | :36:35. | :36:36. | |
journalist and newspaper people. Would he agree that would also | :36:37. | :36:40. | |
applied editors of newspapers and perhaps large publications | :36:41. | :36:44. | |
representing London? Indeed, absolutely. And editors are included | :36:45. | :36:52. | |
within the definition, the wider definition of journalists. I think | :36:53. | :36:56. | |
the honourable lady makes a good point. As far as the NUJ code of | :36:57. | :37:05. | |
conduct is concerned, it does set out a 12... Rules or principles | :37:06. | :37:13. | |
which journalists who are members of the NUJ are expected to abide by. I | :37:14. | :37:16. | |
will not tell the House about all of them. One for example, Mr Speaker, | :37:17. | :37:27. | |
is to avoid plagiarism. Another is to resist threats or any inducements | :37:28. | :37:32. | |
to influence, distort or suppress information. And not to produce any | :37:33. | :37:38. | |
material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of | :37:39. | :37:44. | |
age, gender, race, etc. And I think most important of all, to do his or | :37:45. | :37:50. | |
her utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies and differentiate | :37:51. | :37:55. | |
between fact and opinion. I think that is something that we don't | :37:56. | :38:02. | |
always find in journalists. Those amendments... Before my honourable | :38:03. | :38:10. | |
friend gives way, amendment five, six and seven are put on the audit | :38:11. | :38:17. | |
paper as an alternative, really. I could not adopt all three. I wonder | :38:18. | :38:20. | |
if he would let the House know which of the three alternatives he | :38:21. | :38:26. | |
personally prefers? I think of those three I prefer the accredited one. I | :38:27. | :38:29. | |
think the accredited journalist is a well understood expression. As I | :38:30. | :38:36. | |
said earlier, it is even referred to in statute such as the 1960 access | :38:37. | :38:44. | |
to meetings legislation. Mr Speaker, this takes me on to amendment | :38:45. | :38:57. | |
burrow-macro -- to amendment eight, which talks about journalists and | :38:58. | :39:03. | |
seeks to make sure we don't define journalist in this. The office of | :39:04. | :39:09. | |
National 's to this list a series of roles are defined as journalists. -- | :39:10. | :39:16. | |
the office of National statistics has a series of roles defined as | :39:17. | :39:21. | |
journalists. It includes such people as the editor of the London Evening | :39:22. | :39:29. | |
Standard. Turning to amendment nine, this will make sure that any person | :39:30. | :39:32. | |
making an inspection within subsection one of section 26 of the | :39:33. | :39:38. | |
2014 hacked, can do so at all reasonable times and without | :39:39. | :39:44. | |
payment. -- 2014 hacked. If section 26 achieves the Government's | :39:45. | :39:48. | |
purpose, we need to make sure that it is included because otherwise it | :39:49. | :39:51. | |
would be too easy for the objective of transparency and accountability | :39:52. | :39:53. | |
to be frustrated. It it was said "Local elected | :39:54. | :40:12. | |
exercise their rights over a total of 11,000 bodies only about 65 times | :40:13. | :40:19. | |
in the whole year." Only 65 instances of the rights under | :40:20. | :40:24. | |
section 25 being exercised by local electors in a whole year. And | :40:25. | :40:28. | |
although that was, under section 25, it would be ridiculous, I think, to | :40:29. | :40:36. | |
suggest that extending the same rights to section 26 applicants, | :40:37. | :40:44. | |
would be burdened, unduly burdensome and would be too expensive. | :40:45. | :40:50. | |
Amendment Number 11 would extend the period in which inspections can be | :40:51. | :40:54. | |
carried out beyond the current 30-day limit. Again, the minister | :40:55. | :41:00. | |
told us at second read that the ability to inspect and make copies | :41:01. | :41:02. | |
of the most recent accounting of the most recent accounting | :41:03. | :41:09. | |
information from a local authority during the specific period, could | :41:10. | :41:12. | |
provide compelling and timely evidence of poor spending decisions | :41:13. | :41:15. | |
in the last accounting period." Why is the period in which this can be | :41:16. | :41:21. | |
done limited to 30 days, Mr Speaker? As I said in the context of the | :41:22. | :41:26. | |
available statistics, on take-up of those powers, the time period seems | :41:27. | :41:31. | |
to have had little impact but if, as the minister hopes, there is an | :41:32. | :41:37. | |
expediential increase in take-up, following my amendments and this | :41:38. | :41:41. | |
legislation, it would be desirable, wouldn't it, to spread the load of a | :41:42. | :41:46. | |
longer period than 30 days so, that there wasn't this sort of great | :41:47. | :41:50. | |
surge of activity over a specific 30-day period. I can't understand | :41:51. | :41:54. | |
why it shouldn't be possible, once the accounts have been audited and | :41:55. | :41:57. | |
are produced and available, why it shouldn't be possible to access | :41:58. | :42:01. | |
those accounts, not just within that 30-day period and that's the purpose | :42:02. | :42:08. | |
of amendment number 11. Will my honourable friend give way. | :42:09. | :42:11. | |
Certainly Obviously my honourable friend speaks about knowledge and | :42:12. | :42:14. | |
this is a general win request for information. We have the Freedom of | :42:15. | :42:18. | |
Information Act, and what I would like to hear from him and I suspect | :42:19. | :42:23. | |
the House would like to know is how the ability of a member of the | :42:24. | :42:27. | |
public to get freedom of information about local authorities relates to | :42:28. | :42:33. | |
his or her freedom of information about central government? I don't | :42:34. | :42:37. | |
hold myself out as an expert on the free dom of information act but | :42:38. | :42:43. | |
local authorities are subject to the freedom of information legislation, | :42:44. | :42:48. | |
like any other public body but freedom of information depends upon | :42:49. | :42:51. | |
being able to know what question to ask and quite often it is only when | :42:52. | :42:53. | |
you have actually looked at the you have actually looked at the | :42:54. | :42:55. | |
accounts or documents relating to the accounts that you know what | :42:56. | :43:01. | |
question to ask, so I think that's really the importance of this. I | :43:02. | :43:06. | |
will give way in a minute. In other ways, the free dom of information | :43:07. | :43:10. | |
powers can be more potent because they can be exercised at any time | :43:11. | :43:15. | |
and the local authority is under an obligation to respond I think within | :43:16. | :43:19. | |
20 days or a reasonable period, so it can be more potent but opened, | :43:20. | :43:24. | |
the base information that enables people who really understand what | :43:25. | :43:28. | |
questions they want to ask, will probably only be ascertained by | :43:29. | :43:34. | |
inspecting the documents. I thank my honourable friend for allow ming to | :43:35. | :43:37. | |
intervene on this, I would think and I'm not an expert, that a freedom of | :43:38. | :43:43. | |
information request is more costly to the council than what this bill | :43:44. | :43:46. | |
is proposing and perhaps the balance between cost and effectiveness needs | :43:47. | :43:49. | |
it be taken into consideration as well? My honourable friend may make | :43:50. | :43:56. | |
a fair point but, of course, one of the problems is that some councils | :43:57. | :44:00. | |
are really open and transparent and so they get very few freedom of | :44:01. | :44:05. | |
information requests because they give out information, make it | :44:06. | :44:09. | |
available and I'm going to come to an example later on, of an example | :44:10. | :44:14. | |
where that's not been happening and so you then get even councillors | :44:15. | :44:19. | |
saying - am I going to have a freedom of information request in | :44:20. | :44:21. | |
order to get information from the Chief Executive of the council on | :44:22. | :44:25. | |
which I serve, which is intolerable, actually. So, I think a will the | :44:26. | :44:29. | |
depends on the culture of a council, and going back a long way, when I | :44:30. | :44:35. | |
was first elected to Wandsworth council in 1964, it was in the -- | :44:36. | :44:43. | |
1974 it was in the aftermath of a big corruption scandal where the | :44:44. | :44:49. | |
housing committee chairman of the Labour council, prior it 1974, was | :44:50. | :44:56. | |
sentenced to a term of imprisonment for receiving payments from somebody | :44:57. | :45:04. | |
called T Dan #13s Smith. But the culture was everything was open. | :45:05. | :45:07. | |
Tender documents were open and everybody can see what is happening. | :45:08. | :45:13. | |
And it's a pity that that transparency is not the norm in so | :45:14. | :45:16. | |
many councils up and down the country. So, urning it now, Mr | :45:17. | :45:31. | |
Speaker to amendment 12, this res moves the restriction in section 264 | :45:32. | :45:34. | |
A of the act on the entitlement of a person to inspect any part or record | :45:35. | :45:38. | |
of a document containing information which is protected on the grounds of | :45:39. | :45:43. | |
commercial confidentiality. Now this is an area where there is an | :45:44. | :45:46. | |
interesting interaction between the rules under the freedom of | :45:47. | :45:52. | |
information and the rules relating to council - getting access tok do | :45:53. | :45:57. | |
uments under the powers in the 2014 act. This amendment doesn't go the | :45:58. | :46:04. | |
whole way, because it would not remove the restriction on copying. | :46:05. | :46:10. | |
But it is inspired by a recent set of events in Christchurch and when | :46:11. | :46:15. | |
local people wanted to try to get to the truth of an extraordinary | :46:16. | :46:19. | |
episode and you will remember, Mr Speaker, we had an adjournment | :46:20. | :46:24. | |
debate about the issue of beech cuts in Christchurch, just before we rose | :46:25. | :46:30. | |
for the summer recess and in that adjournment debate I was able to | :46:31. | :46:36. | |
draw the attention of the House to an extraordinary state of affairs | :46:37. | :46:41. | |
whereby Christchurch borough council had entered into an agreement with | :46:42. | :46:46. | |
an organisation scald Plum Pictures develop overnight residential beech | :46:47. | :46:50. | |
huts as part of a competition organised by the Channel 4 programme | :46:51. | :46:54. | |
Amazing Spaces. They didn't need to get planning permission, there was a | :46:55. | :46:58. | |
big stink about all this and I think, partly as a result of the | :46:59. | :47:03. | |
adjournment debate, the contract was aborted, Mr Speaker. And the | :47:04. | :47:13. | |
council's scrutiny committee then started an ininquiry and despite the | :47:14. | :47:15. | |
recommendations of that scrutiny committee which reported two or | :47:16. | :47:20. | |
three weeks ago the councillors have still not been shown a copy of the | :47:21. | :47:26. | |
original contract, despite the fact that obviously that contract was | :47:27. | :47:35. | |
negated and they are citing commercial confidentiality and so | :47:36. | :47:42. | |
continue to do. I wrote to the Chief Executive asking to see a copy of | :47:43. | :47:49. | |
the contract with Plum Pictures and I have not received an answer to | :47:50. | :47:52. | |
that lemplt I was waiting, actually to see what the result from the | :47:53. | :47:55. | |
scrutiny committee would be but the Chief Executive apparently doesn't | :47:56. | :48:00. | |
have any obligation to even comply with the recommendations of the | :48:01. | :48:07. | |
scrutiny committee. At second reading, our honourable friend said | :48:08. | :48:13. | |
"Clearly the aim of the bill is to throw the light of Frans pansy on | :48:14. | :48:19. | |
council proceedings where taxpayer's money is being spent. In that | :48:20. | :48:26. | |
reality it is vital it is used as a tool to hide documents and | :48:27. | :48:28. | |
proceedings should become more open." In moving this amendment, and | :48:29. | :48:33. | |
speaking to this amendment, I know that I've got the support of other | :48:34. | :48:39. | |
colleagues who participated in the second reading debate. | :48:40. | :48:50. | |
And, so that takes us on to next amendment, which is amendment 13, Mr | :48:51. | :48:55. | |
Speaker, which compliments amendment 12 by enabling past contracts to be | :48:56. | :48:59. | |
looked at as well as current ones and amendment 14 goes into the | :49:00. | :49:03. | |
definition of commercial confidentiality. That would remove | :49:04. | :49:08. | |
the definition from this bill, and rely upon existing common law, and | :49:09. | :49:17. | |
there's a mass of documentation about common law, commercial | :49:18. | :49:21. | |
confidentiality, andlinged in with the rules relating to freedom of | :49:22. | :49:24. | |
information. Bearing in mind the time, I'm in the going to go into | :49:25. | :49:29. | |
the detail of that now. But it seems to me that if we're going to ensure | :49:30. | :49:36. | |
that this bill actually achieves its objective, there's no point in | :49:37. | :49:41. | |
maintaining the complete close down on being able to get information by | :49:42. | :49:44. | |
asserting - because that's all that has to happen - the council says - | :49:45. | :49:48. | |
this is commercially confidential, and you can't look behind that and | :49:49. | :49:52. | |
these amendments will actually enable a member of the public to | :49:53. | :49:57. | |
actually look at the documents, they wouldn't able to copy but look at | :49:58. | :50:01. | |
the documents and make their own assess am as to whether it was | :50:02. | :50:04. | |
commercially confidential and whether or not it was in or not in | :50:05. | :50:10. | |
the public interest that it should be made more widely available. | :50:11. | :50:14. | |
So, I think at the moment the very tight drafting and the restrictions | :50:15. | :50:19. | |
on anything that is, or maybe commercially confidential, I think | :50:20. | :50:25. | |
that that is a big weakness in this bill. And, Mr Speaker, amendment 10 | :50:26. | :50:31. | |
- I said at the very beginning of these remarks that I would keep the | :50:32. | :50:37. | |
most radical until the last. Amendment 10 would extend the right | :50:38. | :50:41. | |
to inspect documents relating to the accounts of a health service body. I | :50:42. | :50:46. | |
can't understand why, at a time when there is so much public concern | :50:47. | :50:50. | |
about what is happening in various branches of the NHS, whether it be | :50:51. | :50:57. | |
trust, hospitals, or Clinical Commissioning Groups or other | :50:58. | :51:02. | |
organisations, I can't understand why we are not allowing members of | :51:03. | :51:07. | |
the public to get access to the relevant documents. | :51:08. | :51:11. | |
We know, for example, that there have been massive pay-offs of some | :51:12. | :51:16. | |
NHS Chief Executives and other staff and administrators and at the end of | :51:17. | :51:22. | |
the day, all the costs are not just borne by the national taxpayer but | :51:23. | :51:26. | |
are taken out of the budgets which are available to local areas because | :51:27. | :51:30. | |
they are allocated to the clinical commissioning groups, for example, | :51:31. | :51:36. | |
in the case of Dorset, to the Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group. So the | :51:37. | :51:40. | |
question I ask my honourable friend, why shouldn't local people and local | :51:41. | :51:45. | |
journalists be given assistance by this bill, to, in the words of the | :51:46. | :51:51. | |
minister, sending reading, where he said at coup 1210 "By giving | :51:52. | :51:55. | |
journalists the right to access recent accounting information from a | :51:56. | :52:00. | |
range of local public bodies, the bill ll assist them in their | :52:01. | :52:03. | |
investigations." I think my honourable friend is on to a very | :52:04. | :52:07. | |
good point and this is a very powerful issue and there isn't | :52:08. | :52:10. | |
really time to discuss it today. What I would like to see in this | :52:11. | :52:16. | |
bill -- and again I'm addressing the menster here and the Government | :52:17. | :52:19. | |
needs to grip this - is we want to have a culture now that members of | :52:20. | :52:23. | |
the public, not just in local Government, not in health services | :52:24. | :52:26. | |
but also in these academies where people are often being paid huge | :52:27. | :52:30. | |
salaries should absolutely, all members of the pub lick, not members | :52:31. | :52:36. | |
of the NUJ, not any cliques, not just councillors but all members of | :52:37. | :52:40. | |
the public in a modern age should have access to these accounts? I'm | :52:41. | :52:44. | |
very grateful to my honourable friend for that contribution and I | :52:45. | :52:47. | |
hope the minister will be able to respond to this. I know that health | :52:48. | :52:53. | |
is not his direct responsibility but he I'm sure will have been briefed | :52:54. | :53:02. | |
by his colleagues on this because he will obviously have noticed this | :53:03. | :53:05. | |
amendment and it seems to me that this is an opportunity for the | :53:06. | :53:10. | |
Government to be able to demonstrate again to the public of the United | :53:11. | :53:14. | |
Kingdom, that they are on their side, and that they are going to do | :53:15. | :53:18. | |
everything within their power to ensure that there is a proper | :53:19. | :53:24. | |
scrutiny and accountability of all these bodies which consume so much | :53:25. | :53:30. | |
public resource. And in my area, Mr Speaker, there's | :53:31. | :53:36. | |
been - and continues to be - a big conflict about whether or not Poole | :53:37. | :53:42. | |
hospitals should merge with the Royal Bournemouth and in the end, | :53:43. | :53:46. | |
during the course of the last Parliament, I was able to persuade | :53:47. | :53:50. | |
the Competition and Markets Authority that the merger, the | :53:51. | :53:53. | |
proposed merger should not be allowed to go ahead but now I'm told | :53:54. | :54:00. | |
that covertly discussions are going ahead and that the two hospitals are | :54:01. | :54:06. | |
trying to approach the Competition and Markets Authority to get them to | :54:07. | :54:11. | |
change their rule which is n relation to this particular merger, | :54:12. | :54:15. | |
which is normally that within ten weeks, ten years, they can't | :54:16. | :54:22. | |
actually proceed with a merger. But that's all happening under the | :54:23. | :54:25. | |
radar. Joe public doesn't know about it and it seems to me that that is | :54:26. | :54:31. | |
another example of the way - the sometimes cavalier way - in which | :54:32. | :54:38. | |
some of our local health organisations are operating and | :54:39. | :54:41. | |
actually, we've all been discussing. I think everybody in the house with | :54:42. | :54:47. | |
an English constituency has been discussing these plans for long-term | :54:48. | :54:51. | |
transformation plans in the health service but I have to say that some | :54:52. | :54:56. | |
of the basic information seems to be incredibly hard to get. I asked my | :54:57. | :55:01. | |
local Clinical Commissioning Group whether if the plans that they are | :55:02. | :55:06. | |
proposing to put forward were implemented, whether there would be | :55:07. | :55:10. | |
fewer or more Acute Hospital beds. And if so, how many Acute Hospital | :55:11. | :55:14. | |
beds are there at the moment and how many would there be in the future? | :55:15. | :55:21. | |
The chief officer did not know that basic data. He came back later with | :55:22. | :55:29. | |
the data and surprise, surprise, the number of beds was going to be | :55:30. | :55:35. | |
reduced. The number of acute beds is going to be reduced by more than 10% | :55:36. | :55:38. | |
despite current occupancy rates in December and January being of the | :55:39. | :55:44. | |
order of 95%, against a national best practice figure of 85. And so | :55:45. | :55:50. | |
it goes on. Too much is being done in the name of the public but | :55:51. | :55:55. | |
without the public being able to get down to the detail and find out who | :55:56. | :56:03. | |
is benefiting and in whose interests some of these decisions are taken. | :56:04. | :56:09. | |
As my honourable friend says, this amendment is the most radical and | :56:10. | :56:15. | |
far reaching. I'm sure, because it will not have been clear across | :56:16. | :56:21. | |
government, it will not be acceptable to my honourable friend. | :56:22. | :56:26. | |
But I hope that when he does respond to this group of amendments he will | :56:27. | :56:31. | |
give encouraging noises about this. And how the Government is really | :56:32. | :56:39. | |
sympathetic to the case for bringing within the remit of local scrutiny | :56:40. | :56:44. | |
more of these health public bodies. Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not want | :56:45. | :56:50. | |
to speak for a whole hour and I have not. Because I know there are a lot | :56:51. | :56:55. | |
of other people that wants to take part in this important debate. But I | :56:56. | :57:01. | |
am grateful for the interest that has been shown by honourable members | :57:02. | :57:08. | |
in the issues I have raised. I hope that in Ju course we will be able to | :57:09. | :57:14. | |
get some acceptance by the promoter of the Bill that she is willing to | :57:15. | :57:26. | |
adopt. -- in course. The question is the amendment be made. David | :57:27. | :57:32. | |
Nuttall. Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I start by paying | :57:33. | :57:37. | |
tribute not only to the promoter of this Bill, my honourable friend, the | :57:38. | :57:46. | |
member for old which, but my honourable friend the member for | :57:47. | :57:51. | |
Christchurch. I think the whole house owes him a debt of gratitude | :57:52. | :57:58. | |
for the forensic way in which he has analysed this Bill. And brought | :57:59. | :58:04. | |
before the House such a wide array of amendments for the House to | :58:05. | :58:10. | |
consider this morning. And I have to say that it seems to me that if this | :58:11. | :58:14. | |
Bill had been subject to my honourable friend's level of | :58:15. | :58:22. | |
scrutiny in its previous stages, and indeed if the initial legislation | :58:23. | :58:26. | |
had been able to be examined by my had been able to be examined by my | :58:27. | :58:31. | |
honourable friend in the detail with which he has demonstrated this | :58:32. | :58:38. | |
morning, then perhaps we would not be in the position that we find | :58:39. | :58:45. | |
ourselves in this morning. Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot make any | :58:46. | :58:49. | |
prediction as to the length of time I will need to address the House, | :58:50. | :58:55. | |
other than to say that I will deal succinctly with the amendments | :58:56. | :59:00. | |
before us. I wish to advance to the House of the reasons for my | :59:01. | :59:06. | |
amendment and why I think it is important my amendment is accepted. | :59:07. | :59:13. | |
I have adopted a slightly different approach to that adopted by the | :59:14. | :59:19. | |
member for Christchurch, who has adopted if not a criticism -- it is | :59:20. | :59:26. | |
not a criticism but maybe a more scatter-gun approach. I have | :59:27. | :59:30. | |
concentrated my fire on just one amendment. And therefore I will | :59:31. | :59:37. | |
guide the House through why I think it is absolutely critically | :59:38. | :59:41. | |
important that my amendment to the Bill is accepted this morning. | :59:42. | :59:48. | |
Before I do so, perhaps I could just pay tribute to the honourable lady, | :59:49. | :59:57. | |
my honourable friend, the member for Brownhills. As the House will be | :59:58. | :00:06. | |
aware, she has already achieved, quite rightly, a degree of expertise | :00:07. | :00:14. | |
in private members bills. And steered through in what was her | :00:15. | :00:20. | |
first session in the House a Private members Bill onto statute in dealing | :00:21. | :00:27. | |
with Great Ormond Street Hospital. Everyone is grateful to her for | :00:28. | :00:33. | |
that. She has demonstrated her expertise in the way that this Bill | :00:34. | :00:41. | |
has been preceded so far. Piloting it through second reading in about | :00:42. | :00:47. | |
80 minutes. As was mentioned earlier, through the committee in | :00:48. | :01:01. | |
just 11 minutes will stop that. --. I am sure my honourable friend was | :01:02. | :01:05. | |
pleased that wasn't the case, but I have to say that I think the speed | :01:06. | :01:10. | |
with which it passed through the committee stage, I make the | :01:11. | :01:16. | |
on the committee... -- was the case. on the committee... -- was the case. | :01:17. | :01:25. | |
But in an intervention earlier, it is the case no amendments whatsoever | :01:26. | :01:33. | |
were brought forward to the Bill during the committee stage. It is | :01:34. | :01:42. | |
also worth placing on record, incidentally, that while in addition | :01:43. | :01:49. | |
to my honourable friend the member, the promoter of the Bill, who was | :01:50. | :01:54. | |
obviously present to present the Bill had committee and my honourable | :01:55. | :01:59. | |
friend who was the Minister who dealt with the Bill, together with | :02:00. | :02:08. | |
seven other honourable members, there were several members missing | :02:09. | :02:17. | |
from the Bill committee. The members for Clapton, Swansea East, Oldham | :02:18. | :02:20. | |
West and Royston South, Ealing North, Stoke-on-Trent, Liverpool and | :02:21. | :02:30. | |
West Derby. It is particularly noteworthy that the member for | :02:31. | :02:35. | |
Dorset North, who had quite a lot to say on this Bill in the second | :02:36. | :02:43. | |
reading, missed the cut, as we say, when it came to selecting members | :02:44. | :02:49. | |
for the committee stage. And perhaps had he made the cut and been | :02:50. | :02:55. | |
selected to be a member of the committee, some of the matter is we | :02:56. | :03:00. | |
would be touching on this morning may have been dealt with. But I do | :03:01. | :03:07. | |
fear that the number and nature of the amendment along the audit paper | :03:08. | :03:10. | |
today, it is proven evidence that we today, it is proven evidence that we | :03:11. | :03:17. | |
have somewhat glossed over at committee stage and as evidence I | :03:18. | :03:21. | |
cite the transcript of the second reading debate which took place on | :03:22. | :03:28. | |
the 25th of November last year. That debate contained several references | :03:29. | :03:32. | |
to things being ironed out in committee. My honourable friend | :03:33. | :03:39. | |
herself said, I understand that honourable members have raised | :03:40. | :03:42. | |
concerns today and they are exactly the kind of points I would be more | :03:43. | :03:47. | |
than happy for us to consider in committee. My honourable friend the | :03:48. | :03:53. | |
member for North Dorset said, there will be some issues to be teased out | :03:54. | :03:58. | |
in committee. Which she then doubled up on in referring to what | :03:59. | :04:02. | |
constitutes related documents when he said, I am absolutely certain | :04:03. | :04:07. | |
that the issue will be ironed out in committee. Well, it was not, I am | :04:08. | :04:15. | |
sorry to say. The purpose of my amendment is to clarify the | :04:16. | :04:18. | |
terminology used in this Bill. And to avoid any possibility for | :04:19. | :04:27. | |
confusion in the future. I hope that after I have spent a a few minutes | :04:28. | :04:34. | |
advancing the arguments for why my moment is so important that it will | :04:35. | :04:40. | |
be accepted as I believe that its inclusion will strengthen the Bill, | :04:41. | :04:45. | |
and I have to say from the outset this is not what I would say is a | :04:46. | :04:52. | |
wrecking amendment. I put it forward with the best possible spirit. This | :04:53. | :05:02. | |
is a short... My amendment to clause one of the Bill simply seeks to put | :05:03. | :05:12. | |
onto the face of the Bill what is in third in the explanatory notes and | :05:13. | :05:19. | |
briefing papers about this Bill. And what I believe is the intention of | :05:20. | :05:30. | |
my honourable friend's Bill. Section 26 of the local audit and | :05:31. | :05:38. | |
accountability act says that subsection one that as each audit of | :05:39. | :05:44. | |
account under this act, other than accounts of a health service body, | :05:45. | :05:50. | |
any persons interested may inspect the accounting records for the | :05:51. | :05:55. | |
financial year to which the audit relates and all books, contracts, | :05:56. | :06:02. | |
bills, vouchers, receipts and other documents related to those records | :06:03. | :06:07. | |
and make copies of all or any part of those records or documents. | :06:08. | :06:13. | |
Subsection two says at the request of a local government Elector for | :06:14. | :06:18. | |
any area to which the accounts relate, the local auditor must give | :06:19. | :06:22. | |
the Elector or any representative of the Elector, opportunities to | :06:23. | :06:26. | |
question the auditor about the accounting records and subsection | :06:27. | :06:31. | |
three says, most importantly, the local auditor's reasonable costs of | :06:32. | :06:36. | |
compliance with subsection two can be recovered from the relevant | :06:37. | :06:40. | |
authority to which the accounts relate. That is the underlying | :06:41. | :06:48. | |
provision in statute which my honourable friend's Bill looks to | :06:49. | :06:56. | |
amend. But it is important to bear in mind that this act was itself a | :06:57. | :07:07. | |
consolidation of a previous consolidation, namely the local | :07:08. | :07:18. | |
government audit Bill of 1998. The exact name escapes me for the | :07:19. | :07:22. | |
minute. It was a reference to a previous act and that is important | :07:23. | :07:27. | |
as we will go on to see when we look at the leading case on this. So, | :07:28. | :07:37. | |
Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can move on to the body -- bodies which are | :07:38. | :07:49. | |
covered by the 2014 act, it covers a number of relevant authorities, set | :07:50. | :07:55. | |
out in schedule two of the 2014 act. For example, county, district, | :07:56. | :08:00. | |
borough and parish councils, combined authorities, police and | :08:01. | :08:04. | |
Crime Commissioner 's, passenger transport executive, Park | :08:05. | :08:10. | |
authorities and at that time it covered the Greater London | :08:11. | :08:16. | |
authority. There are a number of bodies covered by this act. They | :08:17. | :08:20. | |
will inevitably produce a wide variety of stories journalists may | :08:21. | :08:34. | |
wish to pursue. Madam Deputy Speaker, the leading case on this | :08:35. | :08:46. | |
matter is the case of HTV against Bristol city council. And the House | :08:47. | :08:52. | |
of Commons library briefing on this particular Bill refers to this Bill | :08:53. | :08:59. | |
and indeed the explanatory notes to the Bill make reference to the fact | :09:00. | :09:06. | |
that it was this Bill which first identified the problem in the | :09:07. | :09:16. | |
earlier legislation. It is important to bear in mind, as I have said, | :09:17. | :09:24. | |
that although this case was in 2004 it refers to the previous act and | :09:25. | :09:31. | |
not the current act which is being amended. In the case of letter are | :09:32. | :09:38. | |
on the application of HTV against Bristol city council was heard in | :09:39. | :09:43. | |
the administrative Court on the 14th of May in 2004. The case highlighted | :09:44. | :09:50. | |
why it is important to these specific in legislation. And I | :09:51. | :09:57. | |
believe the case highlights why there would be problems with my | :09:58. | :10:02. | |
honourable friend's Bill if it passes without my amendment today. | :10:03. | :10:11. | |
The claimant in this particular case was the television company HTV, | :10:12. | :10:17. | |
which members will be aware will know it is ITV Wales. HTV was in the | :10:18. | :10:26. | |
process of making an addition of its weekly current affairs show at the | :10:27. | :10:31. | |
time called Bear Lake Serious, and the episode in question was about to | :10:32. | :10:39. | |
cover accommodation and care service in the area. The producer of the | :10:40. | :10:42. | |
television company approached the local authority to inspect the | :10:43. | :10:48. | |
relevant records relating to the matter and specifically the producer | :10:49. | :10:52. | |
wanted access to accounts that might shed light on the relationship | :10:53. | :10:57. | |
between the council and the landlord, as there had been a number | :10:58. | :11:00. | |
of complaints made by people about his conduct. Initially, a reporter | :11:01. | :11:09. | |
from the programme attended the council offices and was given access | :11:10. | :11:14. | |
to some material, but described the material as being in complete and | :11:15. | :11:19. | |
indecipherable. And the producer then wrote to the manager of | :11:20. | :11:24. | |
corporate communications at Bristol City Council, setting out a list of | :11:25. | :11:30. | |
documents that she wanted access to. After taking advice, Bristol City | :11:31. | :11:32. | |
Council refused access to the documents. On the grounds that the | :11:33. | :11:41. | |
TV company was not a person interested under section 15 of the | :11:42. | :11:48. | |
1998 audit commission act. That was the actor was referring to earlier. | :11:49. | :11:54. | |
This is the very situation that this bill today would seek to clarify. In | :11:55. | :12:00. | |
the HTV case, the TV company applied for judicial review following | :12:01. | :12:05. | |
Bristol City Council Bosman decision not to grant access to the requested | :12:06. | :12:11. | |
documents. HTV argued that anyone with a legitimate and genuine | :12:12. | :12:18. | |
interest came within the scope of section 15 of what was then the 1998 | :12:19. | :12:24. | |
act. They contested the decision by Bristol City Council on two grounds. | :12:25. | :12:30. | |
And it is the distinction between those two grounds identified in that | :12:31. | :12:33. | |
case that ultimately has brought this bill before us today. And | :12:34. | :12:41. | |
particularly why I have tabled my amendment. Firstly, HTV argues that | :12:42. | :12:47. | |
as a local media organisation it had a legitimate interest in the | :12:48. | :12:54. | |
information in order to fulfil its role of ensuring the accountability | :12:55. | :12:59. | |
of the authority to the public. Secondly, and as an alternative | :13:00. | :13:05. | |
argument, HTV submitted that as a non-domestic rate payer, or business | :13:06. | :13:10. | |
rate payer, it had a financial interest in the account is | :13:11. | :13:14. | |
sufficient to bringing it within section 15. Bristol City council | :13:15. | :13:19. | |
accepted that when nondomestic rates had been determined locally, the | :13:20. | :13:23. | |
claimant would have been a person interested under the legislation. | :13:24. | :13:30. | |
However, it argued that the power to set nondomestic rates had been | :13:31. | :13:34. | |
removed from local authorities and since money raised by an nondomestic | :13:35. | :13:40. | |
rates was presently distributed from a central fund, the claimant was no | :13:41. | :13:44. | |
longer a person concerned. The council also submitted that the | :13:45. | :13:49. | |
information had to be sought for legitimate purposes concerning | :13:50. | :13:53. | |
issues relating to the audit of the authority 's account. Mr Justice | :13:54. | :14:00. | |
found in favour of the claimant and it turned out, but it is the grounds | :14:01. | :14:08. | |
of the decision with which we are interested in which are very | :14:09. | :14:13. | |
revealing. He determined in his judgment that HTV was a person | :14:14. | :14:18. | |
interested under section 15, and for the purposes of the 1998 act, but | :14:19. | :14:28. | |
this was solely on the grounds of being a nondomestic rate payer. The | :14:29. | :14:31. | |
judge found that the defendants argument that HTV did not contribute | :14:32. | :14:38. | |
directly to the council budget to business rates to be a purely | :14:39. | :14:43. | |
artificial argument. The judge said, and I quote, I think it is somewhat | :14:44. | :14:48. | |
artificial to say that nondomestic rate payers do not contribute to the | :14:49. | :14:54. | |
local authority's budget. Older contributions are channelled through | :14:55. | :14:58. | |
and will be subject to redistribution by central | :14:59. | :15:02. | |
Government, the income will be received indirectly by the authority | :15:03. | :15:06. | |
as a grant from central Government. Nevertheless, I think it gives them | :15:07. | :15:11. | |
a sufficient interest in inspecting the account. This was the key points | :15:12. | :15:18. | |
in the judgment was that being a media company was not sufficient to | :15:19. | :15:24. | |
bring the claimant into the scope of the 1998 act. And they only | :15:25. | :15:30. | |
succeeded on the alternative argument Mr Justice Alliance said, | :15:31. | :15:33. | |
and again I quote his exact words, some of the ways the claimant puts | :15:34. | :15:37. | |
its case cannot succeed. I reject the contention that it has a | :15:38. | :15:42. | |
sufficient interest merely by virtue of being a media organisation. It | :15:43. | :15:48. | |
seems to me that the use to which persons wish to push the information | :15:49. | :15:55. | |
cannot of itself make them interested persons, and the judge | :15:56. | :15:58. | |
also concluded that if they are right to inspect -- if their right | :15:59. | :16:04. | |
to inspect documents existed at all, the motives for seeking to use that | :16:05. | :16:08. | |
and for seeking access to the documents was not relevant. I think, | :16:09. | :16:15. | |
Madam Deputy Speaker, that referring to that case and some of the detail | :16:16. | :16:22. | |
of it explains and sets out very clearly why it is so important that | :16:23. | :16:34. | |
this bill is clarified. Let us continue the example of a television | :16:35. | :16:40. | |
company wanting access to documents from a local authority for the | :16:41. | :16:46. | |
purposes of a documentary. What that HTV case demonstrated is that | :16:47. | :16:50. | |
another company or journalist who lived and operated outside of the | :16:51. | :16:55. | |
area would have no access simply by virtue of being a journalist. And | :16:56. | :17:00. | |
they would neither have access as a domestic ratepayer as they would | :17:01. | :17:03. | |
ultimately contribute to a different local authority. 13 years after the | :17:04. | :17:12. | |
HTV judgment, we can see why this simple legislative change is now so | :17:13. | :17:20. | |
important, and as I said, I do not seek in any way to wreck this bill. | :17:21. | :17:24. | |
But I do think that it is important that we set out why it is that this | :17:25. | :17:39. | |
amendment should be made today. My amendment is clarifying the | :17:40. | :17:49. | |
definition of a journalist, which is set out in paragraph one a at the | :17:50. | :17:56. | |
moment. Paragraph one a state that in subsection one, eight journalist | :17:57. | :18:02. | |
means anyone who produces for publication a journalistic material, | :18:03. | :18:12. | |
whether paid to do so or otherwise. I think the problem with that is | :18:13. | :18:19. | |
that it is not clear exactly what constitutes a journalist. As I | :18:20. | :18:26. | |
mentioned earlier in an intervention, the heading to the | :18:27. | :18:39. | |
first clause of the bill states that its header, inspection of accounting | :18:40. | :18:43. | |
records by journalists and citizen journalists, and although a | :18:44. | :18:50. | |
journalist is attempted to be defined in subsection one A, there | :18:51. | :18:55. | |
is actually no reference whatsoever anywhere in the bill to the phrase | :18:56. | :19:06. | |
citizen journalist at all. And it was for that reason that I sought to | :19:07. | :19:14. | |
bring forward my amendment one on the order paper today. Clause one, | :19:15. | :19:21. | |
page one, I seek to insert at the end of line eight new clause !B -- | :19:22. | :19:36. | |
1B, which will mean the proposed inclusion in a newspaper or a | :19:37. | :19:43. | |
magazine, whether paid for or distributed, including any article | :19:44. | :19:48. | |
proposed to be published on any website on the internet, whether it | :19:49. | :19:51. | |
can be accessed without payment or upon payment of a subscription. | :19:52. | :20:00. | |
Members will have seen the explanatory note that I provided to | :20:01. | :20:08. | |
the house just to give a flavour of the reason why I brought forward | :20:09. | :20:13. | |
that amendment. The purpose of this amendment, I have stated, is to make | :20:14. | :20:19. | |
clear that this section covers all the journalists who may wish to | :20:20. | :20:22. | |
publish their articles in a newspaper or magazine or on the | :20:23. | :20:27. | |
internet, irrespective of whether there are any charges for either. I | :20:28. | :20:37. | |
suspect that there is not much controversy over the definition of a | :20:38. | :20:46. | |
journalist, although, as we heard from Michael Fenn from Christchurch, | :20:47. | :20:51. | |
the exact definition even of a journalist can be open to some | :20:52. | :21:00. | |
dispute and I will come onto that with my honourable friend's | :21:01. | :21:05. | |
amendments. But as far as my amendment is concerned, I see the | :21:06. | :21:11. | |
real difficulty with the definition of what amounts to a citizen | :21:12. | :21:20. | |
journalist, and rather than try and make the wording even more clumsy | :21:21. | :21:24. | |
and complicated by trying to defer -- define the term citizen | :21:25. | :21:30. | |
journalist, I have simply expounded -- expanded the term journalist to | :21:31. | :21:34. | |
make it clear that of somebody wishes to publish their work on the | :21:35. | :21:45. | |
internet, that should be covered by this bill. Will my friend Mike give | :21:46. | :21:55. | |
way? -- will my honourable friend give way? I will give way to my | :21:56. | :22:00. | |
honourable friend the learner to member from Christchurch. My | :22:01. | :22:05. | |
honourable friend is making a fascinating contribution to this | :22:06. | :22:09. | |
debate. Can he explain why he thinks that although citizen journalists is | :22:10. | :22:18. | |
referred to in the rubric of clause one, there is no definition of | :22:19. | :22:24. | |
citizen journalist but only a definition of journalist? Does he | :22:25. | :22:27. | |
agree with me that that rather suggests that there was originally | :22:28. | :22:33. | |
other material in clause one which was then cut out of the bill as a | :22:34. | :22:37. | |
result of negotiations between our honourable friend and the | :22:38. | :22:41. | |
Department, but the department have failed to observe that there was no | :22:42. | :22:45. | |
longer any definition of citizen journalist and amended accordingly? | :22:46. | :22:52. | |
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, there may be some reason as to why within | :22:53. | :22:58. | |
the bill there is no definition of citizen journalist, but I have to | :22:59. | :23:01. | |
admit to the house I am not aware of what that reason might be. What I | :23:02. | :23:07. | |
can say, before I give way to my honourable friend the member for | :23:08. | :23:12. | |
Shipley, is that in the explanatory notes to the bill, it says quite | :23:13. | :23:20. | |
clearly at paragraph four, accordingly we are seeking to extend | :23:21. | :23:25. | |
the definition of any persons interested in section 26 of the act, | :23:26. | :23:32. | |
the act being the local audit and accountability act 2014, to include | :23:33. | :23:39. | |
journalists including citizen journalists, but crucially it goes | :23:40. | :23:45. | |
on to say that bloggers and others who scrutinise local authorities but | :23:46. | :23:51. | |
you may not be accredited members of the press, to enable them to access | :23:52. | :23:56. | |
a wider range of accounting material in order to report and publish their | :23:57. | :24:01. | |
findings so that it is available to local electorate in an area, thus | :24:02. | :24:04. | |
providing them with information that will enable them to better hold | :24:05. | :24:12. | |
their local council to account. Now, who can disagree with that? It seems | :24:13. | :24:18. | |
to me to be an entirely laudable aim and it is rather disappointing that | :24:19. | :24:23. | |
that laudable aim wasn't carried through onto the face of the bill | :24:24. | :24:28. | |
and that is what my amendment seeks to do. I will give way. I am very | :24:29. | :24:35. | |
grateful to my honourable friend. My question to him about his sort of | :24:36. | :24:40. | |
wide definition of the term journalist is where social media | :24:41. | :24:44. | |
fits into this definition. Particularly with regards to | :24:45. | :24:49. | |
Facebook and Twitter, because if he is basically saying that this is | :24:50. | :24:52. | |
anybody who wants to publish anything on the internet then it | :24:53. | :24:56. | |
seems to me that anybody anywhere publishes things on Twitter or on | :24:57. | :24:59. | |
Facebook and whether that would follow in his definition of whether | :25:00. | :25:02. | |
or not I would therefore mean that his definition of journalism would | :25:03. | :25:05. | |
mean any member of the public, Wycherley brings us back to my | :25:06. | :25:09. | |
honourable friend's amendment which is the lead amendment in this group. | :25:10. | :25:14. | |
I am very grateful to my honourable friend for his intervention. He has | :25:15. | :25:22. | |
actually touched on what I am going to deal with in the remaining part | :25:23. | :25:29. | |
of my remarks on my own amendment. But I think there is a distinction | :25:30. | :25:35. | |
to be drawn. Whilst I agree that my wide definition would, on the face | :25:36. | :25:43. | |
of it, give a very wide number of people, a very large number of | :25:44. | :25:46. | |
people the right to go and inspect the accounts, it does require some | :25:47. | :25:56. | |
publication on the Internet. For example, if somebody wanted to go, | :25:57. | :26:02. | |
for their own private interest, perhaps for academic research, and | :26:03. | :26:08. | |
without a publication, they would not be included. So they would have | :26:09. | :26:16. | |
to be some element of publication on the Internet. But I make no apology | :26:17. | :26:22. | |
for that. I make no apology for the fact that there will be a very wide | :26:23. | :26:27. | |
category of people. Because I want to make it as wide as possible. I | :26:28. | :26:30. | |
will give way to the honourable member. Just to clarify, I am still | :26:31. | :26:35. | |
not entirely clear. Does that mean publication on social media such as | :26:36. | :26:39. | |
Twitter falls within his definition of journalism or not? I'm still not | :26:40. | :26:48. | |
entirely clear. In short, yes. If I can be absolutely clear about that, | :26:49. | :26:52. | |
yes, I think it would. And the reason why I think it would is | :26:53. | :26:56. | |
because my definition refers to publication on a website. And it is | :26:57. | :27:04. | |
possible to go on to the Twitter website, which has a web address, | :27:05. | :27:11. | |
and to look at the person whose accounts this has been published on, | :27:12. | :27:16. | |
whose Twitter account, and to scroll back through their messages and you | :27:17. | :27:22. | |
can see what they said yesterday, one month ago, one year ago. So it | :27:23. | :27:26. | |
is published for all time on the Internet. I am very grateful. I am | :27:27. | :27:32. | |
not unsympathetic to the point he is making. The only issue that I would | :27:33. | :27:37. | |
make which might be an added complexity is many Twitter profiles | :27:38. | :27:45. | |
as we all know are anonymous. We really has -- have no idea who is | :27:46. | :27:50. | |
behind the publications and I wonder if in your amendment there is any | :27:51. | :27:55. | |
implication that when we are defining a journalist of the Public | :27:56. | :27:58. | |
ought to have the right to know who it is that is publishing the | :27:59. | :28:06. | |
material? My honourable friend, I accept, has made a good point and it | :28:07. | :28:09. | |
is not one I had previously considered. I agree with him that I | :28:10. | :28:15. | |
think it is important that individuals should know who it is | :28:16. | :28:21. | |
that has put this information out there. On the other hand, one could | :28:22. | :28:29. | |
argue if it is an anonymous Twitter account or one where the identity | :28:30. | :28:37. | |
has been protected for some reason, then personally I would be inclined | :28:38. | :28:43. | |
to trust the public to treat any information on such a Twitter | :28:44. | :28:47. | |
account with a very high degree of caution. Because they would not be | :28:48. | :28:56. | |
able to know the source. And whilst I would defend the right of anybody | :28:57. | :29:01. | |
to publish it, and this comes back to the question of fake news, which | :29:02. | :29:08. | |
my honourable member for Christchurch mentioned in his | :29:09. | :29:13. | |
submission, that I think the problem with those sorts of accounts is | :29:14. | :29:18. | |
because they are not accredited to any recognised journalistic output, | :29:19. | :29:25. | |
then members of the public should be very cautious about what they read | :29:26. | :29:30. | |
on them. But it does not detract from my fundamental point that the | :29:31. | :29:40. | |
mere fact that it is on something that we often refer to as social | :29:41. | :29:44. | |
media should stop it being regarded as being published. And can I just | :29:45. | :29:52. | |
say this, if one looks back at when things were published in a daily | :29:53. | :29:57. | |
paper, that was it. It was published in a daily paper and there was the | :29:58. | :30:02. | |
old saying, what is in today's paper will be tomorrow's fish and chip | :30:03. | :30:07. | |
paper. I am sorry to say that I am old enough to remember when that was | :30:08. | :30:11. | |
the case and people did chop up yesterday's paper and turn it | :30:12. | :30:15. | |
into... I will give way to the honourable member. I thank him for | :30:16. | :30:22. | |
giving way. Does he accept that even in newspapers some items are | :30:23. | :30:26. | |
anonymous? For many years there was a column in the daily express called | :30:27. | :30:30. | |
William Hickey and there is no such person. I am very grateful to my | :30:31. | :30:38. | |
honourable friend for that comment. I think it does support the answer I | :30:39. | :30:44. | |
gave to my honourable friend, the member for Shipley, that the mere | :30:45. | :30:51. | |
fact of anonymity should not preclude application. But it should | :30:52. | :30:57. | |
then be up to the individual to decide what weight they give to that | :30:58. | :31:04. | |
particular information or news item contained within the column. And of | :31:05. | :31:12. | |
course, the law would equally apply to printing material under this act. | :31:13. | :31:17. | |
So it could be the case that it could be printed. I say this in | :31:18. | :31:22. | |
response to my honourable friend the member for Shipley, with his | :31:23. | :31:25. | |
intervention, that you could have the same as has been said. In a | :31:26. | :31:32. | |
newspaper. It need not be on the Internet that it is anonymous. It | :31:33. | :31:36. | |
could be published and we often see letters in the newspapers where it | :31:37. | :31:42. | |
says name and address withheld. Information can be put out into the | :31:43. | :31:46. | |
public domain without any indication as to who it is who has put it | :31:47. | :31:55. | |
there. So my amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker, is about broadening the | :31:56. | :32:01. | |
scope of what is termed journalistic material to make sure that news | :32:02. | :32:06. | |
websites in all media formats are now included. The world of | :32:07. | :32:13. | |
journalism is changing and evolving. And in a free society it is | :32:14. | :32:17. | |
important different viewpoints can freely be expressed and that | :32:18. | :32:22. | |
journalists should have the freedom to go about their work. The public | :32:23. | :32:33. | |
affairs and software company listed the top ten political blogs in the | :32:34. | :32:37. | |
UK has of June 2000 16. In third place was Guido Fawkes. Followed by | :32:38. | :32:43. | |
several other political websites of all persuasions. Wing zone for | :32:44. | :32:51. | |
Scotland, I have said that for the benefit of members from Scotland and | :32:52. | :32:55. | |
the honourable lady has left her place. Labour left and left foot | :32:56. | :32:59. | |
forward, political scrapbook, political betting, Conservative | :33:00. | :33:06. | |
home, Liberal Democrat and labour uncut. All aspects of the political | :33:07. | :33:11. | |
spectrum are covered in the political blogs. And a whole number | :33:12. | :33:17. | |
cover the spectrum. And I don't think the number of viewers to a | :33:18. | :33:24. | |
programme or the number of readers of a newspaper or the number of | :33:25. | :33:32. | |
visitors to a website should in itself be the criteria with which we | :33:33. | :33:37. | |
determine whether or not something is valuable or not. For example, | :33:38. | :33:45. | |
very interesting comments were made by the member for Christchurch, that | :33:46. | :33:50. | |
if they were published on a website that only had a readership within | :33:51. | :33:56. | |
the area of Christchurch and Bournemouth, it would be very | :33:57. | :34:01. | |
sufficient to meeting the definition of publication as far as I was | :34:02. | :34:04. | |
concerned. It would not necessarily have to be something of a national | :34:05. | :34:11. | |
publication, because by definition we are talking here about local | :34:12. | :34:15. | |
bodies. And therefore if you have a local council, to me it seems more | :34:16. | :34:24. | |
important to look at the quality of the readership rather than the | :34:25. | :34:33. | |
number. And the location. And whether it is communicating | :34:34. | :34:38. | |
something to 100 people and if that is more relevant if they live in the | :34:39. | :34:42. | |
locality rather than 10,000 to live somewhere else in the country. I | :34:43. | :34:47. | |
don't think we can purely look at the numbers when deciding this. It | :34:48. | :34:55. | |
is also worth bearing in mind of course that as well as written | :34:56. | :35:07. | |
publications and as well as communications via social media and | :35:08. | :35:12. | |
on the Internet, we are now moving to an age of video bloggers. | :35:13. | :35:23. | |
Vloggers. I make this point to reinforce that I have not tried to | :35:24. | :35:29. | |
be too prescriptive in my amendment about what constitutes a news | :35:30. | :35:36. | |
outlet. I simply said it has to be on a website. Nowadays it is very | :35:37. | :35:45. | |
easy with modern technology for anybody to be able to produce their | :35:46. | :35:50. | |
own news reports and put them on the Internet for others to view. Last | :35:51. | :35:56. | |
year the Reuters Institute for the study of journalism research | :35:57. | :36:01. | |
suggested 51% of people with online access usage, social media as a news | :36:02. | :36:05. | |
source. That is a very high proportion of | :36:06. | :36:15. | |
18-24 year olds, the younger generation, who we want to get | :36:16. | :36:20. | |
involved in the political process, 28% cited social media as their main | :36:21. | :36:26. | |
news source. This is nowadays where people are getting their news | :36:27. | :36:29. | |
source. In fact more people were sited on social media as their main | :36:30. | :36:35. | |
news source in this age group and television, which was only 24%. With | :36:36. | :36:40. | |
this changing landscape it is important that this legislation | :36:41. | :36:45. | |
reflects the changes which are taking place in journalism. We had | :36:46. | :36:51. | |
to accept in an evolving social media world, the definition of what | :36:52. | :37:00. | |
constitutes a journalist will inevitably change as time passes. My | :37:01. | :37:06. | |
amendment is intended if you like to future proof this Bill, which is why | :37:07. | :37:11. | |
I stressed in the drafting of the words "Any website on the Internet". | :37:12. | :37:16. | |
I will give way to the honourable member. Can he clarify something? I | :37:17. | :37:23. | |
am a little concerned about his amendment because I think that it is | :37:24. | :37:27. | |
rather restrictive in terms of hard copy publications. It refers to a | :37:28. | :37:32. | |
magazine or newspaper only. Would this not exclude a Parliamentary | :37:33. | :37:39. | |
candidate who was seeking to root out local corruption and wanted to | :37:40. | :37:49. | |
publish it in an election leaflet? Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm | :37:50. | :37:52. | |
grateful my honourable friend for that intervention. I fear that it | :37:53. | :37:58. | |
would on the definition I have included. And therefore it may be | :37:59. | :38:05. | |
one of my honourable friend for Christchurch proposed for including | :38:06. | :38:11. | |
the word "Politician" in the definition. That might be something | :38:12. | :38:14. | |
he had in his mind when he put forward the amendment. Of course it | :38:15. | :38:22. | |
would be possible. And I hope any would-be politician and any | :38:23. | :38:26. | |
candidate in an election nowadays would have access to social media in | :38:27. | :38:33. | |
their own website and would therefore be able to use that as | :38:34. | :38:37. | |
reason for inspecting the document, the fact they were going to publish | :38:38. | :38:46. | |
on their own website. If I may pre-empt, Madam Deputy Speaker, what | :38:47. | :38:54. | |
I suspect might be some further criticism of my claws, my proposed | :38:55. | :39:02. | |
amendment, that is the definition of what constitutes Internet and what | :39:03. | :39:10. | |
constitutes a website. The definition of Internet as far as I | :39:11. | :39:17. | |
can ascertain is a global computer network, providing a variety of | :39:18. | :39:21. | |
information and communication facilities, consisting of | :39:22. | :39:25. | |
interconnected networks, using standardised communication protocol, | :39:26. | :39:31. | |
or the net, as the Internet is often referred to, a worldwide system of | :39:32. | :39:36. | |
computer networks, a network of networks were anyone, with | :39:37. | :39:41. | |
permission, you can get information from any other computer. -- whereby | :39:42. | :39:47. | |
anyone. I would define a website as a set of pages of information on the | :39:48. | :39:54. | |
Internet about a particular subject. I would challenge anybody to | :39:55. | :40:00. | |
actually look at my proposed amendment. And to say to themselves, | :40:01. | :40:07. | |
if any member of the public was reading this, would it be clear what | :40:08. | :40:10. | |
was intended? And I would submit that it is | :40:11. | :40:20. | |
perfectly clear what was intended. It is perfectly clear that the | :40:21. | :40:24. | |
intention is to expand the definition of journalist and to go | :40:25. | :40:29. | |
some way towards, as I set out earlier, what the proposers of the | :40:30. | :40:34. | |
bill claim they are doing with this amendment. And I don't think that | :40:35. | :40:41. | |
there is any ambiguity whatsoever. I have also made it clear... Yes? My | :40:42. | :40:51. | |
honourable friend says there is no ambiguity but we have reference to | :40:52. | :40:57. | |
citizen journalists in the first line of clause one and yet the | :40:58. | :41:05. | |
section itself, the contents of that clause, only refers to journalists. | :41:06. | :41:11. | |
It doesn't refer to citizen journalists. To that in itself | :41:12. | :41:15. | |
creates confusion, doesn't it? Why are we not just talking about | :41:16. | :41:20. | |
journalists and then defining journalists in soap clause three? | :41:21. | :41:27. | |
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think to be fair to the honourable member | :41:28. | :41:33. | |
for Christchurch, that my amendment doesn't refer to citizen | :41:34. | :41:38. | |
journalists. It is already heading that refers to citizen journalists, | :41:39. | :41:42. | |
and as we have seen, so do the notes and debriefings. I think, with | :41:43. | :41:49. | |
hindsight, the heading should be amended and the words and citizen | :41:50. | :41:53. | |
journalists deleted because they really do lead people down a | :41:54. | :41:59. | |
cul-de-sac. Because the people will be looking at this bill and they | :42:00. | :42:05. | |
will be thinking to themselves, well, there is a bit missing. Where | :42:06. | :42:10. | |
is the definition of citizen journalists? I explained in my | :42:11. | :42:16. | |
earlier comment that I decided that rather than try and define citizen | :42:17. | :42:21. | |
journalists, it would be better to extend the existing definition of | :42:22. | :42:29. | |
what constituted a journalist, perhaps with hindsight it might have | :42:30. | :42:34. | |
been better to try and somehow define what a citizen journalist is | :42:35. | :42:38. | |
but I was conscious perhaps of the comments which were made on second | :42:39. | :42:45. | |
reading by a number of honourable friends that they took objection to | :42:46. | :42:53. | |
the reference to being citizen 's because we are all subjects of Her | :42:54. | :42:58. | |
Majesty and I think for that reason I felt that it was perhaps not | :42:59. | :43:05. | |
sensible to incorporate the term citizen journalist in legislation. | :43:06. | :43:09. | |
And personally I would prefer therefore if those words could be | :43:10. | :43:16. | |
struck from the bill. The other aspect of the amendment that I have | :43:17. | :43:24. | |
tabled is the reference to whether or not payment is made for a | :43:25. | :43:31. | |
particular magazine or newspaper, or whether one has two paid to access a | :43:32. | :43:40. | |
website should affect the situation. I have been very explicit and made | :43:41. | :43:44. | |
it clear that in my view, whether or not one house to pay for a | :43:45. | :43:50. | |
subscription or paid to access a website or whether the newspaper is | :43:51. | :43:57. | |
distributed free of charge should have no bearing at all on whether or | :43:58. | :44:03. | |
not somebody, a citizen journalist or not, should have the right to go | :44:04. | :44:14. | |
and access the accounts of their local council or body covered by | :44:15. | :44:19. | |
this act. We already know from the face of the bill as being presented | :44:20. | :44:26. | |
that it matters not whether the journalist is paid or unpaid, but I | :44:27. | :44:30. | |
thought it was equally important to clarify as to whether or not one | :44:31. | :44:38. | |
house to pay to access the site itself. I am grateful to him for | :44:39. | :44:47. | |
giving way. The more I reflect on his amendment, the more | :44:48. | :44:51. | |
unsatisfactory I think it is. Why is he apparently discriminating against | :44:52. | :44:54. | |
television journalists? There may be many journalists out there like | :44:55. | :44:58. | |
Michael Crick who want to prepare a news piece for broadcast in a | :44:59. | :45:01. | |
television programme, not to go out in a magazine, not to go out in a | :45:02. | :45:05. | |
newspaper, not to go on the internet, why would they be | :45:06. | :45:09. | |
excluded, why are the excluded from his amendment? Well, I don't intend | :45:10. | :45:17. | |
to exclude anybody. I rather feel that nowadays all the broadcasters | :45:18. | :45:26. | |
have websites and of course they wouldn't necessarily need to publish | :45:27. | :45:34. | |
or to broadcast online, but I am not aware actually of any broadcasters | :45:35. | :45:40. | |
nowadays that don't have websites and perhaps my honourable friend may | :45:41. | :45:43. | |
be aware of some that don't but I would have thought that it would be | :45:44. | :45:50. | |
very simple for any broadcaster who, faced with that defends by a council | :45:51. | :46:00. | |
who wanted to try to shield behind the argument, for that broadcaster | :46:01. | :46:07. | |
to say, well, in any event we will be publishing it on our website. | :46:08. | :46:18. | |
Well, all TV channels these days can be accessed via the internet, so | :46:19. | :46:24. | |
they are all really published on the internet as well, but if I read his | :46:25. | :46:28. | |
amendment correctly, his amendment talks about what it also includes | :46:29. | :46:35. | |
and it doesn't necessarily refer to all the things being excluded, it is | :46:36. | :46:38. | |
really an enabling amendment as I read it which I hope will give some | :46:39. | :46:41. | |
comfort to my Right Honourable friend. I am grateful to my | :46:42. | :46:46. | |
honourable friend for that intervention because it is important | :46:47. | :46:53. | |
to know that I have said includes. I have not tried to exclude any other | :46:54. | :46:59. | |
option, merely to clarify. I hope that this will have been noted by | :47:00. | :47:04. | |
the proposer of the bill and the Government minister who may have | :47:05. | :47:10. | |
some reservations I feel about my amendment and I hope that they will | :47:11. | :47:17. | |
concentrate and reflect on that intervention from my honourable | :47:18. | :47:22. | |
friend. I am very conscious, Madam Deputy Speaker, or the fact that | :47:23. | :47:28. | |
there are a number of other amendments which I'd just really | :47:29. | :47:33. | |
want to comment on, but I am understandably concerned that I | :47:34. | :47:39. | |
advanced the best possible case for my own amendment and I do hope that | :47:40. | :47:47. | |
I have been able to answer to the satisfaction of all those who have | :47:48. | :47:54. | |
concerns about my amendment and set their minds at ease. I have noted | :47:55. | :47:59. | |
that the proposer of the bill hasn't sought to contest my amendment in | :48:00. | :48:03. | |
anyway during my remarks and I sincerely hope that when we come to | :48:04. | :48:10. | |
hear from my honourable friend, that she will indicate a willingness to | :48:11. | :48:19. | |
accept my amendment in the spirit that I have put it forward. It is | :48:20. | :48:25. | |
not a wrecking amendment, it is merely one that seeks to achieve | :48:26. | :48:32. | |
what are all notes to the bill say and extend the cover to citizen | :48:33. | :48:37. | |
journalists and bloggers, enabling them to inspect the accounts of | :48:38. | :48:42. | |
local authorities. I now wish to just deal with the amendments which | :48:43. | :48:48. | |
have been proposed by my honourable friend the member for Christchurch. | :48:49. | :48:54. | |
And make it clear as to which ones I support and don't support. His first | :48:55. | :49:04. | |
amendment, amendment to, which is to leave out the words "From after" and | :49:05. | :49:13. | |
insert "Any members of the public who are registered to vote in | :49:14. | :49:17. | |
elections in the United Kingdom" would have the effect is essentially | :49:18. | :49:21. | |
of meaning that virtually anybody would be able to make use of the | :49:22. | :49:27. | |
powers contained within the bill. I am happy to support that. I am happy | :49:28. | :49:32. | |
to support that, to be perfectly honest with my honourable friend. I | :49:33. | :49:36. | |
do think it is perhaps a touch ambitious, given the nature of the | :49:37. | :49:45. | |
views of the proposer of the bill and the Minister from what we have | :49:46. | :49:51. | |
seen so far, but I would be happy to support him on this amendment. He | :49:52. | :49:59. | |
then put forward a number of other options for the house to consider, | :50:00. | :50:06. | |
including for example, extending the access to politicians, and as I made | :50:07. | :50:11. | |
clear in my early intervention, I have some concerns about the fact | :50:12. | :50:16. | |
that the word politician is not defined anywhere in the bill, but as | :50:17. | :50:24. | |
a general proposition about extending the scope from journalists | :50:25. | :50:27. | |
to politicians, I have no objections at all with it. Amendment for deals | :50:28. | :50:36. | |
with the position of nondomestic rate payers. I think this is | :50:37. | :50:43. | |
particularly important as we move into an era where we are moving back | :50:44. | :50:48. | |
towards the localisation of business rates. And I think that this will | :50:49. | :50:57. | |
inevitably lead businesses within an area to take more interest in what | :50:58. | :51:02. | |
is going on in their local authority, and so I wholeheartedly | :51:03. | :51:13. | |
support and amendment format. -- four. The other amendments, up to | :51:14. | :51:21. | |
number seven, deal with giving the opportunity to journalists who are | :51:22. | :51:23. | |
accredited or professional journalists or qualified journalists | :51:24. | :51:27. | |
and we heard from my honourable friend earlier that his preferred | :51:28. | :51:32. | |
option if you had one would be amendment five, accredited, and I | :51:33. | :51:36. | |
would be happy to go along with my honourable friend for the reasons | :51:37. | :51:39. | |
which she set out in his submission to the house. Amendment eight would | :51:40. | :51:51. | |
remove the definition of journalist entirely, but of course that would | :51:52. | :51:57. | |
be in direct contravention to my own amendment so I would oppose that | :51:58. | :52:04. | |
amendment and press my own amendment instead. I will certainly give way. | :52:05. | :52:10. | |
I thank my honourable friend for giving way. He is galloping on at | :52:11. | :52:14. | |
such a speed, if I may say so, he rather skimped over amendment three. | :52:15. | :52:18. | |
Does he share my concern that amendment we may be defective in | :52:19. | :52:23. | |
that it refers to politician, the definition of which is someone who | :52:24. | :52:26. | |
is professionally involved in politics, especially holding elected | :52:27. | :52:33. | |
office? This may, therefore, rule out someone who is an aspiring | :52:34. | :52:37. | |
politician, who is a candidate and who is yet to be elected. Well, | :52:38. | :52:44. | |
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very grateful to my Right Honourable | :52:45. | :52:49. | |
friend for his intervention. It was a point I made myself earlier in the | :52:50. | :52:56. | |
debate and my Right Honourable friend might have missed it, but I | :52:57. | :52:58. | |
made that intervention and I entirely agree that I think there is | :52:59. | :53:05. | |
a difficulty with not defining the phrase politician to make it clear | :53:06. | :53:12. | |
that someone who is aspiring to elected office should be included | :53:13. | :53:15. | |
because they are the ones who are more likely perhaps or as likely as | :53:16. | :53:21. | |
anyone, I should say, to want to carry out that sort of investigative | :53:22. | :53:29. | |
work to get to the bottom of these accounts and to go and study them | :53:30. | :53:34. | |
and to see what was in them, whether there is anything which they need to | :53:35. | :53:36. | |
bring to the attention of the public. We then move to amendment | :53:37. | :53:48. | |
nine, which is to insert at the end of clause one, page one, at line | :53:49. | :53:53. | |
eight, "The relevant authority must ensure that any person interested in | :53:54. | :53:59. | |
making inspection within subsection one may do so at all reasonable | :54:00. | :54:06. | |
times and without payment" and this amendment would extend to section 26 | :54:07. | :54:11. | |
of the 2014 act, the same conditions as set out in section 20 five. | :54:12. | :54:18. | |
Again, I think my honourable friend has struck on something which is | :54:19. | :54:22. | |
worthy of consideration. I am not sure whether he would choose to push | :54:23. | :54:29. | |
this particular amendment to the boat, but I will certainly consider | :54:30. | :54:36. | |
supporting it. -- vote. His most controversial amendment is amendment | :54:37. | :54:48. | |
ten. Amendment ten deals with the inclusion of help service bodies. By | :54:49. | :54:54. | |
leaving out the words which are included in line one, "Leave out | :54:55. | :54:57. | |
other than an audit of account to the health service" but it is worth | :54:58. | :55:03. | |
noting that the House of Commons reformers that actually refers to | :55:04. | :55:09. | |
the fact that the body is covered by the 2014 act include clinical | :55:10. | :55:13. | |
commissioning groups within the NHS. That is only one small part of the | :55:14. | :55:24. | |
NHS and like right honourable friend I see no reason why the Bill should | :55:25. | :55:29. | |
not be amended so as to make it clear that the whole plethora of | :55:30. | :55:35. | |
different health service bodies should be covered by this Bill. I | :55:36. | :55:45. | |
will give way. Just to reinforce that point in reference to clinical | :55:46. | :55:49. | |
commissioning groups, they basically have a veto over the use of | :55:50. | :55:55. | |
particular procedure is for people living within their area. It is | :55:56. | :56:00. | |
often quite controversial. It is justified on the basis of costs, but | :56:01. | :56:06. | |
if people can't examine the cost base than it is difficult for them | :56:07. | :56:12. | |
account. I entirely agree with me honourable friend about that -- to | :56:13. | :56:16. | |
hold them to account. I think they would be considerable interest to | :56:17. | :56:22. | |
the court residence in being able to access all the accounts of all | :56:23. | :56:27. | |
health service bodies. Amendment 11 that is being put forward by my | :56:28. | :56:31. | |
honourable friend deals with extending the period in which | :56:32. | :56:34. | |
inspections can be carried out beyond 30 days. I have heard no | :56:35. | :56:42. | |
explanation as to why the period is 30 days. Why it is not 6425 or some | :56:43. | :56:47. | |
other number and therefore I entirely agree that there seems to | :56:48. | :56:54. | |
me to be there is no logical reason as their way should there should be | :56:55. | :56:58. | |
a 30 day limit but I would support my honourable friend in amendment | :56:59. | :57:09. | |
11. Amendment 12, 13 and 14 are more technical amendments dealing with | :57:10. | :57:15. | |
the issue of commercial confidentiality. And I think that | :57:16. | :57:24. | |
amendment 30 is the one that I particularly would recommend to the | :57:25. | :57:31. | |
House. The fact that something might have been commercially sensitive in | :57:32. | :57:38. | |
the past should not prevent the accounts and all the associated | :57:39. | :57:42. | |
paperwork relating to it from being inspected now. And so of those | :57:43. | :57:50. | |
amendments I would particularly welcome number 14. Madam Deputy | :57:51. | :57:58. | |
Speaker, those are my reviews on my honourable friend 's amendments but | :57:59. | :58:03. | |
I just would reiterate and commend my own amendment, amendment one to | :58:04. | :58:12. | |
the House. I just say in conclusion is that if, and I hope it isn't the | :58:13. | :58:17. | |
case, but if that amendment is opposed I am afraid to say that it | :58:18. | :58:23. | |
does draw into question everything which is said about this Bill. And a | :58:24. | :58:30. | |
battered wanting to extend access to a wider number -- about it extending | :58:31. | :58:38. | |
access to a number of people and giving that information to the | :58:39. | :58:42. | |
public. All I have sought to do is to put onto the face of the Bill | :58:43. | :58:46. | |
what the explanatory notes say the Bill is all about, and at the very | :58:47. | :58:54. | |
least, if my amendment for whatever reason does not find favour with the | :58:55. | :59:02. | |
proposer of the Bill, then I would be interested to know firstly why | :59:03. | :59:09. | |
and secondly I think the public would be suspicious of the Bill as a | :59:10. | :59:13. | |
whole. And let's not forget that the whole reason why this Bill has been | :59:14. | :59:19. | |
brought before the House is because the initial bills were defective, | :59:20. | :59:27. | |
the initial acts were defective, and therefore I would be wary, I would | :59:28. | :59:34. | |
advise the House to be wary of any arguments which are advanced by the | :59:35. | :59:39. | |
Government against my amendment when it was the Government 's of various | :59:40. | :59:46. | |
views down the years that have led us to this position we are in this | :59:47. | :59:52. | |
morning. And so I have attempted to be quite clear and open and one | :59:53. | :59:56. | |
could argue over individual words, but I would submit to the House that | :59:57. | :00:02. | |
my amendment is perfectly clear about what it seeks to do. It seeks | :00:03. | :00:08. | |
to give clarity to this phrase, citizen journalist, which whether we | :00:09. | :00:11. | |
like it or not appears in the heading to Clause one of this Bill | :00:12. | :00:17. | |
and I commend my amendment and move it to the House. Philip Davies. | :00:18. | :00:23. | |
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to my | :00:24. | :00:27. | |
honourable friend is from Christchurch and Bury North who have | :00:28. | :00:31. | |
given a very compelling and competence of account of the | :00:32. | :00:37. | |
amendments. And I raced to try and perhaps adjudicate between them, not | :00:38. | :00:44. | |
the deep -- Madam Deputy Speaker, because this is a rare occurrence | :00:45. | :00:48. | |
when my two honourable friend 's other things from a slightly | :00:49. | :00:52. | |
different perspective but I sense on this they have their differences and | :00:53. | :00:57. | |
so I will try and do my best to be fair to their amendments to | :00:58. | :01:03. | |
adjudicate, along with my honourable friend from Bury North I would like | :01:04. | :01:06. | |
to think on Julie -- congratulate honourable friend forgetting the | :01:07. | :01:12. | |
Bill to the stage and if I might say so, I think her Bill is a good Bill, | :01:13. | :01:20. | |
but I think, if it was to incorporate some of the points made | :01:21. | :01:24. | |
by my honourable friend so it would be a better Bill and it seems to me | :01:25. | :01:30. | |
the whole purpose of a Report Stage of a Bill is to try and improve a | :01:31. | :01:34. | |
Bill and so I hope that the minister who is an excellent Minister, I hope | :01:35. | :01:44. | |
he and the proposer of the Bill would have listened carefully to my | :01:45. | :01:47. | |
honourable friends and appreciate that actually on reflection perhaps | :01:48. | :01:53. | |
the Bill could be better and I will try and set out which of these | :01:54. | :01:56. | |
amendments I hope that they will be minded to accept. I have to say, if | :01:57. | :02:03. | |
they are minded not to accept them, I would encourage my honourable | :02:04. | :02:08. | |
friends to consider pushing them to a division to test the will of the | :02:09. | :02:11. | |
House because I think they made very compelling cases for some of their | :02:12. | :02:17. | |
amendments, but not all, and that is where they want to focus my | :02:18. | :02:24. | |
attention now. -- I want to focus my attention now. I will start with my | :02:25. | :02:27. | |
honourable friend's amendment number two which is the lead amendment in | :02:28. | :02:32. | |
this group and in many respects rightly so, because it is my | :02:33. | :02:38. | |
contention that amendment two is the most powerful of all the amendments | :02:39. | :02:44. | |
in this group. And so to set out my position from the outset I hope that | :02:45. | :02:47. | |
my honourable friend for Christchurch, if he is tempted to | :02:48. | :02:53. | |
put any of these amendments forward to a division, I hope he will focus | :02:54. | :03:00. | |
its attention on amendment two. This one is Clause one, page one, line | :03:01. | :03:08. | |
five, to leave out from after to the end of the subsection and insert, | :03:09. | :03:12. | |
any members of the public are registered to vote in local | :03:13. | :03:15. | |
elections in the United Kingdom. I think what my honourable friend is | :03:16. | :03:18. | |
doing in simple terms is basically saying that everyone in the country | :03:19. | :03:21. | |
should have a right to know what is going on in these authorities. I | :03:22. | :03:27. | |
think the compelling case he made, if I might say so, was in relation | :03:28. | :03:31. | |
to what is happening in this local authority at the moment in | :03:32. | :03:36. | |
Christchurch in relation to his neighbouring local authority in | :03:37. | :03:41. | |
Bournemouth. And quite clearly it seems to me to be obvious that if | :03:42. | :03:48. | |
the court authorities are potentially going to be merging, | :03:49. | :03:55. | |
then the local authorities. Then they member public in one local | :03:56. | :03:58. | |
authority should have the absolute right to have full access to all | :03:59. | :04:01. | |
information about what is happening in the other local authority to be | :04:02. | :04:05. | |
able to assess whether or not it is in their best interest for that | :04:06. | :04:08. | |
merger to go ahead. Without access to the information at the moment, | :04:09. | :04:15. | |
how on earth can they be in a position to make that judgment, but | :04:16. | :04:19. | |
completely flies in the face of democracy and it would be perverse | :04:20. | :04:24. | |
in many respects if, for example, as was mentioned earlier, in his local | :04:25. | :04:31. | |
authority area it would be perverse of the editor of the Evening | :04:32. | :04:35. | |
Standard, who was mentioned during the course of this debate, was able | :04:36. | :04:43. | |
to access the documents relating to his neighbouring council by virtue | :04:44. | :04:51. | |
of being a journalist and eight find one -- a fine one, as the editor of | :04:52. | :04:56. | |
a prestigious newspaper, the local residents in his area weren't able | :04:57. | :04:58. | |
to get the same information. That surely would be a perverse outcome | :04:59. | :05:04. | |
and it can't really be the one that was envisaged when this Bill was in | :05:05. | :05:11. | |
its infancy. And I don't really see what possible argument that could be | :05:12. | :05:19. | |
against my honourable friend 's amendment, if we believe in | :05:20. | :05:23. | |
extending transparency, then local authorities can rightly be held to | :05:24. | :05:27. | |
account and the public have greater awareness of what is going on, why | :05:28. | :05:32. | |
don't we give them all the opportunity to see the information | :05:33. | :05:35. | |
for themselves rather than relying on journalists to do that job for | :05:36. | :05:43. | |
them? I agree with extending the principal of Bic stenting the people | :05:44. | :05:51. | |
-- extending, the people who have access to these documents, but the | :05:52. | :05:55. | |
problem is it is not sufficient. It is a step in the right direction but | :05:56. | :05:58. | |
it clearly isn't sufficient. The reason for this is as we all know | :05:59. | :06:04. | |
local newspapers in particular are going through a pretty torrid time | :06:05. | :06:10. | |
financially, and I don't think it is any secret the whole newspaper | :06:11. | :06:12. | |
industry in particular is going through a bit of a torrid time at | :06:13. | :06:20. | |
the moment. Obviously things moving on to the internet they found it | :06:21. | :06:24. | |
very difficult to adjust to monetise their content. So what we tend to | :06:25. | :06:32. | |
find in many local areas is that unfortunately despite the best | :06:33. | :06:36. | |
efforts of many local newspaper groups they are not increasing the | :06:37. | :06:39. | |
number of journalists they had to have access to all of these | :06:40. | :06:43. | |
documents and to go through them with a fine tooth, and all the rest | :06:44. | :06:48. | |
of it, they are actually shedding journalists -- fine tooth comb. They | :06:49. | :06:54. | |
are spread more thinly. And it seems to me that just giving local | :06:55. | :06:56. | |
journalists they access to the information and then hoping that all | :06:57. | :07:00. | |
of this stuff will be in the public domain all of a sudden is slightly | :07:01. | :07:03. | |
naive because I'm not entirely sure that the journalistic trade have the | :07:04. | :07:10. | |
capacity in order to do that. And so I think that we will be in | :07:11. | :07:14. | |
neighbouring something which is very worthwhile but may not actually | :07:15. | :07:19. | |
happen in practice. -- enabling. And so it seems to me if we won this | :07:20. | :07:22. | |
information in the public domain and for the people to hold local | :07:23. | :07:28. | |
authorities to account, but can't just rely on journalists being able | :07:29. | :07:31. | |
to do this because it difficult to see how they have the capacity to do | :07:32. | :07:35. | |
so. I have to allow the public to do this for themselves. I don't see why | :07:36. | :07:43. | |
anybody who shouldn't be able to have access to this information. | :07:44. | :07:50. | |
They can practice the chances of somebody in Shipley just | :07:51. | :07:52. | |
gratuitously showing an interest in the local authority in Christchurch | :07:53. | :07:57. | |
is very remote. I don't really think that anybody is going to be | :07:58. | :07:59. | |
inundated with that kind of scrutiny. But what may happen is | :08:00. | :08:05. | |
that residents in Christchurch might want to know what is happening in | :08:06. | :08:10. | |
Bournemouth just down the road and they should have absolutely the | :08:11. | :08:13. | |
right to go and inspect what is going on and the council is behaving | :08:14. | :08:19. | |
in the way it should, and I was rather shocked if I might say so to | :08:20. | :08:22. | |
hear the allegations made by my honourable friend about the conflict | :08:23. | :08:27. | |
of interest of the leader of Bournemouth Council without going | :08:28. | :08:30. | |
into detail myself, it certainly didn't sound very good to me, and it | :08:31. | :08:36. | |
is absolutely right that local residents in adjoining authorities | :08:37. | :08:39. | |
are able to know what is going on. I genuinely don't see why my | :08:40. | :08:43. | |
honourable friend the member for Aldridge Brown or the Minister would | :08:44. | :08:48. | |
want to resist this greater transparency and scrutiny, it is | :08:49. | :08:51. | |
surely that is the whole purpose of the Bill. My honourable friend is | :08:52. | :08:56. | |
ticking the Bill to its logical conclusion. I'm pretty sure they | :08:57. | :08:59. | |
don't do this now at some point will be another private Bill further down | :09:00. | :09:08. | |
the road actually introducing the measures proposed today because | :09:09. | :09:11. | |
there is a clear logic to what he is trying to achieve. And so I both | :09:12. | :09:18. | |
believe in transparency. I think it is very difficult to argue against | :09:19. | :09:23. | |
transparency. And so if we go down the road transparency have full | :09:24. | :09:26. | |
transparency will stop it seems to me then nobody can claim they didn't | :09:27. | :09:32. | |
have the opportunity to access any particular detailed information that | :09:33. | :09:40. | |
they wanted to. I will give way. He makes the point about the shortage | :09:41. | :09:44. | |
of local reporters and the pressures upon a local newspaper, does he | :09:45. | :09:51. | |
recalled that it was only last month that the BBC said that it was | :09:52. | :09:57. | |
setting aside ?8 billion a year to pay for 150 reporters to work for a | :09:58. | :10:01. | |
local newspaper organisations across the country. Isn't that stark | :10:02. | :10:04. | |
evidence of the plight of many of our local newspapers? | :10:05. | :10:09. | |
My honourable friend is absolutely right and I do not want to get to | :10:10. | :10:16. | |
structure at this moment, but I think it is fair to say that the BBC | :10:17. | :10:22. | |
doesn't help in these matters because they pinch local content and | :10:23. | :10:27. | |
show it on their website is free of charge and it makes it difficult for | :10:28. | :10:30. | |
local newspapers to monetise their work and so this was in response to | :10:31. | :10:35. | |
that and I hope it will help and I very much welcome what the BBC are | :10:36. | :10:39. | |
saying about this, but whether or not it works in practice in the way | :10:40. | :10:42. | |
that it is envisaged I don't know because what I see, Madam Deputy | :10:43. | :10:47. | |
Speaker, and I do not know what is happening in Derbyshire or other | :10:48. | :10:50. | |
parts of the country, but what I see is local paper still shedding staff | :10:51. | :10:54. | |
rather than recruiting staff and I haven't noticed any difference since | :10:55. | :10:59. | |
that announcement was made, but we will have to see what happens, but I | :11:00. | :11:03. | |
don't think we can glide... I think the point my honourable friend makes | :11:04. | :11:09. | |
is that we can't rely on local newspapers to be able to fill this | :11:10. | :11:18. | |
particular void. So amendment two, I think my friend is onto something | :11:19. | :11:22. | |
and I think this is the strongest of this group of amendments. Amendment | :11:23. | :11:26. | |
three, I think that between my honourable friend for Bury North and | :11:27. | :11:31. | |
my honourable for East Yorkshire rather torpedoed my honourable | :11:32. | :11:36. | |
friend's amendment on including any politician or journalist and I got | :11:37. | :11:40. | |
the sense from my honourable friend from Christchurch's remarks that he | :11:41. | :11:46. | |
rather felt they had torpedoed his amendment with the definition of | :11:47. | :11:51. | |
politician, which was quite clearly unsatisfactory, and as both my | :11:52. | :11:54. | |
honourable friend and my Right Honourable friend said, doing good | :11:55. | :11:58. | |
people who are elected and not exclude people who are standing for | :11:59. | :12:01. | |
election would be unacceptable, really. I don't think everyone | :12:02. | :12:09. | |
should be on a level playing field, really. And in many respects, I | :12:10. | :12:13. | |
think the beam of my honourable friend from Christchurch's further | :12:14. | :12:17. | |
amendment says that because amendment two is so good, he sought | :12:18. | :12:21. | |
a rather exposes the weakness of his other amendments because really | :12:22. | :12:23. | |
seems to me that he is trying to make the best of a bad job with | :12:24. | :12:29. | |
other ones, working on the premise that if amendment two was not | :12:30. | :12:32. | |
acceptable, let me see what else we can try to do to make the bill | :12:33. | :12:38. | |
better. I think really he should be focusing his fire on amendment two | :12:39. | :12:43. | |
and his other ones really don't really cut the mustard. Amendment | :12:44. | :12:52. | |
four, though, he is onto something with his amendment four about where | :12:53. | :12:57. | |
he wants to include nondomestic rate payers. And again, he is absolutely | :12:58. | :13:03. | |
right about this. And yes, I suppose if he hadn't put down amendment | :13:04. | :13:11. | |
number two, I would have supported amendment number four, but if we put | :13:12. | :13:14. | |
through amendment number two, it seems to me that we don't really | :13:15. | :13:18. | |
have to bother with amendment number four because he is rather weak and | :13:19. | :13:22. | |
what he is trying to do with his lead amendment. Amendments five, | :13:23. | :13:29. | |
six, and seven, again my honourable friend was again trying to make the | :13:30. | :13:33. | |
best of a bad job with his accredited professional and | :13:34. | :13:37. | |
qualified definitions of journalists. Again, I think my | :13:38. | :13:42. | |
honourable friend from Bury North rather made the point that these | :13:43. | :13:47. | |
were not really good enough and I accept that and I suspect my | :13:48. | :13:51. | |
honourable friend from Christchurch is a rather unenthusiastic supporter | :13:52. | :13:56. | |
of those three amendments that he tabled. I appreciate the point of | :13:57. | :14:04. | |
them because they have brought in a debate on for us to consider whether | :14:05. | :14:07. | |
or not there was any merit in them and I think we have generally | :14:08. | :14:10. | |
concluded that there isn't, but I am grateful to him by putting them | :14:11. | :14:13. | |
forward for us to have a look at them. And again, with amendment | :14:14. | :14:18. | |
number eight, removing the definition of a journalist, from | :14:19. | :14:28. | |
what I can see, then again that amendment has merit but I think | :14:29. | :14:32. | |
amendment number two rather supersedes it. I just want to dodge | :14:33. | :14:36. | |
on amendment number one from my honourable friend from Bury North | :14:37. | :14:41. | |
because I thought that the amendment is a very interesting one and I was | :14:42. | :14:46. | |
interested in his defence of it, Madam Deputy Speaker. He made some | :14:47. | :14:51. | |
very good points and I sort of moved from being between supporting it and | :14:52. | :15:00. | |
opposing it and supporting it again as he was making his remarks and he | :15:01. | :15:05. | |
certainly made a very good defence of his amendment. And I certainly | :15:06. | :15:12. | |
agree with the thrust of what he is trying to achieve because what my | :15:13. | :15:17. | |
honourable friend is clearly trying to achieve is to extend the | :15:18. | :15:20. | |
definition of journalists to try to get as many people involved as | :15:21. | :15:26. | |
possible and I think that is really what is the common theme of what we | :15:27. | :15:29. | |
are all trying to achieve, those of us who have spoken so far, that we | :15:30. | :15:32. | |
are all trying to get as many people as possible to have access to this | :15:33. | :15:36. | |
information. That is really the common theme in this. The question | :15:37. | :15:40. | |
is how do we best achieve that, and I thought my honourable friend's in | :15:41. | :15:45. | |
men -- amendment was rather imaginative to try doing good | :15:46. | :15:51. | |
virtually everybody in this. In some respects, it makes everybody a | :15:52. | :15:55. | |
journalist in some regards if we are including Twitter and Facebook. I am | :15:56. | :16:00. | |
not entirely sure of the numbers, Madam Deputy Speaker, of people who | :16:01. | :16:06. | |
are not on Twitter or Facebook. They are the sensible ones, it seems to | :16:07. | :16:11. | |
me. But I don't think there are that many. I am not on Facebook but I am | :16:12. | :16:16. | |
on Twitter and I probably regarded as one of the worst things I ever | :16:17. | :16:21. | |
did in my life, going on Twitter. I have about 16,000 followers, all of | :16:22. | :16:25. | |
whom hate me. And it is all very interesting what they have to say. | :16:26. | :16:31. | |
It seems to me rather pointless, to be perfectly honest. They can hurl | :16:32. | :16:34. | |
as much abuse as they like. It doesn't bother me. I'm not entirely | :16:35. | :16:41. | |
sure it gets us anywhere. But my honourable friend wants to sort of | :16:42. | :16:44. | |
include these in his definition of a journalist and as somebody who | :16:45. | :16:50. | |
always wanted to be a journalist and actually did the NCTJ course to be a | :16:51. | :16:59. | |
qualified journalist, I am not entirely convinced that any of ours | :17:00. | :17:10. | |
on that course had any one on Twitter being able to describe | :17:11. | :17:13. | |
themselves as a journalist, but still that is the age we are in, it | :17:14. | :17:16. | |
seems to be, so I think there is a lot of merit in what he is saying | :17:17. | :17:19. | |
and it would be in many respects in this day and age bizarre to exclude | :17:20. | :17:23. | |
those people who are in effect published materials in those ways. | :17:24. | :17:30. | |
That is the way of the world and we have to accept that, whether we like | :17:31. | :17:36. | |
it or not. It seems to me he is working in the spirit of the bill, | :17:37. | :17:40. | |
as I think he made clear during his remarks and I was reading the bill | :17:41. | :17:51. | |
as he was speaking and in the bill it actually says that journalist | :17:52. | :17:57. | |
means any person who produces for publication journalistic material, | :17:58. | :18:00. | |
whether paid to do so or otherwise, and actually in the explanatory | :18:01. | :18:07. | |
notes it actually says that it will include journalists including | :18:08. | :18:10. | |
Citizen journalists, that is bloggers and others who scrutinise | :18:11. | :18:13. | |
local authorities but you may not be accredited members of the press to | :18:14. | :18:18. | |
enable them to access a wider range of material in order to report and | :18:19. | :18:21. | |
publish on their findings, so that it is available to local voters in | :18:22. | :18:26. | |
an area, thus provided with information that will enable them to | :18:27. | :18:29. | |
better hold their local authority to account. So it seems to me in many | :18:30. | :18:33. | |
respects that what the bill is seeking to do is really what my | :18:34. | :18:36. | |
honourable friend's amendment states. And so I can't work out and | :18:37. | :18:43. | |
I look forward to what the Minister and might honourable friend has to | :18:44. | :18:50. | |
say in response because I can't work out whether or not there is no | :18:51. | :18:55. | |
reason at all for my honourable friend not to accept it because it | :18:56. | :18:58. | |
seems to be the thrust of what she is trying to achieve or whether | :18:59. | :19:02. | |
there is no point to my honourable friend's amendment because it is | :19:03. | :19:05. | |
already going to be covered by the bill. I can't really work out which | :19:06. | :19:09. | |
of those two it is. It may well be an element of both. But I think what | :19:10. | :19:14. | |
my honourable friend for Bury North is trying to achieve in his | :19:15. | :19:20. | |
amendment is to actually make it clear what it is involved. It may be | :19:21. | :19:26. | |
that these people are already involved but he is seeking to make | :19:27. | :19:29. | |
it clear on the face of the bill, and if that is what is happening I | :19:30. | :19:32. | |
don't see why anyone would want to oppose it because of all he is doing | :19:33. | :19:35. | |
is actually clarifying what is intended anyway, it seems to me that | :19:36. | :19:39. | |
we are all in agreement, so I look forward to what my honourable friend | :19:40. | :19:42. | |
and be ministered as to say as to whether or not my honourable friend | :19:43. | :19:49. | |
for Bury and North is agreeing with what the bill is doing anyway. In | :19:50. | :19:53. | |
terms of the other amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker, again I think my | :19:54. | :19:58. | |
honourable friend for Christchurch meets a very good case for all of | :19:59. | :20:04. | |
his amendments, but I just want to touch on amendment number ten as | :20:05. | :20:09. | |
well. I think my honourable friend for Bury North said it was the most | :20:10. | :20:13. | |
controversial one and I think my honourable friend for Christchurch | :20:14. | :20:16. | |
said it was the most radical one and I think I would rather describe it | :20:17. | :20:21. | |
as being radical rather than controversial because I am not | :20:22. | :20:25. | |
entirely sure why it would be controversial, but I do accept that | :20:26. | :20:33. | |
it is radical and this includes the health service bodies. And again, I | :20:34. | :20:47. | |
would be very and very interested to know what the argument is against | :20:48. | :20:50. | |
what my honourable friend is doing as to why there shouldn't be the | :20:51. | :20:53. | |
full scrutiny of their accounts, why we would not just focus on local | :20:54. | :20:59. | |
councils and why other local health authorities should not be subject to | :21:00. | :21:07. | |
the same rigours. Surely nobody can be suggesting that it is absolutely | :21:08. | :21:11. | |
terrible for a local authority to be wasting money or misappropriating | :21:12. | :21:17. | |
money but it is absolutely fine for a local health authority to do so, | :21:18. | :21:21. | |
so surely nobody can be making that point, so if we want to be sure in | :21:22. | :21:25. | |
this way that local authorities are not doing things that they shouldn't | :21:26. | :21:27. | |
and that there is full accountability for the people but | :21:28. | :21:31. | |
they are supposed to seven for people who may take an interest in | :21:32. | :21:35. | |
what they are doing, surely the same balls must apply to local health | :21:36. | :21:39. | |
authorities. I can see why anybody would argue against that. -- the | :21:40. | :21:43. | |
same rules must apply. I will be interested to hear what the Minister | :21:44. | :21:47. | |
has to say as to why they think that one is more important than the | :21:48. | :21:52. | |
other. In fact, in many respects you could argue that from the public's | :21:53. | :21:55. | |
perspective, they might have more concern for what is happening in the | :21:56. | :22:01. | |
local health authority in their area rather than what is happening in the | :22:02. | :22:04. | |
local authority, because it may well be more important to their day to | :22:05. | :22:09. | |
day life, so again I think my honourable friend's amendment is | :22:10. | :22:12. | |
certainly radical but I don't really see why it should be controversial | :22:13. | :22:17. | |
and again many people would be astonished that it is not actually | :22:18. | :22:21. | |
already included, to be perfectly honest. And I praise my honourable | :22:22. | :22:29. | |
friend for Christchurch. He is absolutely forensic when | :22:30. | :22:31. | |
scrutinising legislation and this house will be much poorer without | :22:32. | :22:38. | |
doing so. And it goes to show, if I might say so, white bills should not | :22:39. | :22:42. | |
go through displays on the nod and why we should actually have some | :22:43. | :22:45. | |
proper scrutiny because there are some things that come up in the | :22:46. | :22:48. | |
course of that scrutiny that people had not considered a note don't | :22:49. | :22:53. | |
blame my honourable friend. That is why we have a debate and why we have | :22:54. | :22:58. | |
amendments because the wisdom of 650 is quite clearly better than the | :22:59. | :23:00. | |
wisdom of just one and other people think of things that we would never | :23:01. | :23:04. | |
have thought of ourselves and my honourable friend for Christchurch | :23:05. | :23:06. | |
does that on a regular basis and I commend him for doing so so in | :23:07. | :23:10. | |
summary, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that my honourable friend for | :23:11. | :23:14. | |
Christchurch and my honourable friend for Bury North have done the | :23:15. | :23:17. | |
house a great service and actually seeking to improve this bill and | :23:18. | :23:20. | |
anybody can see that they are not trying to ruin the bill, they are | :23:21. | :23:24. | |
trying to make the bill a better deal. It is a good bill so far, but | :23:25. | :23:28. | |
it certainly will be improved by these amendments and so my final | :23:29. | :23:37. | |
analysis is that if my honourable friend 's art to push any of their | :23:38. | :23:43. | |
amendments and obviously with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I | :23:44. | :23:47. | |
think that amendments two is one that they absolutely should seek to | :23:48. | :23:51. | |
push but also amendment number ten. They are the two that I think are | :23:52. | :23:55. | |
the most powerful ones in this group of amendments and I think that both | :23:56. | :23:59. | |
of those amendments would turn this bill from being an improvement into | :24:00. | :24:04. | |
actually something very, very good. For the public, which will actually | :24:05. | :24:07. | |
stand the test of time for many, many years to come. And so I wish | :24:08. | :24:13. | |
the bill well but I hope that it will pass with those amendments | :24:14. | :24:24. | |
added to it. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank the | :24:25. | :24:27. | |
honourable member for all the rich brown hills for bringing the bill, | :24:28. | :24:31. | |
as someone who has brought a Private member's bill to the house, I know | :24:32. | :24:35. | |
the hard work that goes into it and the honourable lady's bill has got | :24:36. | :24:40. | |
far further than my build it and I wish every success in taking it | :24:41. | :24:44. | |
further. I don't intend to speak for too long on the amendments before is | :24:45. | :24:50. | |
here. This is a bill which makes a relatively small change to existing | :24:51. | :24:53. | |
legislation, but it is a small change that would increase | :24:54. | :24:56. | |
transparency and improve openness and I think I hope it would increase | :24:57. | :25:01. | |
public engagement in decision-making. | :25:02. | :25:05. | |
There are 14 amendments before us. In the names of the honourable | :25:06. | :25:12. | |
member per Christchurch and Bury North. I will briefly talk about | :25:13. | :25:16. | |
them. Amendment two would extend the provision in the Bill to provide for | :25:17. | :25:20. | |
public access to local audit documents. The register to vote in | :25:21. | :25:26. | |
local elections in the UK. We would support measures to extend | :25:27. | :25:29. | |
transparency and openness and this amendment would undoubtedly help to | :25:30. | :25:33. | |
achieve that. Amendments three and four adjust the Bill to include | :25:34. | :25:39. | |
politicians and ratepayers of business to enable them to | :25:40. | :25:43. | |
scrutinise local audit ducklings. As with amendment two which would | :25:44. | :25:46. | |
largely cover these we support amendments which would extend | :25:47. | :25:50. | |
transparency and openness. Amendments five, six and seven | :25:51. | :25:55. | |
adjust the title of journalists to to be accredited, professional or | :25:56. | :25:59. | |
qualified. Amendment eight removes the definition of a journalist. I | :26:00. | :26:03. | |
believe the honourable member has tabled these to ensure the issues | :26:04. | :26:07. | |
around defining a journalist are debated today but I'm hesitant. It | :26:08. | :26:11. | |
seeks to extend the ability to fuse these documents and ensure that we | :26:12. | :26:16. | |
wouldn't want to ensure that no journalist is unable to scrutinise | :26:17. | :26:19. | |
it admits. And one provides clarity to be legislation to ensure that the | :26:20. | :26:25. | |
section covered all journalists from the humble local blogger to our own | :26:26. | :26:29. | |
house Gallery in Parliament. Regardless of whether payment or | :26:30. | :26:33. | |
subscription is needed. If the House which is to make these provisions | :26:34. | :26:35. | |
applicable per just journalists we would have no objections to this | :26:36. | :26:39. | |
becoming part of the Bill. Amendment nine extends the assurance that | :26:40. | :26:42. | |
anyone able to view the documents can do so at all reasonable times | :26:43. | :26:47. | |
and without payment. So long as the Minister can assure that this | :26:48. | :26:50. | |
amendment would not impose a burden on local authorities we would | :26:51. | :26:54. | |
welcome this amendment. Amendments ten and 11 extend these provisions | :26:55. | :26:58. | |
to help service bodies and allows for inspections to be carried out | :26:59. | :27:01. | |
beyond 30 days which we would support. Amendment 13 would allow | :27:02. | :27:07. | |
the previous contracts to be inspected, which is welcome and the | :27:08. | :27:10. | |
scrutiny of those powers contracts will no doubt ensure that future | :27:11. | :27:13. | |
contracts are done in a way which secures the best possible service | :27:14. | :27:18. | |
and value for money. Amendment 12 would remove the restriction on | :27:19. | :27:22. | |
inspecting parts of the accounts with regard to commercial | :27:23. | :27:26. | |
confidentiality, but would retain the restriction on copying. | :27:27. | :27:31. | |
Amendment 14 would remove the definition in the act of when | :27:32. | :27:33. | |
information is protected on the grounds of commercial | :27:34. | :27:38. | |
confidentiality. But I would be hesitant to move these protections | :27:39. | :27:41. | |
without further detail and consultation with local authorities. | :27:42. | :27:45. | |
What I do look forward to hearing the Minister and other honourable | :27:46. | :27:47. | |
members' responses to these amendments. Andrew Percy. Thank you, | :27:48. | :27:59. | |
Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of | :28:00. | :28:02. | |
the Government on this Bill. In place of I am afraid to say my | :28:03. | :28:06. | |
honourable friend the Minister for Local Government, Rhino would be | :28:07. | :28:12. | |
delighted to be here were he not otherwise engaged. I too would be | :28:13. | :28:18. | |
delighted if he were here today. LAUGHTER | :28:19. | :28:22. | |
Knowing as I do of his passion for this particular piece of | :28:23. | :28:27. | |
legislation. I also welcome, I will of course give way to my fellow East | :28:28. | :28:32. | |
Yorkshire colleague. I am grateful, as he information to relate to the | :28:33. | :28:37. | |
House as to why not one single Liberal Democrat is here? I am | :28:38. | :28:44. | |
afraid sadly not, other than the information that the public seem to | :28:45. | :28:50. | |
diminish their numbers somewhat at the last General Election proving | :28:51. | :28:54. | |
once again that the public are very sensible individuals on the whole. | :28:55. | :28:59. | |
But do welcome the opportunity to briefly on the amendments put | :29:00. | :29:03. | |
forward by my honourable friend is the member for Bury North and the | :29:04. | :29:07. | |
member for Christchurch and the important points made thus far in | :29:08. | :29:10. | |
the day's debate. I did have the privilege also of stepping into the | :29:11. | :29:14. | |
local government minister during the Committee Stage of this legislation | :29:15. | :29:22. | |
and of this Bill, sorry, and did offer government support for the | :29:23. | :29:27. | |
principles behind it which I do think are important ones. Whilst the | :29:28. | :29:31. | |
amendments I know have been made with the best of intentions and my | :29:32. | :29:35. | |
honourable friend the member for Aldridge-Brownhills will deal with | :29:36. | :29:39. | |
them in more detail, I understand, as the promoter of this Bill, but I | :29:40. | :29:43. | |
do want to set up the Government's view as to why we don't think | :29:44. | :29:47. | |
agreeing to them would be a good idea. The virtue of this Bill is its | :29:48. | :29:55. | |
simplicity. By seeking to clarify what is meant in the legislation as | :29:56. | :30:01. | |
to where material may be published, the honourable member for Bury North | :30:02. | :30:05. | |
with amendment one may unintentionally, and it is | :30:06. | :30:08. | |
unintentionally from the speech, have narrowed the places where such | :30:09. | :30:13. | |
articles may be published. Sometimes a less precise phrase in law permits | :30:14. | :30:19. | |
a helpfully wider interpretation and I believe that this is the case | :30:20. | :30:24. | |
here. I would be delighted to give way. I have no doubt that a similar | :30:25. | :30:30. | |
argument would have been advanced when the original Bill was going | :30:31. | :30:35. | |
through this House that led to the 1998 that then led to the court case | :30:36. | :30:41. | |
that this present Bill arises out of, so actually I think there is a | :30:42. | :30:45. | |
strong argument for trying to be as clear as possible on the face of the | :30:46. | :30:47. | |
Bill about what is actually intended. I don't agree. I do think | :30:48. | :30:57. | |
particularly with regards to his reference to the internet of the | :30:58. | :31:03. | |
websites, the nature of the proposed amendment could unintentionally be | :31:04. | :31:10. | |
too unhelpfully narrowed the interpretation. You may be | :31:11. | :31:17. | |
interested to know that both the concept of journalistic material and | :31:18. | :31:21. | |
publication already appear in legislation many times, although to | :31:22. | :31:28. | |
my mind in particular it is a simple plain English definition needing no | :31:29. | :31:32. | |
further clarification. For example, journalistic material appears in | :31:33. | :31:39. | |
section 264, two, of the investigatory Powers act 2016 as | :31:40. | :31:43. | |
well as in section 13 of the criminal evidence act from 1984 and | :31:44. | :31:50. | |
publication has similar antecedents. However I think it is fair to say | :31:51. | :31:55. | |
that everybody who will seek to use this Bill will necessarily be | :31:56. | :31:58. | |
familiar with the concepts of interpretation of these terms as | :31:59. | :32:03. | |
they are used here and I have heard what my honourable friends have said | :32:04. | :32:06. | |
on the subject and they will therefore committed to ensuring that | :32:07. | :32:11. | |
any accompanying explanatory notes are amended if this Bill passes to | :32:12. | :32:16. | |
the other place to clarify these points. My honourable friend the | :32:17. | :32:20. | |
member for Bury North also made references with regards to | :32:21. | :32:25. | |
journalists versus Citizen journalists and I can obviously say | :32:26. | :32:30. | |
to him, the definition of a journalist does include citizen | :32:31. | :32:33. | |
journalism and that is why a separate definition has not been | :32:34. | :32:39. | |
required. I know the honourable lady for Aldridge-Brownhills keen to get | :32:40. | :32:46. | |
to her feet and respond in detail to the amendments of my honourable | :32:47. | :32:49. | |
friend for Christchurch, so in the interest of brevity I want to | :32:50. | :32:53. | |
concentrate on two issues he has raised. Actually maybe three, on | :32:54. | :32:58. | |
reflection. In particular the honourable member for Christchurch | :32:59. | :33:03. | |
amendment number two would be likely to impose a new burden on local | :33:04. | :33:06. | |
authorities. Could we have been asked them to make the records | :33:07. | :33:09. | |
available to everyone which is something that they have not | :33:10. | :33:12. | |
previously been required to do as part of the 2014 legislation. This | :33:13. | :33:18. | |
would therefore need to be funded by government whereas what we are | :33:19. | :33:23. | |
seeking to do is extend the existing right to a defined group of people, | :33:24. | :33:26. | |
which would not be considered in the same light. In reference to | :33:27. | :33:32. | |
amendment ten on health bodies I heard what he had to say and I can | :33:33. | :33:37. | |
speak obviously on behalf of of the departments, but as a member of | :33:38. | :33:41. | |
Parliament we are all concerned with transparency of course within the | :33:42. | :33:45. | |
health system as well. Wally would just say is that the State intention | :33:46. | :33:52. | |
of the original 2014, the consultation response on that | :33:53. | :33:55. | |
legislation did not include health bodies and it would therefore be | :33:56. | :33:58. | |
wrong to include those and bring those within the scope of this Bill | :33:59. | :34:02. | |
today. I will give way. My honourable friend was pretty | :34:03. | :34:09. | |
succinct in projecting amendment two. Has he got any evidence as to | :34:10. | :34:13. | |
how much he thinks it would cost local authorities if amendment two | :34:14. | :34:19. | |
became part of the law and would he seek to make a comparison between | :34:20. | :34:23. | |
that cost and the payoff for the Chief Executive of Bournemouth? | :34:24. | :34:29. | |
After Mike -- LAUGHTER . | :34:30. | :34:32. | |
I listened with interest to the comments as regards to the Chief | :34:33. | :34:34. | |
Executive of Bournemouth and perhaps the debate of officials I will not | :34:35. | :34:42. | |
say anything with regards to that particular decision particularly in | :34:43. | :34:47. | |
light of other issues affecting potential reorganisation at this | :34:48. | :34:55. | |
moment in time. Needless to say, extending this right more generally | :34:56. | :34:59. | |
to any electorate across the United Kingdom could have a substantial | :35:00. | :35:03. | |
impact and it is likely the local authorities bodies would ask for | :35:04. | :35:05. | |
additional resources for that. I can't give the figure on that. I | :35:06. | :35:09. | |
want to be honest with him from the dispatch box. But there is no doubt | :35:10. | :35:16. | |
it is extending the right in such a way would come with additional | :35:17. | :35:20. | |
burdens. In addition and further to the comments made by my honourable | :35:21. | :35:27. | |
friend for Christchurch on amendments 12-14, paragraph 31 and | :35:28. | :35:32. | |
32 of the local authority transparency code do of course | :35:33. | :35:36. | |
already require councils to publish quarterly spending and procurement | :35:37. | :35:40. | |
information. There was reference made to tender documents and that is | :35:41. | :35:48. | |
that code, it of course requires the details of every invitation to | :35:49. | :35:53. | |
tender for contracts to provide goods and services of the value that | :35:54. | :35:57. | |
exceeds ?5,000 to be published as well as any details for any | :35:58. | :36:02. | |
contract, commission activity, purchase order, framework agreement | :36:03. | :36:05. | |
and any other legally enforceable in agreement that has a value of over | :36:06. | :36:09. | |
?5,000. That is available for anybody. Furthermore, last May the | :36:10. | :36:17. | |
Government consulted on updating but cold to provide the opportunity for | :36:18. | :36:21. | |
greater Townhall transparency and that is something we all want to see | :36:22. | :36:24. | |
I think across the House and certainly on the side of the House, | :36:25. | :36:29. | |
that greater transparency. We want to see enhanced scrutiny of the use | :36:30. | :36:34. | |
of public assets and resources including through better comparison | :36:35. | :36:40. | |
of data. In respect of contractual information, the consultation on | :36:41. | :36:43. | |
proposed to standardise this data and make comparisons easier through | :36:44. | :36:48. | |
publication to a central source of course is important. We hope to be | :36:49. | :36:51. | |
publishing our response to that consultation shortly and I hope that | :36:52. | :36:57. | |
will about some of the concerns my honourable friend for Christchurch | :36:58. | :37:02. | |
as in regards of local transparency. I want to just deal very quickly | :37:03. | :37:05. | |
with an intervention from a honourable friend the member for | :37:06. | :37:10. | |
Gainsborough who was not in this place now, he is on his way back to | :37:11. | :37:15. | |
his constituency, in which he referenced local government | :37:16. | :37:16. | |
reorganisation in Lincolnshire and stated that one council was trying | :37:17. | :37:22. | |
to dig over another. I want to make it clear for the record that water | :37:23. | :37:27. | |
can sure council is not propose to take over any other neighbouring | :37:28. | :37:32. | |
authority. The Department -- Lincolnshire Council. It has | :37:33. | :37:35. | |
received no proposals of that nature and all there is is a cross | :37:36. | :37:42. | |
Lincolnshire in the broadest sense including the county and unitary | :37:43. | :37:46. | |
areas, a conversation going on between all council leaders as to | :37:47. | :37:51. | |
the future. I figured it is important to clarify that as it was | :37:52. | :37:56. | |
raised in response to this debate. I'm hoping that both my honourable | :37:57. | :38:02. | |
friend the member for Aldridge-Brownhills will address | :38:03. | :38:05. | |
some of these amendments herself in a moment and I am confident that the | :38:06. | :38:10. | |
honourable members for Bury North and Christchurch will respond to | :38:11. | :38:19. | |
those in their usual way, with reasonableness and understanding | :38:20. | :38:23. | |
that I think that what is, which I think I got from there speeches, | :38:24. | :38:27. | |
what is behind this Bill is a good thing, to extend a right to | :38:28. | :38:31. | |
increased transparency. And that is why I would urge them to withdraw | :38:32. | :38:34. | |
their amendments and enabled this Bill to pass to the other place. And | :38:35. | :38:43. | |
on that basis, I look forward to this will's further progress. | :38:44. | :38:46. | |
Learning. -- built. Thank you. I am very pleased to be | :38:47. | :38:59. | |
able to speak again on my Private members Bill, local or that public | :39:00. | :39:06. | |
access to documents Bill and as honourable friend have already | :39:07. | :39:09. | |
explained today, there were no amendments being committed on the | :39:10. | :39:13. | |
7th of February and the passage of my Bill was quite swift through | :39:14. | :39:18. | |
Committee. And so the Bill was reported to the House unamended. | :39:19. | :39:23. | |
However my honourable friend for Bury North and my honourable friend | :39:24. | :39:27. | |
for Christchurch's proposed amendments proposed amendments, they | :39:28. | :39:31. | |
are late entries to the debate but I have been very keen to listen to | :39:32. | :39:34. | |
those amendments and to listen to the arguments and I think they have | :39:35. | :39:41. | |
provided us with some additional scrutiny and some additional debate | :39:42. | :39:48. | |
here in the chamber this morning. I have to say, when I looked at the | :39:49. | :39:52. | |
number of amendments I think there was 13 or 14 and having already | :39:53. | :39:55. | |
brought a Private members Bill to the House last year I was quite | :39:56. | :40:01. | |
surprised by the number of amendments and they did wonder | :40:02. | :40:04. | |
whether that was a record in terms of a Private members Bill. I was | :40:05. | :40:07. | |
assured by the honourable member for Christchurch that was not the case. | :40:08. | :40:12. | |
I accept as a new member I have probably still got a lot to learn | :40:13. | :40:17. | |
here in the chamber. However I am none the less grateful to them for | :40:18. | :40:20. | |
those amendments and for their contributions. | :40:21. | :40:25. | |
As my honourable friend the member for Bury North sorts of simply put | :40:26. | :40:31. | |
it, they were succinct contributions this morning. However, having | :40:32. | :40:38. | |
listened to them and I have listened to them carefully and I considered | :40:39. | :40:42. | |
them when I saw them tables, I am not convinced, Madam Deputy Speaker, | :40:43. | :40:46. | |
that they are helpful changes to what I believe at heart is a very | :40:47. | :40:52. | |
simple bill. It has one purpose alone. And that is to extend the | :40:53. | :40:59. | |
definition of interested person to include journalists, which includes | :41:00. | :41:02. | |
citizen journalists, so that they may have access to a wider range of | :41:03. | :41:07. | |
local audit documents to assist with their investigations and publicise | :41:08. | :41:12. | |
their findings so that local electors and -- are made more aware | :41:13. | :41:16. | |
and are better able to hold their council to account for their actions | :41:17. | :41:20. | |
to questioning the auditor or making an objection. We have said much | :41:21. | :41:26. | |
about openness and transparency, and I think this bill will make a | :41:27. | :41:32. | |
valuable contribution in doing that. But let me respond, Madam Deputy | :41:33. | :41:38. | |
Speaker, first of all to amendment two, and hopefully I can add my | :41:39. | :41:41. | |
thoughts to those that were aired a few minutes ago by the Minister. | :41:42. | :41:46. | |
Amendment two, Madam Deputy Speaker, was tabled by my honourable friend | :41:47. | :41:52. | |
the member for Christchurch and seeks to expand inspection rights | :41:53. | :41:56. | |
under 26 to all UK registered local electors. This would essentially | :41:57. | :42:00. | |
give the public at large the right to inspect accounting documents of | :42:01. | :42:04. | |
any local authority in England. The local audit framework already | :42:05. | :42:09. | |
introduces migratory transparency codes for the very smallest and the | :42:10. | :42:14. | |
largest public bodies which requires the electronic publication of key | :42:15. | :42:19. | |
financial and other data, available for all to view free of charge. And | :42:20. | :42:24. | |
whilst ministers clearly flagged their intention to extend this | :42:25. | :42:29. | |
specific inspection from accounting information to journalists in order | :42:30. | :42:31. | |
to insist them in their investigations to extend these | :42:32. | :42:36. | |
rights to everyone with vastly expand the potential for mischief | :42:37. | :42:39. | |
making without any wider public benefit. Madam Deputy Speaker, in | :42:40. | :42:45. | |
addition to this, to permit anyone to inspect this wider range of | :42:46. | :42:50. | |
accounting information would, I fear, potentially results in a | :42:51. | :42:53. | |
greater cost burden on local authorities, as they might well in | :42:54. | :42:59. | |
order to prevent numerous requests to inspect decide to scan and pulled | :43:00. | :43:03. | |
a large amount of information every year with the unintended consequence | :43:04. | :43:07. | |
of making it harder for the man in the street to find useful, basic | :43:08. | :43:13. | |
data. This would also be a burden on local authorities, it which I have | :43:14. | :43:18. | |
been very mindful of in bringing forward this bill and making sure | :43:19. | :43:22. | |
that we do get the right balance. Turning now to amendments three and | :43:23. | :43:26. | |
four, they seek also to amend the persons who at the right to expect | :43:27. | :43:33. | |
-- inspect the accounting documents of all to a lesser degree. I do not | :43:34. | :43:37. | |
consider that these amendments to the bill are desirable. For | :43:38. | :43:41. | |
instance, the term politician is a loosely defined term that could | :43:42. | :43:45. | |
potentially open inspection rights to people outside the UK. I am | :43:46. | :43:50. | |
afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do have visions of the president of the | :43:51. | :43:54. | |
United States asking to see the accounts of maybe my old local | :43:55. | :44:03. | |
authority, Walsall, or Christchurch. Plus, Madam Deputy Speaker, unlike | :44:04. | :44:06. | |
journalists, whose role is to disseminate information more | :44:07. | :44:09. | |
publicly, this would not necessarily be part of a politician's remit, | :44:10. | :44:14. | |
unless it was in their interest, and removing the definition of | :44:15. | :44:16. | |
journalist from the bill would undermine its whole purpose in | :44:17. | :44:21. | |
relation to citizen journalists, specifically in relation to | :44:22. | :44:24. | |
amendment four. The courts have already clarified that a | :44:25. | :44:27. | |
non-domestic rate payer would be considered a person interested and | :44:28. | :44:34. | |
so this amendment is unnecessary. Broadly speaking, Madam Deputy | :44:35. | :44:40. | |
Speaker, amendments five through 28, also tabled by my honourable friend | :44:41. | :44:43. | |
the member for Christchurch, seek to refine the definition of journalists | :44:44. | :44:48. | |
and remove the rights of citizen journalists and bloggers for | :44:49. | :44:52. | |
inclusion in the bill. And although I recognise that there is | :44:53. | :44:56. | |
amendments, my honourable friend is trying to defend the ideal of the | :44:57. | :45:02. | |
fourth estate, that is that the press is defined by Scottish | :45:03. | :45:06. | |
philosopher Edmund Burke in the 18th-century. I do feel that he | :45:07. | :45:09. | |
needs to recognise that there is now a fifth estate of networked | :45:10. | :45:13. | |
individuals with the ability to share information, to create | :45:14. | :45:17. | |
communities and to organise social movements online. It is not possible | :45:18. | :45:21. | |
to turn back the clock. We need to accept that many people today get | :45:22. | :45:26. | |
their information from nontraditional sources, which is | :45:27. | :45:31. | |
precisely why the bill includes the concept of a citizen journalist. The | :45:32. | :45:37. | |
use of this term also includes bloggers and others who scrutinise | :45:38. | :45:39. | |
local authorities, but you may not be accredited members of the press, | :45:40. | :45:43. | |
and we have had debate in the chamber this morning about this. | :45:44. | :45:46. | |
However, this doesn't mean that it would cover anyone with social media | :45:47. | :45:51. | |
access. By referring to journalistic material in the bill, the focus is | :45:52. | :45:56. | |
on what the person does and would suggest that such a person would be | :45:57. | :46:00. | |
able to provide details of other blogs or tweets that they had | :46:01. | :46:04. | |
offered and the forums in which they had been published in order to gain | :46:05. | :46:09. | |
the ability to inspect the accounting documents requested. In | :46:10. | :46:14. | |
addition to that, use of the term publication implies a public | :46:15. | :46:19. | |
element, so whilst it might include journalistic material tweeted on | :46:20. | :46:25. | |
Twitter, it may not include material circulated to a small, invite only | :46:26. | :46:30. | |
Facebook group. Will my honourable friend give way? I am grateful to my | :46:31. | :46:35. | |
honourable friend for giving way because I perhaps should have | :46:36. | :46:38. | |
covered this in my earlier comments. I apologise to the house that I | :46:39. | :46:44. | |
didn't. But I do think that one shouldn't just solely go by that | :46:45. | :46:51. | |
parameter because what if a local Facebook group has got 5000 locally | :46:52. | :46:58. | |
interested residents on it. Surely that is publication to interested | :46:59. | :47:05. | |
people and that is just as valid as publishing in a newspaper that no | :47:06. | :47:10. | |
one reads? Thank you. I am grateful to my honourable friend for his | :47:11. | :47:15. | |
intervention. He makes a fair point, but what I am driving at here is the | :47:16. | :47:19. | |
difference between a small, invite only Facebook group, which the bill | :47:20. | :47:25. | |
won't cover, compared with a broader Facebook group, and open Facebook | :47:26. | :47:31. | |
group, because of this bill is about transparency and openness, that is | :47:32. | :47:35. | |
what this is about, not about invite only groups. It is also unlikely to | :47:36. | :47:41. | |
include material sent as a direct message on either Twitter, Facebook | :47:42. | :47:45. | |
or e-mail. So as an example, it might be expected to includes a | :47:46. | :47:50. | |
bloggers such as Eve Fox, one of the bloggers that most others in this | :47:51. | :47:56. | |
chamber I think know what, but not a campaign group like 38 Degrees. I | :47:57. | :48:02. | |
now like to turn to amendment number one from my honourable friend for | :48:03. | :48:06. | |
Bury North because this covers this point as well. I believe its aim is | :48:07. | :48:10. | |
to clarify that the bill would cover all journalists who may wish to | :48:11. | :48:14. | |
publish their articles in a newspaper or on the internet, | :48:15. | :48:17. | |
irrespective of whether there are charges. And I would like to | :48:18. | :48:21. | |
reassure my honourable friend that the bill, as drafted, would cover | :48:22. | :48:25. | |
the inclusion of an article in a newspaper, magazine, or on the | :48:26. | :48:29. | |
internet, either on a website or in a blog, whether paid for free. The | :48:30. | :48:33. | |
use of the words journalistic material and for publication. In | :48:34. | :48:39. | |
point of fact, by specifying were such material or articles are | :48:40. | :48:45. | |
published, he may in fact be limiting the potential for where | :48:46. | :48:49. | |
they are placed, as a blog or a tweet may not be part of a specific | :48:50. | :48:53. | |
website. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is important because it is | :48:54. | :48:56. | |
necessary to keep up with the times and use terminology that would | :48:57. | :49:00. | |
incorporate the many and varied realms of the internet such as | :49:01. | :49:05. | |
twitter and the blogosphere in its provisions. And for those who may be | :49:06. | :49:08. | |
concerned that this may mean that anyone could say that they blog or | :49:09. | :49:12. | |
tweets, the onus would be on them to show that their work has been made | :49:13. | :49:17. | |
available in a sufficiently public forum in order to prove their | :49:18. | :49:21. | |
credentials as a citizen journalist before access is given. Will my | :49:22. | :49:26. | |
honourable friend give way? My honourable friend as referred to a | :49:27. | :49:31. | |
sufficiently public forum. How many members of the public would be | :49:32. | :49:39. | |
required to make that criteria? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. | :49:40. | :49:43. | |
What I am trying to set out here is the difference between information | :49:44. | :49:50. | |
that is going on to a private forum and actually such as when I am | :49:51. | :49:55. | |
referring to open Facebook sites and direct e-mails and compared with the | :49:56. | :50:02. | |
more open social media that citizen bloggers would be proving that they | :50:03. | :50:05. | |
are on because at the heart of this bill it is about giving citizen | :50:06. | :50:11. | |
bloggers access to local Government accounts so that they can put | :50:12. | :50:13. | |
information into the public domain so that the electors can do further | :50:14. | :50:24. | |
scrutiny if they so wish. Will she give way? I am just a bit concerned | :50:25. | :50:28. | |
that we may end up getting ourselves into a model because of course most | :50:29. | :50:31. | |
journalistic publications are in effect private subscription, the | :50:32. | :50:40. | |
Spectator, for example, you had to subscribe privately in order to get | :50:41. | :50:43. | |
that information. It is not in that sense public so I am not entirely | :50:44. | :50:48. | |
sure why we are distinction between a magazine publication which is a | :50:49. | :50:51. | |
private subscription magazine, which would still be covered, it seems to | :50:52. | :50:56. | |
me by the bill, but is all the private publications which he is | :50:57. | :51:02. | |
seeking to exclude from the bill. Thank you. I think there are many | :51:03. | :51:08. | |
sites out there that do not require its inscription and what I am | :51:09. | :51:12. | |
endeavouring to do here is to explain the difference and about the | :51:13. | :51:19. | |
need to ensure that the citizen blogger is that person who is | :51:20. | :51:22. | |
getting the information for the greater use of the public rather | :51:23. | :51:31. | |
than just for a private, social media group or for direct twitter. | :51:32. | :51:35. | |
But I would now, Madam Deputy Speaker, like to move on and speak | :51:36. | :51:43. | |
to a member -- amendments nine, ten and 11. In relation to amendment | :51:44. | :51:48. | |
nine, I recognise that my honourable friend is seeking to achieve | :51:49. | :51:51. | |
comparability with the rights held by electors under section 25. Whilst | :51:52. | :51:59. | |
it is not explicitly included in section 26, because this is the | :52:00. | :52:02. | |
right enshrined in law, my view is that the council would be on very | :52:03. | :52:07. | |
questionable grounds if they tried to charge an interested person to | :52:08. | :52:10. | |
inspect their accounting records as they would be in effect bettering | :52:11. | :52:15. | |
that right. Furthermore, there are existing powers in the local | :52:16. | :52:19. | |
Government act 2003 for an authority to charge for discretionary | :52:20. | :52:26. | |
services, that is services that are not under a duty to provide. In | :52:27. | :52:33. | |
facilitating an interested person's right to inspect documents, and | :52:34. | :52:35. | |
authority would surely not be able to charge, as that person has a | :52:36. | :52:41. | |
right to inspect. In addition, whilst section 26 also gives the | :52:42. | :52:47. | |
right to interested persons to make copies, there is no equivalent | :52:48. | :52:50. | |
provision requiring an authority to provide copies to them. This would | :52:51. | :52:55. | |
be a discretionary service and saw the authority could be relying on | :52:56. | :52:59. | |
its powers in the local Government act 2003 to charge for providing | :53:00. | :53:06. | |
copies. In relation to amendment ten, Madam Deputy Speaker, sections | :53:07. | :53:11. | |
25 and 26 of the 2014 act exclude health bodies because the inspection | :53:12. | :53:16. | |
rights in relation to their accounts do not apply. Health bodies differ | :53:17. | :53:20. | |
in several key respects to other relevant authorities covered by the | :53:21. | :53:24. | |
2014 act. Not least of which is in the treatment of their accounts. | :53:25. | :53:30. | |
Which include separate monitoring arrangements through the NHS and the | :53:31. | :53:35. | |
Department of help. In addition to that, the Government's initial | :53:36. | :53:38. | |
stated intent to act in this respect, in its 2014 response to | :53:39. | :53:43. | |
consultation, did not include health bodies. It would therefore be wrong | :53:44. | :53:49. | |
to extend these rights. So I hope that provides my Right Honourable | :53:50. | :53:54. | |
friend with some reassurance in relation to amendment ten. Turning | :53:55. | :53:59. | |
now to amendment 11, which as I understand it seeks to extend the | :54:00. | :54:02. | |
right to inspect accounting documents beyond the current | :54:03. | :54:07. | |
accounting year, the primary purpose of these particular right at present | :54:08. | :54:11. | |
is to enable the interested persons which would including local | :54:12. | :54:15. | |
Government Elector to inspect these additional documents, so that they | :54:16. | :54:18. | |
have all the information they might need in order to question the | :54:19. | :54:22. | |
auditor and potentially make an objection within the dirty working | :54:23. | :54:27. | |
day periods, whilst the accounts for that you are still open. -- 30 | :54:28. | :54:32. | |
working day period. Whilst the accounts have been signed off, this | :54:33. | :54:36. | |
right lapses because the auditor is unable to act and investigate the | :54:37. | :54:39. | |
question raised or objection raised. Therefore being able to inspect past | :54:40. | :54:43. | |
year 's accounting information becomes an academic exercise. I | :54:44. | :54:48. | |
would also like to point out that the 30 day period is actually | :54:49. | :54:51. | |
provided for in secondary legislation, which I believe makes | :54:52. | :54:55. | |
this amendment inappropriate, but I do hope again I have been able to go | :54:56. | :54:57. | |
some way in clarifying that. With regard to amendments 12, 13 and | :54:58. | :55:08. | |
14, also tabled by my honourable friend the Member for Christchurch, | :55:09. | :55:11. | |
I consider these amendments go beyond what my bill is trying to | :55:12. | :55:14. | |
achieve in tampering with the ability of local authorities to | :55:15. | :55:19. | |
restrict access to commercially sensitive information. It is | :55:20. | :55:20. | |
important that some information, the disclosure of which | :55:21. | :55:49. | |
would prejudice which -- prejudice commercial confidence charity, | :55:50. | :55:51. | |
remained exempt from inspection. Similar exists in the Freedom of | :55:52. | :55:53. | |
information Act 2000 and I don't think this bill is the right place | :55:54. | :55:55. | |
to challenge those provisions which could easily be the subject of a | :55:56. | :55:58. | |
separate debate of their own. Section 26 of the 2014 Act sensibly | :55:59. | :56:00. | |
includes a provision that inspection would be permitted if there was an | :56:01. | :56:03. | |
overriding public interest in favour of disclosure of information that | :56:04. | :56:04. | |
might otherwise prejudice commercial confidentiality. It appears to me at | :56:05. | :56:07. | |
least that as though the legislation strikes reasonable balance between | :56:08. | :56:09. | |
allowing for the inspection of commercially confidential | :56:10. | :56:11. | |
information that is in the public interest to disclose while | :56:12. | :56:14. | |
protecting information that it would not be in the public interest to | :56:15. | :56:19. | |
disclose. In coming to my conclusions, as I said earlier, this | :56:20. | :56:25. | |
bill is very straightforward bill, and I believe it does exactly what | :56:26. | :56:30. | |
is on the tin, exactly on the face of bill. Whilst I'm very grateful to | :56:31. | :56:37. | |
my honourable Friends for their contributions this morning, for the | :56:38. | :56:41. | |
amendments, and it has given us more things to think through in terms of | :56:42. | :56:46. | |
the bill, I believe that one of the amendments proposed will add to that | :56:47. | :56:53. | |
simplicity. I close in thanking both of my Honourable Friends for their | :56:54. | :57:01. | |
amendments. May I begin by thanking my Honourable Friends the promoter | :57:02. | :57:04. | |
of this bill because she has been assiduous in the way in which she | :57:05. | :57:08. | |
has addressed the amendments that we have put forward, and would that | :57:09. | :57:14. | |
that was always the case. She has also been a very charming and | :57:15. | :57:17. | |
courteous in the way she has dealt with this throughout, and it is | :57:18. | :57:24. | |
therefore with some dismay that I say I can't agree with everything | :57:25. | :57:30. | |
that she's said. Before I get onto that in detail, can I say it is also | :57:31. | :57:34. | |
very helpful that we have been able to hear the view from the shadow | :57:35. | :57:40. | |
Minister, because the shadow ministers is supportive of some of | :57:41. | :57:46. | |
these amendments, which gives me extra enthusiasm, really, and | :57:47. | :57:50. | |
confidence that I am onto a good thing here. I've always been in | :57:51. | :57:57. | |
favour, as you will know, of consensus, trying to find consensus | :57:58. | :58:02. | |
across the House, cross-party support, and I think the honourable | :58:03. | :58:07. | |
lady's support for amendment two and amendment ten, I'm not going to push | :58:08. | :58:11. | |
amendment tend to vote, but I certainly hope to push an amendment | :58:12. | :58:15. | |
to abode, amendment ten is something we will have to come back to because | :58:16. | :58:19. | |
I think she accepts and the House seems to accept there is a strong | :58:20. | :58:24. | |
case for extending these powers to health bodies. I then looked to see, | :58:25. | :58:33. | |
well, what is the point my honourable friend the Minister makes | :58:34. | :58:38. | |
as an objection to amendment two? He says it will be a new burden on | :58:39. | :58:41. | |
local authorities which will have to be funded by the Government, but in | :58:42. | :58:45. | |
fairness to him he makes no bones about it, he has no idea of the | :58:46. | :58:49. | |
extent of that burden, he has made no estimate of it. In my submission | :58:50. | :58:55. | |
it would be a relatively small burden and will actually only tend | :58:56. | :58:59. | |
to be a burden for local authorities which are not already sufficiently | :59:00. | :59:03. | |
transparent and accountable, because it is those authorities which would | :59:04. | :59:09. | |
invite people by their secrecy to come along and want to try and | :59:10. | :59:13. | |
inspect their books and their accounts. Would my honourable friend | :59:14. | :59:21. | |
not agree that the scrutiny this will place upon local authorities | :59:22. | :59:24. | |
would probably lead them to save more money in their everyday | :59:25. | :59:28. | |
business than it would cost them to implement the provisions of this | :59:29. | :59:34. | |
particular amendment? Absolutely, with all these things it is an issue | :59:35. | :59:38. | |
of proportionality and there was a balance between the burden on local | :59:39. | :59:41. | |
government and the benefit to the public interest, and I think in this | :59:42. | :59:45. | |
case and the case of amendment two the benefit to the public interest | :59:46. | :59:50. | |
far outweighs any minuscule burden to local authorities, even if the | :59:51. | :59:54. | |
argument put forward by my honourable friend were not accepted | :59:55. | :59:58. | |
by those authorities. The Member for Oldridge Brownhills says that the | :59:59. | :00:05. | |
bill does what it says on the tin and she talks about wanting to | :00:06. | :00:11. | |
confine the bill to extending rights to journalists, but I remind her of | :00:12. | :00:17. | |
the long title to her own bill, which says extend public access, | :00:18. | :00:21. | |
public access, to certain local audit documents under section 26 of | :00:22. | :00:26. | |
the local ordered and accountability Act. It is not limited to | :00:27. | :00:31. | |
journalists, if my honourable friend wanted to limit it to journalists | :00:32. | :00:35. | |
then she could have done so when she put down the long title for her | :00:36. | :00:39. | |
bill, so I think that it is sensible that we should take this opportunity | :00:40. | :00:45. | |
to see if we can make this bill are bigger and more substantial piece of | :00:46. | :00:47. | |
legislation banned it would otherwise have been, and I would | :00:48. | :00:54. | |
like to put amendment two to the vote. | :00:55. | :01:00. | |
In that case the question is that amendment two be made. As many as | :01:01. | :01:03. | |
are of the opinion, say, "aye". To the contrary, "no". Division, clear | :01:04. | :01:08. | |
the lobby. The question is that amendment two | :01:09. | :02:09. | |
be made. As many as are of the opinion, say, "aye". To the | :02:10. | :02:11. | |
contrary, "no". Tellers for the eyes, David Nuttall and Philip | :02:12. | :02:15. | |
Davies. Tellers for the nose Rebecca Powell and Kevin Hollin rate. Thank | :02:16. | :02:16. | |
you. -- tellers for the noes. The ayes to write, 15, the noes to | :02:17. | :11:40. | |
the left, 41. -- the ayes to the right. Thank you. The ayes to the | :11:41. | :11:48. | |
right, 15. The noes to the left, 41. The noes have it, the noes have it. | :11:49. | :12:00. | |
Unlock. Does the honourable member for Baru | :12:01. | :12:08. | |
North wish to push amendment one? I will withdraw amendment two... | :12:09. | :12:16. | |
Amendment one. Amendment one is withdrawn. Consideration completed, | :12:17. | :12:24. | |
third reading, what date? Now. Wendy Morton. I beg to move that the bill | :12:25. | :12:29. | |
now be read a third time. Despite having had some previous success | :12:30. | :12:33. | |
with a private members bill in this place, it is always special to be | :12:34. | :12:40. | |
back at third reading having brought a bill this far. And particularly | :12:41. | :12:46. | |
pleased to be able to bring this bill forward because it is short and | :12:47. | :12:51. | |
simple, as I set out earlier, yet I believe it will have an impact | :12:52. | :12:55. | |
nationally and potentially improving the transparency of local councils, | :12:56. | :13:00. | |
and I hope it will have an impact within my own council area of | :13:01. | :13:05. | |
Walsall as well, and help local journalists in my area, too. We have | :13:06. | :13:12. | |
some excellent local newspapers, The Walsall Advertiser, The Express And | :13:13. | :13:17. | |
Star, The Chronicle, The Sudden Observer. I am behind this bill, it | :13:18. | :13:23. | |
is an intention to improve transparency and accountable in both | :13:24. | :13:26. | |
central and local glove, something this Government has done much to | :13:27. | :13:31. | |
improve since coming into power. I am pleased to play my part, although | :13:32. | :13:37. | |
very small, in furthering that agenda. Will be honourable friend | :13:38. | :13:43. | |
give way? Of course. Can I congratulate my honourable friend | :13:44. | :13:46. | |
for piloting this bill through the House of Commons and its many | :13:47. | :13:51. | |
stages? She is fast becoming a master of these Fridays, private | :13:52. | :13:55. | |
members bills, she is too bashful to say that herself but I think it will | :13:56. | :14:04. | |
be a worthy bill. I'm very grateful for his kind words, he contributed | :14:05. | :14:09. | |
at second reading. I am grateful to all the honourable members who have | :14:10. | :14:15. | |
played a part in this bill. If even one journalist, one citizen | :14:16. | :14:20. | |
journalist, uses this power to bring poor spending decisions or untoward | :14:21. | :14:24. | |
expenditure to the attention of local electors so they can ask | :14:25. | :14:29. | |
questions of the auditor or object to their council accounts, thus | :14:30. | :14:33. | |
forcing them to publicly account for their spending decisions, then I | :14:34. | :14:36. | |
believe that this bill would have done its part. In closing, I would | :14:37. | :14:43. | |
like to thank all those who have enabled me to reach this stage today | :14:44. | :14:49. | |
with my bill at third reading. To those who initially supported it, to | :14:50. | :14:53. | |
those who contributed at second reading and to those who came along | :14:54. | :14:58. | |
and supported me at committee stage as well. And to everyone here for | :14:59. | :15:04. | |
giving up yet another very precious constituency Friday on a week which | :15:05. | :15:07. | |
has not been the easiest in this place all this country. I conclude | :15:08. | :15:13. | |
by saying I hope this continues to have a smooth and speedy passage | :15:14. | :15:18. | |
through this place and into the other and becomes law. Thank you. | :15:19. | :15:25. | |
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I also congratulate my honourable friend on | :15:26. | :15:32. | |
having taken this bill so far? As I said in a speech earlier, this bill | :15:33. | :15:37. | |
is not one that I oppose, but I think it could have been so much | :15:38. | :15:41. | |
more strong and worthwhile, but that is how it is. As we know, Madam | :15:42. | :15:46. | |
Deputy Speaker, Friday business is of iron is tradition nature and | :15:47. | :15:49. | |
wants an issue has been ventilated on a Friday, as sure as eggs are | :15:50. | :15:55. | |
exit will probably come back on another Friday, so I think the | :15:56. | :16:00. | |
issues about extending these rights to the health bodies and beyond | :16:01. | :16:06. | |
journalists are likely to find favour, ultimately, with other | :16:07. | :16:11. | |
members of this house. As my honourable friend said, this bill is | :16:12. | :16:16. | |
limited at the moment to extending the powers under section 20 62 | :16:17. | :16:27. | |
journalists, -- under section 26 two journalists, we do that in a climate | :16:28. | :16:31. | |
under which journalists are under a lot of pressure. This very week | :16:32. | :16:38. | |
there is a new local newspaper in Christchurch, they have revived the | :16:39. | :16:44. | |
title The Christchurch Times. Additional one is this week and I | :16:45. | :16:47. | |
look forward to reading the copy when I get back to the constituency | :16:48. | :16:54. | |
later today. That just shows that local newspapers are not dying or | :16:55. | :16:59. | |
dead. I am grateful to him for giving way. | :17:00. | :17:04. | |
Can he tell the House whether he has any intention of becoming the editor | :17:05. | :17:07. | |
of this publication? LAUGHTER | :17:08. | :17:14. | |
I am afraid I had to tell my right honourable friend that that is | :17:15. | :17:19. | |
commercial and confidential. You need to make a better offer! My | :17:20. | :17:27. | |
honourable friend -- as my honourable friend says, I am waiting | :17:28. | :17:31. | |
for a better offer. I think it is really good news... Would my | :17:32. | :17:34. | |
honourable friend give way? I agree it is good news, the new | :17:35. | :17:42. | |
arrival to the newspapers seen in his constituency, but I wonder | :17:43. | :17:45. | |
whether my honourable friend knows whether or not the newspaper in | :17:46. | :17:50. | |
question, being a new arrival, is making use of the new breed of | :17:51. | :17:55. | |
citizen journalists we have talked about? | :17:56. | :17:58. | |
I suspect it is probably going to rely upon citizen journalists to | :17:59. | :18:03. | |
send letters and to report to real journalists information which they | :18:04. | :18:05. | |
think the newspaper should investigate. I think this newspaper | :18:06. | :18:14. | |
will have a very responsible attitudes towards ensuring that the | :18:15. | :18:18. | |
news that it prints is properly authenticated and cannot be put in | :18:19. | :18:22. | |
the category of being fake news or news which has not been properly | :18:23. | :18:29. | |
checked out in the sources from which it has come. I regard it as an | :18:30. | :18:35. | |
example of highly responsible journalism as, indeed, I think they | :18:36. | :18:40. | |
will find from the additional reporters that will be recruited | :18:41. | :18:44. | |
across the United Kingdom as a result of the requirement on the BBC | :18:45. | :18:50. | |
to set aside money to pay for those reporters. As I said earlier, we | :18:51. | :18:56. | |
know now that the BBC have set aside ?8 million each year to pay for 150 | :18:57. | :19:01. | |
reporters who will work for local news organisations, rather than the | :19:02. | :19:07. | |
BBC, across the country. I am sure that those reporters, likewise, will | :19:08. | :19:11. | |
be professional or accredited journalists, responsible as well, | :19:12. | :19:18. | |
and they will add to the scrutiny of local democracy across our country. | :19:19. | :19:23. | |
Unfortunately I know from other reports that not all parts of the | :19:24. | :19:27. | |
country are as well served by their local newspapers as we are in | :19:28. | :19:34. | |
Dorset, and there are parts of the country, constituencies, whole local | :19:35. | :19:39. | |
authority areas where there is no proper newspaper operating, | :19:40. | :19:42. | |
certainly not a daily newspaper and often not even a weekly newspaper. | :19:43. | :19:47. | |
That means it is very difficult to hold local authorities properly to | :19:48. | :19:54. | |
account. I have referred already to some of the local stories that have | :19:55. | :20:01. | |
out. How about this come one, Mr Deputy Speaker? Poole council revamp | :20:02. | :20:08. | |
waste of money before merger, recurrence of the fact that they are | :20:09. | :20:16. | |
proposing to spend quarter of ?1 million revamping the Civic Centre | :20:17. | :20:18. | |
at a time when they also propose they should be abolished in favour | :20:19. | :20:23. | |
of the Council merger. Another from Bournemouth, Council shuts ?15 | :20:24. | :20:27. | |
million bank of Bournemouth after issuing just 22 loans. That is 18 | :20:28. | :20:34. | |
months after it was created, another completely haywire scheme which has | :20:35. | :20:40. | |
cost local taxpayers a lot of money and nobody has really been properly | :20:41. | :20:47. | |
held to account. We could go on. I will not go on. But just to say that | :20:48. | :20:53. | |
I think this bill could have been so much better than it is, it is better | :20:54. | :21:01. | |
than nothing and, for that, I think my honourable friend, whether or not | :21:02. | :21:06. | |
it will find favour in the other place in the short space in which | :21:07. | :21:11. | |
the other place will have to consider it, I don't know. One of my | :21:12. | :21:14. | |
concerns about bills going through at this late stage in the session is | :21:15. | :21:19. | |
that if the other place is minded to amend the bill, which I hope it will | :21:20. | :21:23. | |
be in the light of following some of the debates we have had today, they | :21:24. | :21:27. | |
are often inhibited from doing that because they are told, if you | :21:28. | :21:31. | |
amended, the bill will not be able to come back before the Commons | :21:32. | :21:35. | |
before we end this session of Parliament. I hope the Macon text | :21:36. | :21:42. | |
that the Minister perhaps in responding to this debate will be | :21:43. | :21:45. | |
able to give an assurance that were their Lordships minded to amend this | :21:46. | :21:49. | |
bill in any way, the Government would provide time to ensure that | :21:50. | :21:52. | |
the bill in its amended state would still be able to be dealt with by | :21:53. | :21:59. | |
this House before the end of this session so that it cannot be -- so | :22:00. | :22:06. | |
the pistol cannot be held to the head of anyone who tries to amend | :22:07. | :22:10. | |
this bill and threatened that if they try to it would be the death of | :22:11. | :22:14. | |
the bill. Having said that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would say that I | :22:15. | :22:21. | |
am going to support this bill today should there be a division on it. | :22:22. | :22:29. | |
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to | :22:30. | :22:34. | |
address the house in this short third Reading debate. I also welcome | :22:35. | :22:42. | |
this bill in the spirit with which it has been brought forward. Despite | :22:43. | :22:49. | |
the fact that my attempt to amend it which was not, as I said at the | :22:50. | :22:54. | |
time, wrecking amendments, it was a genuine amendment to try to improve | :22:55. | :22:58. | |
the bill despite the that it was not met with approval by the proposal of | :22:59. | :23:04. | |
the bill, I listened carefully to what my honourable friend said about | :23:05. | :23:11. | |
that. I didn't wholly agree with it and I think that when one looks at | :23:12. | :23:20. | |
the explanatory notes to the bill and the fact that the heading of | :23:21. | :23:35. | |
clause one of the bill states... It says the words, and citizen | :23:36. | :23:39. | |
journalists. My honourable friend, the proposer of the bill's | :23:40. | :23:44. | |
explanation was that journalists include citizen journalists. Well, | :23:45. | :23:48. | |
if that is the case, why is it that it was thought to be necessary to go | :23:49. | :23:54. | |
on to say and citizen journalists in the title of the clause if it | :23:55. | :23:58. | |
already includes them? I do think that there needs to be looking at it | :23:59. | :24:05. | |
again, but I'm conscience of the very important point that my | :24:06. | :24:09. | |
honourable friend, the member for Christchurch, has just made. I | :24:10. | :24:11. | |
appreciate that if this bill was to be amended in the other place, | :24:12. | :24:17. | |
unless the Government make time for this House to be able to consider | :24:18. | :24:22. | |
any amendments, it would spell the death of this bill in this | :24:23. | :24:28. | |
particular session. It is a question of what is more important, is it | :24:29. | :24:33. | |
more important that we get this legislation right or do we just let | :24:34. | :24:36. | |
it go through in a form that we are not happy with? It is a fine | :24:37. | :24:42. | |
balance. I hope that the answer lies in the Government saying if the | :24:43. | :24:48. | |
other place feel that it is appropriate for this bill to be | :24:49. | :24:54. | |
amended, that they will find time in Government time to consider those | :24:55. | :25:03. | |
amendments if they are made in the other place on the grounds that the | :25:04. | :25:07. | |
other place may read the debate that has gone on to date and seen the | :25:08. | :25:11. | |
arguments and read the arguments that we have put forward this | :25:12. | :25:17. | |
morning to why this bill would benefit from further clarification, | :25:18. | :25:23. | |
and it may be that the lordships reach a different view to the view | :25:24. | :25:28. | |
that this House has taken this morning. | :25:29. | :25:34. | |
The reason I suggested would be appropriate for the Government to | :25:35. | :25:42. | |
find time for any Lords amendments to be considered is that the Act | :25:43. | :25:56. | |
which this bill seeks to amend, the local audit public access to | :25:57. | :26:04. | |
documents bill, seeks to amend the 2014 local audit and accountability | :26:05. | :26:08. | |
Act, and after that Act had been passed it was put out to | :26:09. | :26:13. | |
consultation by the Department for Communities and local government, | :26:14. | :26:17. | |
and in December 20 14th they published their response and in a | :26:18. | :26:23. | |
paragraph 411 of that response they said, furthermore, the Government | :26:24. | :26:28. | |
believes that journalists should also be able to inspect accounts and | :26:29. | :26:32. | |
information in the interests of local people, and therefore intends | :26:33. | :26:38. | |
to legislate at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the | :26:39. | :26:43. | |
definition of persons interested as defined in section six of the 26 -- | :26:44. | :26:50. | |
section 26 of the local accountability Act, is wide enough | :26:51. | :26:54. | |
to enable this. There was a clear commitment given | :26:55. | :26:58. | |
in the Government's responds on page ten of that response document, the | :26:59. | :27:08. | |
future of local audit, to making the amendment which is contained in this | :27:09. | :27:13. | |
bill, albeit it has been brought forward now as a Private members | :27:14. | :27:16. | |
Bill, and therefore I think there is a sound argument for why the | :27:17. | :27:21. | |
Government should make time available. I wholeheartedly support | :27:22. | :27:31. | |
the general thrust of this bill, I think it is right that we should | :27:32. | :27:39. | |
give as much access as possible to those who are interested, that was | :27:40. | :27:47. | |
the initial phraseology used in the legislation, and I extend that to | :27:48. | :27:51. | |
include journalists. I'm sorry the amendment we have just voted on does | :27:52. | :27:56. | |
not include it to all electors who have the vote in local elections, | :27:57. | :28:03. | |
but nevertheless it is a step in the right direction. And I think it is | :28:04. | :28:10. | |
right that we try and extend the right to inspect local government | :28:11. | :28:14. | |
accounts and all the other bodies that are listed in schedule two of | :28:15. | :28:22. | |
the 2014 Act as well to give journalists and citizen journalists | :28:23. | :28:29. | |
the right to inspect those accounts. I do accept that there is a concern | :28:30. | :28:39. | |
that this might result in those bodies being inundated with | :28:40. | :28:45. | |
requests, as has been noted earlier in the debate. There is no evidence | :28:46. | :28:52. | |
to suggest this is the case. And I suspect the answer lies in the | :28:53. | :28:59. | |
legislation, actually, because the legislation does provide for the | :29:00. | :29:06. | |
bodies to be able to charge for copies of documents that are taken | :29:07. | :29:13. | |
away, but I do think that despite that we are weighing up two | :29:14. | :29:20. | |
competing interests, I think the overriding interest is the interest | :29:21. | :29:27. | |
of the public to know what is going on and the alternative is to say, | :29:28. | :29:33. | |
well, look, once the accounts are published there should be no right | :29:34. | :29:39. | |
for anyone to go in and inspect the underlying documents and the books | :29:40. | :29:43. | |
of accounts and so forth. I don't think any of us would want to go | :29:44. | :29:49. | |
down that road, and I suspect that what we have stumbled upon here is | :29:50. | :29:57. | |
probably the best of the options available to us. I would like to | :29:58. | :30:07. | |
have gone further, but nevertheless extending the right to journalists | :30:08. | :30:11. | |
is better than nothing, and it is now up to journalists to make use of | :30:12. | :30:22. | |
the new power that will be given to them once this bill becomes law. It | :30:23. | :30:31. | |
will be interesting to see whether or not anybody covered by this bill | :30:32. | :30:39. | |
actually seeks to do what Bristol council did in respect of the | :30:40. | :30:48. | |
earlier bill and exclude journalists because they are not specifically | :30:49. | :30:53. | |
mentioned on the face of the bill, other than in the title to the | :30:54. | :30:59. | |
clause. I would hope that doesn't happen, and if they do I would refer | :31:00. | :31:09. | |
them to the explanatory notes that were published alongside this bill, | :31:10. | :31:12. | |
where it makes very clear in deed that the intention of the bill was | :31:13. | :31:21. | |
that the term citizen journalists should include bloggers and others | :31:22. | :31:26. | |
who scrutinise local authorities but who may not be accredited members of | :31:27. | :31:33. | |
the press, and in clause seven of the notes it saves as well as | :31:34. | :31:37. | |
accredited members of the press is the term journalist would be | :31:38. | :31:41. | |
extended to cover citizen journalists such as bloggers, | :31:42. | :31:44. | |
enabling them to inspect the accounts of a local authority where | :31:45. | :31:47. | |
they are not a local collector so that in publishing their findings | :31:48. | :31:51. | |
they can help to enable the public to hold their local authority to | :31:52. | :31:55. | |
account, and I think that is really the key to this whole bill, isn't | :31:56. | :32:01. | |
it? It is about being able to uphold elected politicians to account. And | :32:02. | :32:08. | |
I trust that when this bill is considered in the other place they | :32:09. | :32:14. | |
will look carefully at the arguments that have been made here this | :32:15. | :32:22. | |
morning and consider whether or not it is worthy of further amendment, | :32:23. | :32:27. | |
but I would hope that the bill is not amended in the other place | :32:28. | :32:32. | |
unless they can be assured that the Government provides time within | :32:33. | :32:39. | |
Government time, as there are no more Private Members days allocated | :32:40. | :32:42. | |
for those amendments to be considered, and in concluding, Mr | :32:43. | :32:50. | |
Deputy Speaker, could I thank my honourable friend the Member for | :32:51. | :32:56. | |
Aldridge-Brownhills for her work in ensuring the bill has reached this | :32:57. | :33:04. | |
stage and for her efficient and courteous way she has handled | :33:05. | :33:08. | |
proceedings, and I wish the bill well. | :33:09. | :33:17. | |
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I don't intend to make more than a few | :33:18. | :33:20. | |
remarks on this bill for third weeding because this is a bill that | :33:21. | :33:25. | |
has the support of these benches, the Government and local government | :33:26. | :33:28. | |
Association. A short piece of legislation and a welcome one which | :33:29. | :33:33. | |
aims to improve transparency and accountability of local public | :33:34. | :33:36. | |
bodies and in an era where local newspapers are in many places | :33:37. | :33:41. | |
diminishing and in some places don't exist at all, extending transparency | :33:42. | :33:45. | |
of public bodies benefits all of our local democracy. Indeed, as we | :33:46. | :33:47. | |
devolve more powers and sometimes even | :33:48. | :34:01. | |
funding down to local authorities, there is an ever increasing need for | :34:02. | :34:04. | |
greater transparency, but I know there are many other important bills | :34:05. | :34:07. | |
to be debated today so I will draw my comments to a close. | :34:08. | :34:13. | |
It is a pleasure... Mr Deputy Speaker, I am still recovering from | :34:14. | :34:17. | |
the excitement of the report stage, which I was delighted to speak at, | :34:18. | :34:21. | |
as I was at the committee stage as well. But it is a pleasure to speak | :34:22. | :34:25. | |
at third weeding our behalf of the Government to once again offer our | :34:26. | :34:31. | |
support for my honourable friend for Aldridge-Brownhills's bill and I pay | :34:32. | :34:37. | |
tribute to her for the way in which she has got this bill to the stage | :34:38. | :34:42. | |
it is at today and also to those of us who have also sponsored and | :34:43. | :34:46. | |
supported this, but I also associate myself with her comments on how | :34:47. | :34:51. | |
important it is to be here after a difficult week for Parliament, how | :34:52. | :34:55. | |
important it is to be looking at the detail of legislation, doing the job | :34:56. | :35:00. | |
we are elected to do and the job others would have liked to prevent | :35:01. | :35:03. | |
myself with her comment on that. myself with her comment on that. | :35:04. | :35:08. | |
This is a bill the Government has supported from the beginning and I | :35:09. | :35:21. | |
note the support of the opposition note the support of the opposition | :35:22. | :35:22. | |
as well. It is important because it furthers our | :35:23. | :35:26. | |
accountability by extending this global | :35:27. | :35:26. | |
accountability by extending this important right to journalists, and | :35:27. | :35:33. | |
I also pay tribute to the other people who have spoken this | :35:34. | :35:36. | |
afternoon, particularly the Member afternoon, particularly the Member | :35:37. | :35:38. | |
for Christchurch about the plight of local newspapers -- the importance | :35:39. | :35:44. | |
of local newspapers to local accountability, and it would be | :35:45. | :35:48. | |
wrong not to mention the excellent work that one of my local papers | :35:49. | :35:50. | |
does, ensuring my place in it next does, ensuring my place in it next | :35:51. | :35:56. | |
week. They are so important to the local democracy and to local | :35:57. | :35:59. | |
accountability and I associate myself with everything my honourable | :36:00. | :36:03. | |
little more than that, there is little more than that, there is | :36:04. | :36:08. | |
other business to be conducted, other than just to again thank my | :36:09. | :36:12. | |
this bill forward and congratulate Aldridge-Brownhills for bringing | :36:13. | :36:27. | |
this bill forward and congratulate her on its unamended passage through | :36:28. | :36:29. | |
the other place, I understand she the other place, I understand she | :36:30. | :36:30. | |
has secured the support of the noble Baroness Eton and without jinxing it | :36:31. | :36:39. | |
I hope it passes, and I will say that I am not in a position at this | :36:40. | :36:42. | |
time to make any guarantees about time to make any guarantees about | :36:43. | :36:51. | |
future time, should this bill be future time, should this bill be | :36:52. | :36:52. | |
amended in the other place. I hope and wish the Government will see it | :36:53. | :36:57. | |
unamended through the other place, thank you. | :36:58. | :37:01. | |
The question is that the bill now be read a third time. As many as are of | :37:02. | :37:04. | |
the opinion, say, "aye". To the contrary, "no". The ayes have it, | :37:05. | :37:11. | |
the ayes habit. The merchant shipping homosexual | :37:12. | :37:22. | |
conduct bill, to be considered. Amendment one is the only amendment | :37:23. | :37:27. | |
on the paper, Mr Christopher choke. I beg to move amendment one, clause | :37:28. | :37:33. | |
one, page one, line four, end insert two, subsection one shall have | :37:34. | :37:37. | |
effect and be taken to have had effect from November the 3rd 1994, | :37:38. | :37:43. | |
and the explanatory statement in support of that amendment is, this | :37:44. | :37:46. | |
amendment would make the repeal of sections 100 and 43 and 173 of the | :37:47. | :37:55. | |
criminal disorder Act retrospective to the date that they came into | :37:56. | :38:01. | |
operation. And I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this amendment will | :38:02. | :38:08. | |
find favour with the House and with the sponsor of the bill, whom I | :38:09. | :38:11. | |
congratulate on having taken the bill so far. | :38:12. | :38:20. | |
I'm grateful to him for giving way. He is a passionate Democrat. Does he | :38:21. | :38:26. | |
not agree with me there is something profoundly undemocratic about | :38:27. | :38:31. | |
seeking to make a retrospective -- retrospective law change? I don't | :38:32. | :38:36. | |
think it would be undemocratic because of course it is democracy, | :38:37. | :38:44. | |
it would be an Act of democracy. But it would be an Act of democracy. But | :38:45. | :39:04. | |
I agree with Mike right honourable I agree with Mike right honourable | :39:05. | :39:05. | |
friend that it... I will spell out friend that it... I will | :39:06. | :39:05. | |
why this is a special situation. We why this is a special situation. We | :39:06. | :39:09. | |
know that there was a bill to pardon Alan Sutton, although he had | :39:10. | :39:13. | |
actually been convicted of a criminal offence, that was a | :39:14. | :39:20. | |
retrospective Act and we have since had legislation to enable other | :39:21. | :39:23. | |
people who were similarly so convicted to apply for their | :39:24. | :39:29. | |
convictions to be effectively quashed. There are other examples of | :39:30. | :39:34. | |
retrospective legislation, but the interesting thing about this bill is | :39:35. | :39:41. | |
that it is dealing with a situation which is almost new good Tory | :39:42. | :39:46. | |
anyway, as it says in the overview of the bill, set out in the | :39:47. | :39:52. | |
explanatory notes, whilst the sections to which we refer are no | :39:53. | :39:57. | |
longer of any legal effect, due to other legislation, primarily the | :39:58. | :40:01. | |
equality Act 2010 and regulations made under it, repealing them would | :40:02. | :40:05. | |
be both symbolic and will prevent any misunderstanding as to their | :40:06. | :40:10. | |
current effect. It seems to me that that in itself puts this into a | :40:11. | :40:14. | |
completely different category from the norm of bills which one would be | :40:15. | :40:19. | |
seeking to have retrospective effect, this has no longer got any | :40:20. | :40:26. | |
illegal effect because of other legislation, and if it is going to | :40:27. | :40:31. | |
be, if it is accepted that it is symbolic, I think what better symbol | :40:32. | :40:36. | |
could there be than to say that at all material times this provision | :40:37. | :40:42. | |
which was incorporated into the original 1994 Act by a backbench | :40:43. | :40:49. | |
amendment to be able to say that at all material times that backbench | :40:50. | :40:52. | |
amendment will be deemed to have had no effect? So it seems to me that | :40:53. | :41:02. | |
this meets that test of special circumstances which I'm the first to | :41:03. | :41:04. | |
accept is one which we should always apply when we are considering | :41:05. | :41:10. | |
whether or not we should countenance a retrospective legislation. | :41:11. | :41:15. | |
I have, unfortunately -- that have, unfortunately, been a number of | :41:16. | :41:24. | |
recent examples where retrospective legislation has been a necessity, | :41:25. | :41:28. | |
normally because of what can only be put down as cross errors, I think, | :41:29. | :41:35. | |
by the Government at the time. The mental health approval functions act | :41:36. | :41:42. | |
2012, for example was rushed through parliament because it became | :41:43. | :41:47. | |
apparent that approximately 2000 doctors who were dealing with mental | :41:48. | :41:52. | |
health issues had not been properly approved, and they had participated | :41:53. | :41:58. | |
in the detention of between 4000 and 5000 patients within institutions in | :41:59. | :42:02. | |
the NHS and independent sectors without effectively legal authority. | :42:03. | :42:12. | |
That was because of the mistake made in the primary legislation. There | :42:13. | :42:16. | |
are a number of other examples, I am sure some of my honourable friends | :42:17. | :42:20. | |
will refer to those during the course of this debate. I accept that | :42:21. | :42:25. | |
it should only be in the most extreme circumstances that we do | :42:26. | :42:32. | |
make legislation retrospective, but since this is essentially a gesture | :42:33. | :42:38. | |
bill, a symbolic gesture, a gesture whereby this house can show | :42:39. | :42:42. | |
solidarity to the people who would otherwise have been victims of this | :42:43. | :42:50. | |
amendment which was passed in the 1994 act, it seems to me that both | :42:51. | :42:56. | |
the policy background and the legal backgrounds make it perfectly | :42:57. | :42:59. | |
reasonable to support this amendment. I think that the | :43:00. | :43:11. | |
provisions... It says in the legal background, paragraph ten, sections | :43:12. | :43:17. | |
1464 and 1473 were added chewing the passage of the bill following | :43:18. | :43:22. | |
non-Government amendments. It was concerned that making homosexual | :43:23. | :43:25. | |
conduct legal in the Armed Forces and the merchant Navy might mean | :43:26. | :43:29. | |
that homosexuals could not be dismissed for in gauging and it nor | :43:30. | :43:34. | |
such conduct used as the basis of a prosecution under military | :43:35. | :43:41. | |
discipline. But those were saving conditions which meant they did not | :43:42. | :43:46. | |
repeal or override other legislation which, of course, has come in to | :43:47. | :43:51. | |
ensure that they have no applicability. This is quite a | :43:52. | :43:58. | |
narrow point, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I hope that my honourable friend and | :43:59. | :44:03. | |
the Government will accept the motivation behind it and the content | :44:04. | :44:08. | |
of its and incorporate it into the bill, then that really will tidy up | :44:09. | :44:13. | |
the statute. It will have the effect of this never having been | :44:14. | :44:18. | |
legislation. Philip Davies. The question is that | :44:19. | :44:25. | |
the amendment be made, Philip Davies? | :44:26. | :44:27. | |
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. My honourable friend's | :44:28. | :44:33. | |
amendments, as my right honourable friend for East Yorkshire said, is | :44:34. | :44:37. | |
trying to introduce retrospective legislation. Like my honourable | :44:38. | :44:43. | |
friend I am not naturally in favour of retrospective legislation, it | :44:44. | :44:46. | |
seems to be rather like the rewriting of history and something | :44:47. | :44:52. | |
that I have been opposed to in the past. That said, I said chewing the | :44:53. | :44:57. | |
second reading of the debate but I thought that the law was one that | :44:58. | :45:03. | |
should never have been -- I said during the second reading of the | :45:04. | :45:07. | |
debate. So I can absolutely understand my honourable friend's | :45:08. | :45:12. | |
motivation for wanting to make the law retrospective, because I think | :45:13. | :45:15. | |
many people in the House agree that this law should never have been | :45:16. | :45:22. | |
place, so it would be, in effect, neatly correcting that situation. | :45:23. | :45:28. | |
However, looking at the effect of his amendment, which I think is | :45:29. | :45:33. | |
really where we should start with this, I asked the House of Commons | :45:34. | :45:37. | |
library, who are always helpful, about what the effect of this | :45:38. | :45:42. | |
amendment would be. And they said that the amendment would have | :45:43. | :45:46. | |
retrospective effect going back to 1994. The bill is seeking to repeal | :45:47. | :45:50. | |
a law which says it would not be unfair to dismiss as Seafarer for a | :45:51. | :45:54. | |
homosexual act, the amendment would mean any dismissal on that basis | :45:55. | :46:00. | |
since 1994 would not enjoy the statutory protection of being deemed | :46:01. | :46:04. | |
an unfair dismissal. They then went on to say, so far as I can see, the | :46:05. | :46:10. | |
amendment would have no practical effect. Any dismissal of the | :46:11. | :46:14. | |
Seafarer for a reason relating to a homosexual act could already | :46:15. | :46:18. | |
constitute sexual orientation discrimination, which has been | :46:19. | :46:23. | |
unlawful in respect of seafarers since at least 2011. Claims in | :46:24. | :46:27. | |
respect of the period before 2011 would be well out of time, among | :46:28. | :46:35. | |
others, of iron Acton 's in 1987. Anyone dismissed would already have | :46:36. | :46:40. | |
a claim or be at a time for making one. The amendment of the bill would | :46:41. | :46:43. | |
not change those things and it would appear that the amendment is | :46:44. | :46:47. | |
intended as a symbolic gesture. We are in a rather bizarre situation | :46:48. | :46:53. | |
where, in effect, the bill itself has no real, practical change | :46:54. | :47:02. | |
because of the quality laws already in place -- because of the equality | :47:03. | :47:06. | |
laws. There would be no practical impact, either. It must be a first | :47:07. | :47:12. | |
for a bill going through Parliament where the bill itself makes no real | :47:13. | :47:16. | |
difference to the law but the amendment to it makes no difference | :47:17. | :47:21. | |
to the law, either. Maybe there are some historical precedents for this | :47:22. | :47:25. | |
procedure but I am not aware of wants in the small number of years I | :47:26. | :47:29. | |
have been in here. In many respects I suspect that that is my honourable | :47:30. | :47:35. | |
friend's case, as this bill is only symbolic in itself, there is no harm | :47:36. | :47:42. | |
in his symbolic and retrospective legislation, even though we might in | :47:43. | :47:49. | |
essence be against the principle of retrospective legislation. In that | :47:50. | :47:53. | |
sense, it is not retrospective because it is not changing the | :47:54. | :47:59. | |
impact of anything. I am not entirely sure where that leads us, | :48:00. | :48:04. | |
if I am perfectly frank. It seems to me that it leaves us where you want | :48:05. | :48:10. | |
to be left and you pays your money and takes your choice whether you | :48:11. | :48:14. | |
want to be a purist like the right honourable friend for East Yorkshire | :48:15. | :48:18. | |
and say I will vote against retrospective legislation, come what | :48:19. | :48:22. | |
may, or whether you want to take the view of my honourable friend | :48:23. | :48:25. | |
footrace -- Christchurch and say that as we are dealing with symbolic | :48:26. | :48:29. | |
legislation there is nothing wrong with retrospective symbolism in the | :48:30. | :48:32. | |
bill. I don't know. I asked the House of | :48:33. | :48:37. | |
Commons library to help me with other examples of retrospective | :48:38. | :48:44. | |
legislation. The library briefing under the heading of what is | :48:45. | :48:48. | |
retrospective legislation said it is generally defined as legislation | :48:49. | :48:51. | |
which takes away or impose any bested right acquired under existing | :48:52. | :48:56. | |
laws or creates a new obligation or imposes a new GT or attaches a new | :48:57. | :49:01. | |
disability in respect to transactions or considerations | :49:02. | :49:06. | |
already passed -- or imposes a new duty. | :49:07. | :49:14. | |
Yes. Paul Azinger that point, if my honourable friend looks at it again, | :49:15. | :49:19. | |
and that definition this amendment would not be retrospective | :49:20. | :49:22. | |
legislation -- pausing at that point. It does not take away or | :49:23. | :49:27. | |
impair any bested right acquired by existing rules or creating a new | :49:28. | :49:31. | |
obligation or imposing a new GT or attaching a new disability in | :49:32. | :49:35. | |
respect of transactions or considerations already passed? I | :49:36. | :49:40. | |
think he is right. Unfortunately he is slightly arguing against himself | :49:41. | :49:51. | |
in that sense, because... Is in his amendment that he has tabled he very | :49:52. | :49:55. | |
helpfully as ever put in an explanatory statement to his | :49:56. | :49:58. | |
amendment which actually says that it would make the repeal | :49:59. | :50:03. | |
retrospective. Having explained to the house that he was making his | :50:04. | :50:08. | |
amendment retrospective he appears to be arguing that he is not. So... | :50:09. | :50:18. | |
Yes. I am not really sure where that takes us. Of course. I think the | :50:19. | :50:24. | |
distinction is that it would be retrospective but not amount to | :50:25. | :50:27. | |
retrospective legislation until it turns that the definition to which | :50:28. | :50:32. | |
my honourable friend referred. I can tell why he was such a | :50:33. | :50:39. | |
successful lawyer. He is getting into legalistic lawyer jargon which | :50:40. | :50:43. | |
is well above my head as a poor former retailer, is goes way beyond | :50:44. | :50:51. | |
my knowledge base. I am sure he has justified it to himself but I am not | :50:52. | :50:57. | |
sure that I quite understood. The Oxford dictionary of law about | :50:58. | :51:00. | |
retrospective legislation says that operates at is taking place before | :51:01. | :51:05. | |
its enactment, eg by penalising conduct that was lawful when it | :51:06. | :51:08. | |
occurred. There is a presumption that statutes are not intended to | :51:09. | :51:13. | |
have retroactive effect unless they merely legal procedure. The last | :51:14. | :51:17. | |
time I conceded that the Government set out its policy on retrospective | :51:18. | :51:27. | |
legislation, somebody asked Parliamentary question that macro | :51:28. | :51:32. | |
Parliamentary to the last Labour Government and what its opinion was, | :51:33. | :51:36. | |
the then Solicitor General said Government policy before introducing | :51:37. | :51:40. | |
legislative provision having retrospective effect is to balance | :51:41. | :51:44. | |
the conflicting public interest and consider whether the general public | :51:45. | :51:48. | |
interest in the law not being change retrospectively might be outweighed | :51:49. | :51:52. | |
by any competing public interest. In making this assessment the | :51:53. | :51:56. | |
Government will have regard to the relevant international standards | :51:57. | :52:00. | |
including those in the European Convention for the protection of | :52:01. | :52:03. | |
human rights and public freedom is incorporated into UK law by the | :52:04. | :52:09. | |
Human Rights Act of 1998. I mention that because in some respects it | :52:10. | :52:15. | |
backs up my honourable friend's position, in effect they are saying | :52:16. | :52:19. | |
that really the position on this is a matter of looking at the public | :52:20. | :52:24. | |
interest. As my honourable friend has really quite rightly said that | :52:25. | :52:31. | |
there is no public interest in not making the legislation | :52:32. | :52:33. | |
retrospective, in some respects but adds lustre to his argument. There | :52:34. | :52:43. | |
are examples of legislation applied retrospectively, for example the | :52:44. | :52:46. | |
statutory instruments production and sale act of 1996 which amended the | :52:47. | :52:58. | |
act 1946 to validate and authorise retrospectively the printing of | :52:59. | :53:00. | |
instruments for contractors working for HMO, an active 1991 which | :53:01. | :53:07. | |
excluded caravans from the definition of domestic subjects in | :53:08. | :53:12. | |
the abolition of domestic rates etc. It deemed the amendment to have had | :53:13. | :53:18. | |
effect since the 1st of April 19 90. There was the compensation act of | :53:19. | :53:24. | |
2006 and The Scotland Act 20 Twell provided that the regulation of | :53:25. | :53:27. | |
activities in Antarctica should have been treated as being reserved for | :53:28. | :53:33. | |
the UK Government since the beginning of devolution, even though | :53:34. | :53:39. | |
it was not reserved in The Scotland Act. | :53:40. | :53:46. | |
He has moved to 2012, but in The Finance Act 2008, specifically | :53:47. | :53:51. | |
section 58, legislation was trained retrospectively to frustrate a tax | :53:52. | :53:57. | |
planning scheme which affected many constituents across the country, | :53:58. | :54:02. | |
including some of my own. Touch legislation was changed. They were | :54:03. | :54:06. | |
very badly affected by this retrospective change in legislation. | :54:07. | :54:16. | |
He is absolutely right. Are quite interesting. It appears that the | :54:17. | :54:23. | |
reason that I chose the ones that I did, and of course my honourable | :54:24. | :54:26. | |
friend is on the ball and threw another one into the melting pot, | :54:27. | :54:30. | |
which I would have been a slightly different category to these once, is | :54:31. | :54:36. | |
that, in effect, these once were trying to correct things that should | :54:37. | :54:40. | |
really have always been the case, really, as far as people could see. | :54:41. | :54:46. | |
I think it was much more of an outrage, in many respects, than the | :54:47. | :54:49. | |
one highlighted by my honourable friend. Whereas these were really, | :54:50. | :54:55. | |
in effect, tidying up the law so that it was as it always should have | :54:56. | :55:00. | |
been, really. And I think my honourable friend for Christchurch | :55:01. | :55:04. | |
is onto something when he says this always should have been the case, it | :55:05. | :55:09. | |
was a mistake in the first place that needs to be corrected, in | :55:10. | :55:13. | |
effect, and we need to go back to the start of this to correct it. I | :55:14. | :55:19. | |
was trying to use examples which would support my honourable friend's | :55:20. | :55:23. | |
case, I think, and I felt the ones that I highlighted did. But he was | :55:24. | :55:29. | |
right to highlight the ones that he did as well. | :55:30. | :55:37. | |
There are other examples of retrospective legislation. I am not | :55:38. | :55:42. | |
going to bore the House was going through all of them because there | :55:43. | :55:50. | |
are quite a few. As we were asked by the Government the last time the | :55:51. | :55:55. | |
answer does to look at the European Convention of human rights I looked | :55:56. | :55:59. | |
at the European Convention of human rights about the rules on | :56:00. | :56:04. | |
retrospective Betty on article seven and I am sure the member for | :56:05. | :56:09. | |
Christchurch is an expert on this. He will know more about this as me. | :56:10. | :56:15. | |
Article seven of the European Convention states, no one shall be | :56:16. | :56:18. | |
held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act that did not | :56:19. | :56:25. | |
come under international law when it was committed. This will not | :56:26. | :56:28. | |
prejudice the trial went at the time it was committed was criminal | :56:29. | :56:33. | |
according to general principles of law recognised by civilised nations. | :56:34. | :56:40. | |
It then says that criminal laws cannot have retrospective effect. It | :56:41. | :56:43. | |
has been a long-standing rule of English law. Someone can only be | :56:44. | :56:48. | |
guilty of crime if he commits an act which the law expressly forbids at | :56:49. | :56:52. | |
the time he does it. Certain penal provisions of the immigration act | :56:53. | :56:56. | |
1971 had retrospective effect, their conviction was quashed. Retroactive | :56:57. | :57:08. | |
application of common law offences to cover conduct which would not | :57:09. | :57:11. | |
previously have been regarded as a crime. In some respects this is | :57:12. | :57:18. | |
where we get into a bit of an issue with this thing. Even though I | :57:19. | :57:24. | |
absolutely sure my honourable friend's view, I think we are in | :57:25. | :57:32. | |
danger... We are in danger of talking about criminal law which is | :57:33. | :57:36. | |
not the case. I know you are good at the detail and you want to get back | :57:37. | :57:42. | |
onto the detail, Mr Philip Davies. You are right, Madame, Mr Deputy | :57:43. | :57:50. | |
Speaker. I was sidetracking myself. But on the principle of | :57:51. | :57:54. | |
retrospective legislation, and I think this is a very similar case, | :57:55. | :58:03. | |
we have the Alan Turing statutorily pardon Bill, it is from the same | :58:04. | :58:12. | |
stable as this type of legislation, in the House of Lords, the very | :58:13. | :58:17. | |
great Lord Tebbit made what might be a pertinent points to this, he said | :58:18. | :58:22. | |
he had no intention of obstructing the Bill as it continues on its | :58:23. | :58:26. | |
journey towards the statute book however, something must be said, | :58:27. | :58:31. | |
Alan Turing committed and was convicted of an act which would not | :58:32. | :58:35. | |
be a crime today, so have many others, many other crimes have been | :58:36. | :58:41. | |
committed, I hope the Bill will not be a President, I hope we will not | :58:42. | :58:46. | |
posthumously conflict men of tries for acts that were not criminal when | :58:47. | :58:51. | |
committed, but would be if they were committed today, there is a | :58:52. | :58:54. | |
dangerous precedent within this Bill. Lord Tebbit's warning at that | :58:55. | :58:58. | |
time on that Bill is very relevant to this Bill today. That I think is | :58:59. | :59:04. | |
the particular issue that I have with it. Both the court that he used | :59:05. | :59:13. | |
which caused Mr Deputy Speaker to intervene and the court he has just | :59:14. | :59:16. | |
used relate to criminal retrospection. This Bill is not | :59:17. | :59:23. | |
about criminal retrospection. Will my honourable friend accept that? I | :59:24. | :59:30. | |
do accept that, absolutely. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not going to | :59:31. | :59:34. | |
defy you ruling, I would never do that. We do not want to be due off | :59:35. | :59:43. | |
your objective. I suspect you are right about my honourable friend, Mr | :59:44. | :59:47. | |
Deputy Speaker, he has been leading the street for many years. The point | :59:48. | :59:54. | |
I want to meet, Mr Deputy Speaker, the serious point, the relevant | :59:55. | :59:58. | |
point, the principles are the same. I except the difference with the | :59:59. | :00:04. | |
criminal law that is a plain, the point I was trying to make, maybe | :00:05. | :00:09. | |
even a ham-fisted way, the principles are similar in terms of | :00:10. | :00:13. | |
retrospective legislation, and whether we should go down that | :00:14. | :00:18. | |
situation. In conclusion, I support the Bill, I am all for changing the | :00:19. | :00:22. | |
law, I still maintain today that this law that my honourable friend | :00:23. | :00:29. | |
is dealing with, should never have been the law, this should never have | :00:30. | :00:32. | |
been the law, it was an outrage that it ever was the law of the land, I | :00:33. | :00:38. | |
am all for changing it, but I am concerned that there not necessarily | :00:39. | :00:43. | |
unintended consequences but unintended precedents by trying to | :00:44. | :00:45. | |
change it retrospectively. I give way. Is the essence that we should | :00:46. | :00:52. | |
not be seeking to pass provisions that I retrospective unless there is | :00:53. | :00:59. | |
a compelling reason to do so? Where are honourable friend for | :01:00. | :01:03. | |
Christchurch has failed us to explain what is compelling about his | :01:04. | :01:09. | |
Amendment? My right honourable friend sums it up perfectly. There | :01:10. | :01:13. | |
are two ways of looking at this. One is the review looks of that, we | :01:14. | :01:16. | |
should not pass retrospective legislation a mess that is a | :01:17. | :01:19. | |
compelling reason. My honourable friend appears to be taking The View | :01:20. | :01:23. | |
that we should not pass at a mess that is a good reason not to. We | :01:24. | :01:28. | |
seem to be on two sides of that coin. I am with my right honourable | :01:29. | :01:32. | |
friend for East Yorkshire, unless there is a cast iron reason why we | :01:33. | :01:35. | |
should pass retrospective legislation then we should avoid | :01:36. | :01:39. | |
doing so, in case it sets dangerous President is further down the line. | :01:40. | :01:43. | |
Quite clearly my honourable friend has not met that test. Even though I | :01:44. | :01:47. | |
have got sympathy of what he is trying to do and I agree the | :01:48. | :01:53. | |
sentiments behind his Amendment, I would urge honourable members to | :01:54. | :01:57. | |
resist it on this occasion and leave the Bill as it is. Thank you, Mr | :01:58. | :02:06. | |
Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my honourable friend, the member for | :02:07. | :02:09. | |
Christchurch, for tabling this Amendment. I understand his | :02:10. | :02:14. | |
honourable intentions behind it and I have reflected very carefully on | :02:15. | :02:19. | |
it over recent weeks as well. My honourable friend has put his case | :02:20. | :02:22. | |
well and I acknowledge the attraction of the logic which says | :02:23. | :02:25. | |
if we think this should not be on the statute books no, do we not | :02:26. | :02:29. | |
think it should never have been there in the first place? I also | :02:30. | :02:34. | |
acknowledge the deep injustice that an individual would feel into being | :02:35. | :02:39. | |
dismissed under provisions which are later superseded. But injustice is | :02:40. | :02:43. | |
something which has been tackled and the other cases of legislation | :02:44. | :02:49. | |
penalising homosexual activity, for example in the policing and crime | :02:50. | :02:52. | |
act, which allowed for the pardon of those convicted of sexual acts which | :02:53. | :02:58. | |
are no longer illegal. Their may be a place for providing some level of | :02:59. | :03:02. | |
the dress or apology to those who are dismissed from the merchant Navy | :03:03. | :03:10. | |
on grounds of homosexual conduct -- providing redress. But a system of | :03:11. | :03:14. | |
redress which needs to be calibrated in a similar way to the Turing | :03:15. | :03:27. | |
provisions. Sadly the capacity for the scrutiny that such legislation | :03:28. | :03:31. | |
would require does not exist within the private members Bill system and | :03:32. | :03:35. | |
the tight timings that involves. However, in the absence of a system | :03:36. | :03:42. | |
for investigation and redress, retrospective repeal creates | :03:43. | :03:46. | |
unnecessarily ambiguity over dismissals which would have been | :03:47. | :03:50. | |
clearly legal at the time, without creating a clear opportunity for | :03:51. | :03:55. | |
redress or apology. As I have said previously the aim of this Bill is | :03:56. | :03:59. | |
to create clarity and certainty going forward and that he would be | :04:00. | :04:04. | |
frustrated if we were to create an ambiguity about the legality of some | :04:05. | :04:09. | |
possible dismissals, until the provisions were legally superseded | :04:10. | :04:14. | |
by the equality act 2010. I also have a deeper concern. The House, as | :04:15. | :04:21. | |
has been discussed, has generally been extremely cautious about any | :04:22. | :04:25. | |
form of retrospective legislation, and particularly so in the case of | :04:26. | :04:30. | |
legislation which creates an offence or penalty where none existed at the | :04:31. | :04:33. | |
time, something which is deeply inconsistent with the rule of law. | :04:34. | :04:40. | |
The Amendment could potentially retrospectively render the actions | :04:41. | :04:45. | |
of merchant Navy employers illegal, retrospective legislation has | :04:46. | :04:51. | |
occasionally been used very sparingly to validate or authorise | :04:52. | :04:54. | |
retrospective reactions that were illegal at the time. But the | :04:55. | :05:01. | |
motivation for including sections 1464, because is repealed in the | :05:02. | :05:08. | |
1994 act, was to enable merchant Navy employers to dismiss seafarers | :05:09. | :05:13. | |
for homosexual conduct even though the 1994 act decriminalised such | :05:14. | :05:17. | |
conduct, and we need to remember that the relevant sections apply to | :05:18. | :05:22. | |
employers, not seafarers. The proposed Amendment does not | :05:23. | :05:25. | |
authorise conduct found to be illegal at the time and so it does | :05:26. | :05:29. | |
not fit to recent precedent of retrospective legislation. My | :05:30. | :05:34. | |
honourable friend the member for Christchurch discussed with me | :05:35. | :05:40. | |
privately earlier the one rare possible President where criminal | :05:41. | :05:43. | |
liability was treated retrospectively, with the war crimes | :05:44. | :05:47. | |
act 1991, and with respect to him I looked into this carefully, and that | :05:48. | :05:53. | |
act allows domestic criminal proceedings to be brought against | :05:54. | :05:55. | |
British citizens who had committed war crimes in Germany during World | :05:56. | :06:00. | |
War II, this was because there was no provision for extradition, the | :06:01. | :06:06. | |
act was a response to a practical problem of the operation of | :06:07. | :06:08. | |
international law where an offence really existed. My honourable | :06:09. | :06:13. | |
friend's Amendment does not go into that category and while he did not | :06:14. | :06:18. | |
mention of this afternoon I wanted to be very respectful to his | :06:19. | :06:23. | |
conversation on this matter. I would contend it is not covered by that | :06:24. | :06:28. | |
precedent. I also mentioned to more practical concerns. First, the other | :06:29. | :06:33. | |
place has possibly even more discomfort around retrospective | :06:34. | :06:35. | |
legislation than the House and this was the case with that War crimes | :06:36. | :06:40. | |
act 1991 which the then Government had to use the Parliament Acts to | :06:41. | :06:44. | |
enact, and that this Amendment was carried, I worry that the Bill would | :06:45. | :06:48. | |
be amended again in the Lords and then lost altogether as they would | :06:49. | :06:54. | |
be no these is available. The second, is that during the passage | :06:55. | :06:58. | |
of the book I enjoyed the warm support of the Government -- passage | :06:59. | :07:05. | |
of the Bill, I understand the Government does not sponsor | :07:06. | :07:08. | |
retrospective legislation unless a lengthy procedure is undertaken to | :07:09. | :07:12. | |
examine all possible effects, I am told they will not do so in this | :07:13. | :07:16. | |
case. I fear that again the Bill could be lost without the support of | :07:17. | :07:21. | |
the Government. Can I conclude by thanking my honourable friend for | :07:22. | :07:25. | |
his Amendment and the serious scrutiny that he has performed on | :07:26. | :07:30. | |
this Bill and on others? And my sincere respect for his intentions | :07:31. | :07:37. | |
in doing so. But can I also appealed to him to withdraw the amendments to | :07:38. | :07:41. | |
make sure that we pass a Bill that does provide, I believe, legal | :07:42. | :07:45. | |
clarity and certainty, rather than a degree of ongoing ambiguity? Thank | :07:46. | :07:55. | |
you, let me briefly address clause two of the Bill, which we supported | :07:56. | :07:59. | |
the, it is right that this Bill comes into force immediately upon it | :08:00. | :08:03. | |
receiving Royal assent rather that the end of the two months. The | :08:04. | :08:06. | |
sooner the change to the law has made the better, in that spirit that | :08:07. | :08:09. | |
they go on to the amendments tabled by the honourable member for | :08:10. | :08:14. | |
Christchurch. Labour appreciates that this Amendment is well | :08:15. | :08:18. | |
intentioned, we acknowledge it is in principle certainly right to seek | :08:19. | :08:21. | |
redress for any members of the merchant Navy who were dismissed on | :08:22. | :08:25. | |
the grounds of homosexual conduct between the passing of the 1994 act | :08:26. | :08:32. | |
and the 2010 equality act, nonetheless, the retroactive | :08:33. | :08:36. | |
legislation is only set into law in rear and exceptional circumstances, | :08:37. | :08:39. | |
and we do not believe on this occasion that are forcing | :08:40. | :08:42. | |
synchronous amendments to the Bill would be appropriate. As my | :08:43. | :08:46. | |
honourable friend, the brilliant member for Cambridge express that | :08:47. | :08:50. | |
committee stage, as the provisions to be repealed are no legally null | :08:51. | :08:55. | |
and void, this Bill is a symbolic gesture which will tidy up existing | :08:56. | :09:00. | |
legislation. Accordingly the Bill does not aim to provide redress for | :09:01. | :09:05. | |
those members of the merchant Navy affected by the provisions to be | :09:06. | :09:10. | |
repealed. The amendments tabled by the honourable member does not fit | :09:11. | :09:14. | |
with the purpose of the Bill. Therefore Labour will not be | :09:15. | :09:19. | |
supporting this Amendment today. Minister of State. Thank you. Seneca | :09:20. | :09:32. | |
the younger said, if one does not know to which one port is ceiling, | :09:33. | :09:36. | |
nor wind is favourable. It is certainly true that the honourable | :09:37. | :09:40. | |
member for Salisbury knew exactly which port he was sailing to when he | :09:41. | :09:47. | |
brought this Bill and I congratulate him on both his hard work and | :09:48. | :09:53. | |
persistence in doing so. It is an important measure which puts right a | :09:54. | :09:54. | |
wrong. I want also to thank the right | :09:55. | :10:03. | |
Honourable member for Christchurch for his thoughts and diligence, and | :10:04. | :10:09. | |
as the Honourable member for Middlesbrough said, it is | :10:10. | :10:11. | |
understandable that we should wish that this bill was brought earlier | :10:12. | :10:17. | |
than it has been, for the very reasons he set out in his thoughtful | :10:18. | :10:24. | |
contribution earlier. Nevertheless, rather like the honourable member | :10:25. | :10:28. | |
opposite, I'm afraid the Government would not support the amendment | :10:29. | :10:32. | |
would should make the current law retrospective. This is something the | :10:33. | :10:36. | |
Government rarely does and the House is rightly hesitant to do. Unless | :10:37. | :10:44. | |
there are very good reasons for doing otherwise, what is the law at | :10:45. | :10:49. | |
a given time cannot be revisited later. People should be able to | :10:50. | :10:54. | |
settle their affairs with the certain knowledge of what the law | :10:55. | :10:59. | |
is. This is an important principle of such significance, as I say, the | :11:00. | :11:03. | |
Government does not depart from it unless there are very good reasons | :11:04. | :11:07. | |
for doing so. At the very greatest respect to my honourable friend, I | :11:08. | :11:11. | |
am not convinced that those very good reasons prevail on this | :11:12. | :11:16. | |
occasion. Might I just say that it is important to appreciate what this | :11:17. | :11:20. | |
bill does. It does not deal with criminal offences because the | :11:21. | :11:25. | |
subsections that the bill seeks to amend refers solely to employment | :11:26. | :11:30. | |
rights. It does not remove from employers any right to dismiss | :11:31. | :11:33. | |
seafarers, but the ability to dismiss people because of their | :11:34. | :11:38. | |
sexuality has been illegal in the UK since 2003. For the same reason it | :11:39. | :11:42. | |
does not create any new rights for employees. The subsections we deal | :11:43. | :11:46. | |
with the data have been entirely superseded by new law and remain a | :11:47. | :11:51. | |
dead letter. They are a reminder of a very different time. Now, as my | :11:52. | :11:55. | |
honourable friend the member for Salisbury has made clear and I | :11:56. | :11:59. | |
myself have said previously, there are good reasons for moving such | :12:00. | :12:04. | |
dead letters from the statute book. I am clear there are good reasons | :12:05. | :12:10. | |
for doing so now, but I don't feel we can do it retrospectively. I | :12:11. | :12:14. | |
cannot see how it would benefit anyone to make the amendment | :12:15. | :12:18. | |
retrospective and I think that the general position that the House does | :12:19. | :12:22. | |
not pass retrospective legislation should stand. | :12:23. | :12:25. | |
I am stranded in that view by this final short point, between 1994 when | :12:26. | :12:30. | |
the criminal justice and Public order act came into existence and | :12:31. | :12:35. | |
2003 when the sexual orientation regulations came into force, it is | :12:36. | :12:39. | |
possible that some people were dismissed from ships because of | :12:40. | :12:43. | |
their sexuality. They might have taken legal adviser at the time and | :12:44. | :12:47. | |
been told, sadly and entirely properly, that nothing could be | :12:48. | :12:52. | |
done. Making this bill retrospective would not change that, I am afraid, | :12:53. | :12:57. | |
however sad that is, for the reasons I have explained. | :12:58. | :13:00. | |
I would rather save those people from thinking otherwise having taken | :13:01. | :13:06. | |
legal advice, I would not want them to how to do so all over again only | :13:07. | :13:12. | |
to be frustrated. Was appreciating the reasons why the change was | :13:13. | :13:17. | |
suggested in this amendment I am afraid the Government cannot support | :13:18. | :13:22. | |
it and I ask my honourable friend to withdraw his amendment as, indeed, | :13:23. | :13:27. | |
the honourable member for Salisbury has already done. Might I finish | :13:28. | :13:34. | |
with this? It has been said that a sailor is not defined as much by how | :13:35. | :13:40. | |
many sees he has sailed than by how many storms he has overcome. Let's | :13:41. | :13:47. | |
hope that in life's sees, some sailors will encounter fewer storms | :13:48. | :13:53. | |
as a result of what the honourable member for Salisbury has brought to | :13:54. | :14:00. | |
the attention of the House? We have had an excellent and high | :14:01. | :14:06. | |
quality debate, I think, on this issue, I have listened very | :14:07. | :14:09. | |
carefully to his points and I'm very much indebted to the member for | :14:10. | :14:13. | |
Salisbury for having considered this amendment Circe Risley, he went to a | :14:14. | :14:17. | |
lot of effort and we have been in discussions about it. I heard what | :14:18. | :14:24. | |
my honourable friend said and his public torment about whether or not | :14:25. | :14:28. | |
he should support this amendment or not. I think in the end I am | :14:29. | :14:33. | |
persuaded by the points made by my honourable friend for Salisbury and | :14:34. | :14:40. | |
the Minister that if we made this retrospective it might cause | :14:41. | :14:44. | |
uncertainty for those people, if we know who they are, were dismissed | :14:45. | :14:49. | |
from the merchant Navy between 1994 and the time when this became a | :14:50. | :14:57. | |
unlawful under other legislation. I would not want to achieve that | :14:58. | :15:01. | |
objective which I think would be an unintended consequence of this. Mr | :15:02. | :15:05. | |
Deputy Speaker, this has been a useful debate because what it has | :15:06. | :15:11. | |
also done, and I am with all those honourable and Right Honourable | :15:12. | :15:15. | |
members who essentially deplorable respectively just than, this debate | :15:16. | :15:22. | |
has been very useful in getting from the Government and others a | :15:23. | :15:26. | |
reaffirmation of our disgust and rejection of the principles of | :15:27. | :15:30. | |
retrospective legislation, even to the extent that we will not even | :15:31. | :15:34. | |
make symbolic legislation retrospective. I think that has been | :15:35. | :15:39. | |
a useful exercise and with the leave of the house I seek to withdraw this | :15:40. | :15:46. | |
amendment. Is it your pleasure by leave that the amendment be | :15:47. | :15:51. | |
withdrawn? Aye. Consideration completed, the reading, what day? | :15:52. | :15:59. | |
John Glenn? I beg to move that the bill be now read a third time. I | :16:00. | :16:04. | |
will not detain the house for very long and I'm very grateful at this | :16:05. | :16:09. | |
point, I wish the bill God speed as it is sent to the other place. As | :16:10. | :16:15. | |
honourable members have noted, this bill is short and simple. However, | :16:16. | :16:20. | |
what it symbolises and the lasting impact it will have is about more | :16:21. | :16:27. | |
than the repeal of sections 1464 and 1473 in the criminal justice and | :16:28. | :16:32. | |
public order act 1994. It sends an important message in this country | :16:33. | :16:37. | |
when it comes to employment, what matters is your ability to do the | :16:38. | :16:45. | |
job, not your gender, age, ethnicity, religion or sexuality. | :16:46. | :16:50. | |
Bypassing this bill, we make a clear statement that employment | :16:51. | :16:52. | |
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has no place in | :16:53. | :16:57. | |
our country. We should not underestimate the importance of | :16:58. | :17:01. | |
that. Looking back at the previous stages, honourable members will | :17:02. | :17:05. | |
recall, I am sure, the very powerful speech made at second reading by my | :17:06. | :17:10. | |
honourable friend the member for Milton Keynes South, and his very | :17:11. | :17:16. | |
moving remarks on how legislation previously left him feeling unable | :17:17. | :17:20. | |
to pursue the career of his choice. We want to send a clear message to | :17:21. | :17:25. | |
younger generations or anyone who might have been confused upon | :17:26. | :17:29. | |
reading the 1994 act that sexual orientation is not a basis for | :17:30. | :17:34. | |
employment discrimination. In the merchant navy or anywhere else. I am | :17:35. | :17:37. | |
pleased that the bill is supported by honourable members on all sides | :17:38. | :17:42. | |
of the house, as they have noted the important reassurance and clarity | :17:43. | :17:45. | |
provides. I want to thank honourable members who served on the public | :17:46. | :17:50. | |
Bill committee and in particular my honourable friend the members the | :17:51. | :17:55. | |
call before his helpful input. The bill will come into force on the day | :17:56. | :17:59. | |
becomes law -- my honourable friend the member for Corby, for his | :18:00. | :18:04. | |
helpful input. I also wish to thank my right honourable friend the | :18:05. | :18:07. | |
Minister for his support throughout the passage of this bill. Finally, | :18:08. | :18:13. | |
it only remains for me to wish the bill safe passage as it goes to the | :18:14. | :18:16. | |
other place. I hope they will share the conviction of this Haas that | :18:17. | :18:22. | |
imply mid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong | :18:23. | :18:26. | |
and it is time for the entirety of the statute book to fully reflect | :18:27. | :18:31. | |
that reality. The question is that the bill now be read in the third | :18:32. | :18:36. | |
time? Mr Phillip Dennis? I would very much like to congratulate my | :18:37. | :18:40. | |
honourable friend the member for Salisbury on this bill. He is one of | :18:41. | :18:44. | |
the most diligent people in the House and one of the nicest, it is a | :18:45. | :18:49. | |
pleasure to be here to support his bill. I reiterate my support for the | :18:50. | :18:55. | |
Bill and note that it has support from across the House. Was the Bill | :18:56. | :18:59. | |
is in effect a tidying up exercise and one that will not make a lot of | :19:00. | :19:03. | |
practical difference I think it is only right that we have laws that | :19:04. | :19:08. | |
are enforceable and justifiable on the statute Bill, and this bill | :19:09. | :19:17. | |
seeks to clear away something which was unjustifiable. When the bill had | :19:18. | :19:22. | |
its Ekin -- second reading, in many respects it is about dealing with | :19:23. | :19:25. | |
things that should never have been illegal in the first place and | :19:26. | :19:28. | |
sometimes when we talk about things like gay rights, sometimes the tone | :19:29. | :19:33. | |
can be that we are dreaming people a favour. Nothing to do with that, it | :19:34. | :19:38. | |
is not about doing people a favour, these things should never have been | :19:39. | :19:42. | |
illegal in the first place. It is making it clear that something is on | :19:43. | :19:45. | |
the statute book were wrong and we had to make a point of taking those | :19:46. | :19:50. | |
away from the statute book when they were wrong. It is certainly not | :19:51. | :19:54. | |
about doing anyone any favours and we should not make it sound like | :19:55. | :20:01. | |
that. Clearly the provisions in the sections have been superseded by | :20:02. | :20:05. | |
other legislation, specifically the equality act of 2010. But I think it | :20:06. | :20:12. | |
is interesting to note at this point that this legislation should really | :20:13. | :20:15. | |
never have been needed, it should have been dealt with in its entirety | :20:16. | :20:18. | |
when the equality act was introduced. Actually, as the House | :20:19. | :20:26. | |
of Commons library made clear when I asked them if it would have been | :20:27. | :20:30. | |
possible to deal in this matter then they said that, yes, that is correct | :20:31. | :20:36. | |
and this issue would have been in the equality Bill's scope. Such an | :20:37. | :20:41. | |
omission has meant we needed to produce an entirely new bill simply | :20:42. | :20:46. | |
to correct the position, which in many respects is unfortunate. I am | :20:47. | :20:49. | |
delighted my honourable friend has taken the opportunity to do so. I | :20:50. | :20:54. | |
think it is right, we have a proper scrutiny of this bill both at the | :20:55. | :20:57. | |
second reading, the committee stage on the report stage today, that is | :20:58. | :21:03. | |
absolutely right. It is a small bill but that does not mean they should | :21:04. | :21:07. | |
not get scrutiny, just like big bills, and I am grateful we have had | :21:08. | :21:11. | |
the opportunity to give the bills and proper scrutiny because it | :21:12. | :21:16. | |
should never be easy to get legislation through Parliament and I | :21:17. | :21:18. | |
think my honourable friend has approached the Bill in exactly the | :21:19. | :21:22. | |
right way, exactly the right spirit, he has taken on board people's | :21:23. | :21:26. | |
comments, looked into them diligently. It has been a model of | :21:27. | :21:30. | |
how people should take a private members' bill through Parliament and | :21:31. | :21:35. | |
I am pleased to support him and given the nature of the Bill I hope | :21:36. | :21:39. | |
its sales through the House of Lords very quickly. Andy McDonald. | :21:40. | :21:47. | |
I will keep my comments brief, the point I wish to make a | :21:48. | :21:50. | |
straightforward and does not require a lengthy speech. On the side bar | :21:51. | :21:54. | |
has we wholeheartedly support this bill for what you represent and I | :21:55. | :21:57. | |
would like to congratulate the honourable member for Salisbury in | :21:58. | :22:03. | |
bringing this forward -- on this side of the House. He has focused | :22:04. | :22:08. | |
our attention on anachronistic and unfair provisions from the criminal | :22:09. | :22:12. | |
justice and public order act 1994 which suggest it would be lawful to | :22:13. | :22:17. | |
dismiss a seafarer for a homosexual act. This would remove ambiguities | :22:18. | :22:21. | |
surrounding whether it is legal to dismiss Seafarer on the basis of | :22:22. | :22:28. | |
such an act, but the discriminatory provisions targeted by the member | :22:29. | :22:33. | |
for Salisbury's bill has been superseded by the current equality | :22:34. | :22:37. | |
legislation, primarily the equality after 2010. This bill is symbolic | :22:38. | :22:45. | |
but importantly so, as we should not underestimate the importance and | :22:46. | :22:50. | |
power of symbols. We believe that this bill, which would amend | :22:51. | :22:54. | |
legislation to better effect the values of equal rights to which we | :22:55. | :22:59. | |
now it's here, is a powerful symbol, and we on this side of the house are | :23:00. | :23:03. | |
pleased to give it our support. -- to which we now adhere. | :23:04. | :23:12. | |
Nothing I say will either be the persuasion of the honourable members | :23:13. | :23:15. | |
the Salisbury nor add to the straightforward certainty about this | :23:16. | :23:19. | |
bill's virtues. Quite simply, it speaks for itself. The question is | :23:20. | :23:26. | |
that the Bill be read a third time. As many as are of the opinion, say | :23:27. | :23:29. | |
"aye". To the contrary, "no". The ayes have it, the ayes have it. | :23:30. | :23:35. | |
Guardianship missing Persons Bill, not amended in public committee, to | :23:36. | :23:39. | |
be considered. We begin with amendment one, that it should be | :23:40. | :23:43. | |
convenient to consider the amendments as listed on the | :23:44. | :23:47. | |
selection paper. Philip Davies? Thank you. I have | :23:48. | :23:52. | |
tabled Bees four amendments to this particular bill and I have set out | :23:53. | :23:57. | |
right from the start that these were designed to be probing amendments, | :23:58. | :24:03. | |
and I don't intend to push any of them to a division. What I am | :24:04. | :24:11. | |
conscious of is that we have a bill which I think by anybody's admission | :24:12. | :24:20. | |
is quite a meaty Bill. It runs to 20 five quarters. -- 20 five quarters. | :24:21. | :24:28. | |
We have had no scrutiny of this bill in the chamber. It went through at a | :24:29. | :24:34. | |
second reading on the nod without any debate whatsoever, and here we | :24:35. | :24:40. | |
are with time pressing on and we have not had any opportunity before | :24:41. | :24:44. | |
now to debate any of its provisions at all. So I actually tabled the | :24:45. | :24:48. | |
amendments as probing amendments to try to tease out from my honourable | :24:49. | :24:52. | |
friend why some of the provisions in the Bill were as they are. Because | :24:53. | :24:58. | |
it was not clear from just reading the Bill White, for example, the | :24:59. | :25:02. | |
timescales in it were set in the way that they were. So my amendment one | :25:03. | :25:11. | |
is page one, clause one, sub-clause four, 914, to leave out subsection | :25:12. | :25:15. | |
four. This subsection that I propose leaving out is a person who is | :25:16. | :25:21. | |
detained whether in a prison or another place is to be treated for | :25:22. | :25:24. | |
the purposes of this act does absent from his or her usual place of | :25:25. | :25:28. | |
residence and usual day-to-day activities. Really, the purpose for | :25:29. | :25:34. | |
this amendment is to try to tease out from my honourable friend the | :25:35. | :25:36. | |
reasoning behind the inclusion of this subsection in the Bill. | :25:37. | :25:44. | |
Because we did not have any scrutiny at the second reading in order to | :25:45. | :25:52. | |
find out. In 2014, just in passing I should say, that there is a Bill | :25:53. | :25:58. | |
going through the House of Lords, we are looking at the Guardianship | :25:59. | :26:02. | |
(Missing Persons) Bill, there is also a missing persons Guardianship | :26:03. | :26:05. | |
Bill going through the House of Lords, I am not sure if that is | :26:06. | :26:09. | |
different in its provisions to this, I have not had time to look at that, | :26:10. | :26:13. | |
maybe they are trying to achieve the same things, but in 2014 the | :26:14. | :26:19. | |
Government held a consultation regarding guardianship of property | :26:20. | :26:22. | |
and fears of missing persons and not once in this consultation was this | :26:23. | :26:33. | |
subsection address. The reasoning behind the inclusion of this | :26:34. | :26:36. | |
subsection, the library confirmed they could not find anything about | :26:37. | :26:41. | |
the background to clause one, subsection four, beyond its | :26:42. | :26:45. | |
inclusion as an example, they could not explain the reason behind its | :26:46. | :26:48. | |
inclusion in the Bill. After speaking with the library at further | :26:49. | :26:54. | |
length, they did say that the Bill defines a missing person as someone | :26:55. | :26:58. | |
who is absent from the usual place of residence or day-to-day | :26:59. | :27:01. | |
activities, the reason for being absent maybe because the person is | :27:02. | :27:06. | |
being detained, in addition, the first second condition set out in | :27:07. | :27:09. | |
subsections two or three must also be met, in most cases the first | :27:10. | :27:14. | |
condition is likely to be relevant, their whereabouts of the person is | :27:15. | :27:18. | |
not known or not known with sufficient precision to enable | :27:19. | :27:23. | |
contact to be made. That was their explanation as to why this may be in | :27:24. | :27:30. | |
there. But given that they were not entirely clear why, I thought it was | :27:31. | :27:34. | |
important to put down an Amendment to hear from first hand from my | :27:35. | :27:38. | |
honourable friend why it was in there, that is why I see it as an | :27:39. | :27:44. | |
appropriate Amendment. My amendments to, in this sense, it is page two, | :27:45. | :27:58. | |
clause two, line 17, and at the end, insert two A, the court may be | :27:59. | :28:07. | |
required to take further steps for the purpose of tracing the missing | :28:08. | :28:14. | |
person, that is to ensure that all reasonable steps have been taken to | :28:15. | :28:19. | |
try and locate the missing person. This Amendment... On reflection | :28:20. | :28:27. | |
would he not a giddy that the court probably has that power anyway? -- | :28:28. | :28:35. | |
would he not agree. Somebody seeking such an order must sure that all | :28:36. | :28:38. | |
reasonable steps have been taken to discover where the missing person | :28:39. | :28:43. | |
is. I am hoping that this what my honourable friend will be able to | :28:44. | :28:46. | |
confirm, which is why I described it as a probing Amendment. I wanted | :28:47. | :28:52. | |
that clear on the record that that was the case. Looking through it I | :28:53. | :28:55. | |
was not entirely clear that that was the case. I hope he is right. That | :28:56. | :28:59. | |
is why I said it was a probing Amendment so we could get that | :29:00. | :29:06. | |
confirmation on the record today. You are making a valid point but as | :29:07. | :29:10. | |
I understand that there are good systems in place for distinguishing | :29:11. | :29:14. | |
whether a person is missing and that side of it. There is no system for | :29:15. | :29:18. | |
looking after their estate or anything that the own if they are | :29:19. | :29:22. | |
declared missing. That is what this private members Bill is all about, | :29:23. | :29:26. | |
to help the people left at home deal with the property or the estate, or | :29:27. | :29:29. | |
deal with the hardship that they might be facing because they cannot | :29:30. | :29:33. | |
access funds or money or get into the House and all. Of things, so it | :29:34. | :29:38. | |
does seem straightforward and sensible. My honourable friend is | :29:39. | :29:44. | |
right. What she is referring to is the principle of the Bill and I | :29:45. | :29:47. | |
support the principle of the Bill and I do not intend to do anything | :29:48. | :29:51. | |
to stop the Bill from proceeding. That is not the point. The point I | :29:52. | :29:56. | |
am trying to make here is that we are looking at the detail in the | :29:57. | :29:59. | |
Bill and to make sure that we have got the detail in the Bill right, | :30:00. | :30:03. | |
because I would think that we would all support the principle behind the | :30:04. | :30:07. | |
Bill, and the purpose of these amendments is simply not to scupper | :30:08. | :30:10. | |
the Bill or affect the principle of the Bill, me and her are as one on | :30:11. | :30:17. | |
that, it is to make sure that they are happy that some of the details | :30:18. | :30:20. | |
are directly just having it because it is quite chunky piece of | :30:21. | :30:24. | |
legislation that does deserve that Italy. The Amendment that have | :30:25. | :30:29. | |
proposed works from a similar basis that is the requirement in the lease | :30:30. | :30:35. | |
hold reform act 1993. I do not know if I need to the clear on my | :30:36. | :30:43. | |
register as a landlord, but I do just in case, section 26 of the | :30:44. | :30:50. | |
leasehold urban development act 1993 addresses applications where the | :30:51. | :30:54. | |
relevant landlord cannot be found, I was merely using that as a basis for | :30:55. | :30:59. | |
my Amendment in this piece of legislation here. And similar | :31:00. | :31:05. | |
legislation elsewhere in the world contains similar requirements before | :31:06. | :31:10. | |
a guardian can be appointed. In three Australian states, New South | :31:11. | :31:16. | |
Wales, there is a process whereby people can seek to be appointed to | :31:17. | :31:21. | |
manage the affairs of a person who is missing. Similarly in Canadian | :31:22. | :31:25. | |
law. That was the purpose behind this Amendment. To make sure that we | :31:26. | :31:29. | |
are happy that we have got all this particular detail right. Amendment | :31:30. | :31:38. | |
three, as people can see, is to leave out 90 days and insert six | :31:39. | :31:41. | |
months, this is to increase the amount of time an individual must be | :31:42. | :31:45. | |
missing before I guardian it can be appointed. Again, this was | :31:46. | :31:51. | |
specifically designed as a probing Amendment because it was the only I | :31:52. | :31:54. | |
could think of to tease out from my honourable friend why he said 90 | :31:55. | :31:58. | |
days as the limit in the Bill, the only way to do that is to propose an | :31:59. | :32:03. | |
alternative, my alternative therefore was for six months. I | :32:04. | :32:08. | |
wonder whether or not 90 days... I give way. I am grateful. I am | :32:09. | :32:13. | |
grateful for his scrutiny of this important piece of legislation. He | :32:14. | :32:17. | |
mentioned earlier some of the territories around the world who use | :32:18. | :32:22. | |
this kind of legislation, New South Wales, Victoria, British Columbia, | :32:23. | :32:27. | |
all of those used at 90 day period saw it as a sensible starting point | :32:28. | :32:30. | |
from which we can begin. I am grateful to him for that. I don't | :32:31. | :32:38. | |
read the consultation when this was out to consultation. As far as I | :32:39. | :32:41. | |
could see there were 40 responses, of which it commented on the | :32:42. | :32:45. | |
proposal that applications should only be able to be made after the 90 | :32:46. | :32:50. | |
day terminology. In many cases some of those responses were that 90 days | :32:51. | :32:57. | |
was too long. I accept that. But there were some practical points | :32:58. | :33:01. | |
relating to timing that were identified, for example, the finance | :33:02. | :33:05. | |
and leasing Association raised some concerns about the timing of 90 | :33:06. | :33:12. | |
days. The consultation there summarised that we accept that the | :33:13. | :33:15. | |
90 day period may create problems in some cases but are also conscious | :33:16. | :33:20. | |
that overhasty applications may result in unnecessary expenses being | :33:21. | :33:25. | |
incurred. Given that it was 90 days and not 60 days, 100 days, whatever, | :33:26. | :33:29. | |
I was trying to seek out the rationale for 90 days. I would say | :33:30. | :33:34. | |
that my honourable friend has in his intervention been very helpful and | :33:35. | :33:38. | |
made it clear why he went for 90 days and I am grateful to him for | :33:39. | :33:41. | |
that, but that was the purpose of that. Finally my Amendment for, | :33:42. | :33:47. | |
again as people can see, but leaves out for years and inserts two years, | :33:48. | :33:52. | |
and this Amendment would have the effect of reducing the maximum | :33:53. | :33:58. | |
period of guardianship from four years to two years, caused seven | :33:59. | :34:00. | |
sets out the period of guardianship and requests that the period will be | :34:01. | :34:06. | |
stated in the court order, the maximum possible as for years, I am | :34:07. | :34:11. | |
proposing this Amendment to have it. Again, the same principle as their, | :34:12. | :34:19. | |
to try and tease out from my honourable friend why he thinks that | :34:20. | :34:24. | |
four use is right and whether he thinks that should be not longer or | :34:25. | :34:32. | |
shorter. I can see the attractions of making its longer to avoid people | :34:33. | :34:39. | |
who want to go back time and time again and the cost of going back | :34:40. | :34:42. | |
time and time again, I was not sure if that was the primary purpose, or | :34:43. | :34:49. | |
whether there was another rationale why four was the appropriate time. | :34:50. | :34:56. | |
Arising from the same issue, I was concerned as to what happens when a | :34:57. | :35:01. | |
missing person is found, because it does not automatically negate the | :35:02. | :35:05. | |
guardianship. I would have hoped that it would. That is an argument | :35:06. | :35:11. | |
for saying that the guardianship should be a shorter period otherwise | :35:12. | :35:14. | |
as soon as somebody is found they have two apply to the court to end | :35:15. | :35:18. | |
the guardianship before they can be treated again as a normal person. My | :35:19. | :35:22. | |
honourable friend makes a good point. That is why I propose a | :35:23. | :35:26. | |
shorter period of time rather than a longer. I am grateful to my | :35:27. | :35:33. | |
honourable friend for giving way. He has inadvertently misled the House, | :35:34. | :35:39. | |
as I read the Bill. The term of four use is the maximum and the court has | :35:40. | :35:42. | |
power to make an order for any length of time up to four years. If | :35:43. | :35:50. | |
I did mislead the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not intend to. I did | :35:51. | :35:56. | |
see it was a maximum of four years. I thought I had made that clear, it | :35:57. | :36:01. | |
was a maximum of four years, if I did not I apologise. It is a | :36:02. | :36:06. | |
maximum. But does not necessarily need to be so. I do not think that | :36:07. | :36:10. | |
necessarily overcomes the point of my honourable friend for | :36:11. | :36:14. | |
Christchurch made that decision for four years could be made in good | :36:15. | :36:17. | |
faith which has been superseded and because I'm issue. Again I just want | :36:18. | :36:25. | |
to look at the consultation that took place around these matters | :36:26. | :36:29. | |
because the consultation did receive a range of views on the appropriate | :36:30. | :36:34. | |
duration of guardianship appointments about this. Two | :36:35. | :36:37. | |
respondents said they agreed with the proposed maximum term of four | :36:38. | :36:41. | |
years while there were suggestions from four other respondents which | :36:42. | :36:45. | |
said a shorter period of one or two years, and one proposal that it | :36:46. | :36:50. | |
should be eight years. So my honourable friend might see, we spot | :36:51. | :36:54. | |
the difference and went for four years and that was the consensus, I | :36:55. | :37:01. | |
do not know. There are examples in other countries as well, and again | :37:02. | :37:09. | |
in Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, the administrator | :37:10. | :37:12. | |
or manager is appointed initially for up to two years, and that | :37:13. | :37:16. | |
appointment can be extended for a further two years, I wonder whether | :37:17. | :37:20. | |
that might have been a more sensible way of going about it. As I see it | :37:21. | :37:28. | |
that is also the same in Irish law as well, an initial two years that | :37:29. | :37:32. | |
can be extended for a further two years, and whether that was better | :37:33. | :37:35. | |
than a straight four years from the word go. They were the purpose for | :37:36. | :37:43. | |
my four amendments, they were in no way seeking to cause any problem for | :37:44. | :37:46. | |
the Bill, said to give it some Stuart Waiton if it shuts scrutiny | :37:47. | :37:49. | |
fit if it shuts the spider does not have. My honourable friend would | :37:50. | :37:52. | |
concede that there is not had that scrutiny. -- to give it some | :37:53. | :38:06. | |
scrutiny which it has not had. The question is that the Amendment be | :38:07. | :38:14. | |
made. Minister. I am keen for this to progress. I will speak to | :38:15. | :38:20. | |
Amendment to, four, Amendment one, in this speech. Amendment one | :38:21. | :38:24. | |
relates to the definition of when a person is missing for the purposes | :38:25. | :38:27. | |
of the Bill the Amendment would remove subsection four of clause one | :38:28. | :38:34. | |
of the Bill, subsection four relates to absence of the missing person, | :38:35. | :38:37. | |
without the subsection it would not be clear on the face of the | :38:38. | :38:41. | |
bellwether for the purposes of the Bill the person detained in prison | :38:42. | :38:45. | |
or otherwise would be treated as being absent from his or her usual | :38:46. | :38:50. | |
place of residence, and usual day to day activities. Amendment to | :38:51. | :38:57. | |
addresses a different aspect of the question of whether a person is | :38:58. | :39:02. | |
missing for the purposes of the Bill. First, the Bill already | :39:03. | :39:07. | |
provides in subsection one, closed 20, that the application must be | :39:08. | :39:11. | |
advertised in accordance with the rules of the court, the subsection | :39:12. | :39:16. | |
also provides that notice of the application in any other information | :39:17. | :39:20. | |
required by rules of court must be sent to the person specified in the | :39:21. | :39:25. | |
rules of the court. Secondly the procedure for healing the | :39:26. | :39:29. | |
application will be governed the rules of court. These rules have not | :39:30. | :39:34. | |
yet been written that will specify the information that needs to be | :39:35. | :39:38. | |
provided to the court with the application. This is likely to | :39:39. | :39:43. | |
include a requirement that the application is supported by evidence | :39:44. | :39:47. | |
of the various issues on which the court must be satisfied before it | :39:48. | :39:50. | |
can make a guardianship order in accordance of the Bill. Amendment | :39:51. | :39:55. | |
three relates to the question of how long a person must be missing before | :39:56. | :40:01. | |
an application can be made for the appointment of a guardian. I | :40:02. | :40:04. | |
appreciate my honourable friend's concerned that guardianship orders | :40:05. | :40:08. | |
should not be granted likely with undue haste. I think however that | :40:09. | :40:15. | |
extending the period to six months would be excessive. The question of | :40:16. | :40:19. | |
the length of the period of absence was raised in the Ministry of | :40:20. | :40:23. | |
Justice in this consultation on guardianship and 2014, the | :40:24. | :40:27. | |
suggestion of 90 days was well supported beer. The main alternative | :40:28. | :40:32. | |
was that of a shorter period, as my honourable friend rightly mentioned. | :40:33. | :40:39. | |
Amendment four relates to the amount of time that a guardian can be | :40:40. | :40:44. | |
appointed for and it would change that time from four years to two | :40:45. | :40:48. | |
years. I appreciate concern that guardians should not likely be given | :40:49. | :40:54. | |
an extended period of authority over the property and financial affairs | :40:55. | :40:57. | |
of the missing person. Giving one person authority to deal with | :40:58. | :41:00. | |
property and affairs is a very serious step. There is no reason why | :41:01. | :41:06. | |
the maximum period must be four years. International practice | :41:07. | :41:10. | |
varies, some jurisdictions leave the lands to the courts but others apply | :41:11. | :41:18. | |
a maximum. We have chosen the four year period which was well supported | :41:19. | :41:20. | |
in the consultation. In summary, the four year period is a maximum as I | :41:21. | :41:25. | |
mentioned in an intervention and even where it is applied it can be | :41:26. | :41:30. | |
cut down the circumstances required. Two year maximum could be unduly | :41:31. | :41:35. | |
restrictive and result in unnecessary response for those | :41:36. | :41:39. | |
affected. I hope my honourable friend will withdraw all four of his | :41:40. | :41:44. | |
amendments in the light this. Thank you very much. I am very | :41:45. | :41:51. | |
grateful to the Minister for his explanation of those points. We | :41:52. | :42:00. | |
hadn't heard from the proposer of the bill about whether or not he and | :42:01. | :42:07. | |
Dost the Minister's points -- endorsed the Minister's points. I am | :42:08. | :42:14. | |
very grateful to him for giving way. I think the minister laid at the | :42:15. | :42:18. | |
response very comprehensively and I have nothing significant to add. He | :42:19. | :42:22. | |
raised a point in terms of the passage through the House of Lords, | :42:23. | :42:27. | |
that other legislation would not be required if we took it through the | :42:28. | :42:33. | |
House and went into the Lords. His point about removing clause one and | :42:34. | :42:39. | |
four would deal with the situation where somebody was detained in | :42:40. | :42:44. | |
another place away from this place in a hostage situation or similar. | :42:45. | :42:49. | |
Terry Waite springs to mind, for five years he was unable to be | :42:50. | :42:52. | |
contacted. I'm very grateful to my honourable | :42:53. | :42:57. | |
friend for that addition to the Minister's explanation, shall we | :42:58. | :43:02. | |
say? I absolutely accept their points, I think it is important that | :43:03. | :43:06. | |
we have them on the record, that we have some way or the teasing out | :43:07. | :43:12. | |
from the Government why they had, I am sure that is useful for people to | :43:13. | :43:16. | |
know and I am very happy to withdraw my amendment. The amendments be | :43:17. | :43:24. | |
withdrawn by the league of the house? As many as are of the | :43:25. | :43:27. | |
opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". The ayes have it. Third | :43:28. | :43:33. | |
reading, what day? Now. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg | :43:34. | :43:37. | |
to move that the Bill be read the third time. I would like to thank | :43:38. | :43:41. | |
all honourable members for contribution, my honourable friend | :43:42. | :43:45. | |
from Shipley for his detailed scrutiny and all the members who | :43:46. | :43:49. | |
served on the bill committee. I very much hope this bill will pass | :43:50. | :43:53. | |
swiftly both through this house and the House of Lords. Many times in | :43:54. | :43:59. | |
this house we get involved in different issues for many different | :44:00. | :44:03. | |
reasons. My reason for being involved in this particular issue is | :44:04. | :44:06. | |
the person sat in the gallery today, Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Peter | :44:07. | :44:13. | |
Lawrence. He and Mrs Lawrence have a deep connection with my | :44:14. | :44:15. | |
constituency. Their daughter cloudier went missing eight years | :44:16. | :44:21. | |
ago this very week -- their daughter Claudia. Still no answers can be | :44:22. | :44:26. | |
found to the reason for that disappearance. As well as the | :44:27. | :44:30. | |
trauma, anxiety and stress around that kind of situation, what the | :44:31. | :44:35. | |
Lawrences discovered in those early weeks is their inability to deal | :44:36. | :44:40. | |
with the financial affairs of Claudia. Because of contract law, | :44:41. | :44:49. | |
because of data protection law. Of course. I am very grateful. Can I | :44:50. | :44:55. | |
congratulate him on safely navigating this far what is a very | :44:56. | :45:00. | |
important bill? He cites the example of his constituents, has he assessed | :45:01. | :45:04. | |
how many other of our constituents across the country will potentially | :45:05. | :45:10. | |
benefit as a result of his excellent piece of legislation? Thank you for | :45:11. | :45:15. | |
that intervention. Would you believe 370 people go missing every day in | :45:16. | :45:19. | |
this country? They will not all require the provision of this | :45:20. | :45:24. | |
legislation, but many will. It is a very important piece of legislation | :45:25. | :45:27. | |
and many people have been campaigning to get this on the | :45:28. | :45:32. | |
statute book including, of course, Mr and Mrs Lawrence and the | :45:33. | :45:35. | |
campaigning organisation Missing People, who are very clean to -- | :45:36. | :45:41. | |
keen to have this legislation to support others in the circumstances | :45:42. | :45:45. | |
like these. This situation where you cannot manage the affairs of a | :45:46. | :45:49. | |
missing person, most people think it is incredible. Why is that? I think | :45:50. | :45:54. | |
they feel that way because in other similar situations, if a loved one | :45:55. | :45:59. | |
passes away or somebody has dementia or mental incapacity, there are | :46:00. | :46:05. | |
other pieces of legislation that can help in those circumstances. But not | :46:06. | :46:09. | |
in this circumstance. For months or years you are unable to deal with | :46:10. | :46:14. | |
the mortgage company, the landlord, the utility company, insurance | :46:15. | :46:17. | |
companies, they cannot speak to you. This costs money from the missing | :46:18. | :46:23. | |
person's estate and, more critically, for the dependents are | :46:24. | :46:26. | |
back to state. Quite often the person who has gone missing has | :46:27. | :46:31. | |
dependents, and they need to be able to look after those people. I am | :46:32. | :46:36. | |
very grateful to the great support we have had across the House for | :46:37. | :46:42. | |
this legislation, to the Government for their support on this, our | :46:43. | :46:45. | |
excellent ministers, the organisation Missing People. My | :46:46. | :46:52. | |
honourable friend is in the House today, but also from York Outer and | :46:53. | :46:56. | |
Selby, who have worked so hard on this legislation before me. This is | :46:57. | :47:01. | |
very much a team effort, I think I was just in the right place in the | :47:02. | :47:04. | |
right time in terms of being able to take it forward, it is a great | :47:05. | :47:09. | |
pleasure to be able to do so. One really important thing about this | :47:10. | :47:13. | |
legislation, it is a simple piece of legislation that will fill the gap | :47:14. | :47:19. | |
in the law that exists, as a tribute to Mr and Mrs Lawrence and how hard | :47:20. | :47:22. | |
they have worked and their commitment in champing Dann champion | :47:23. | :47:31. | |
in the cause of guardianship, their eternal hope, their endless fight | :47:32. | :47:34. | |
for answers and justice and the commitment to help others in similar | :47:35. | :47:39. | |
tragic circumstances, I very much hope that this legislation, if | :47:40. | :47:44. | |
effected, will always be known as Claudia's law. The question is that | :47:45. | :47:52. | |
the bill now be read a third time? Andy McDonald? I would like to | :47:53. | :47:56. | |
congratulate the honourable member for Thirsk and Malton in his work in | :47:57. | :47:59. | |
bringing this bill, I would like to say a great deal about it but I will | :48:00. | :48:04. | |
be quick. The Labour supports the -- Labour Party supports this bill, it | :48:05. | :48:09. | |
has resounding cross-party support. It is clearly a gap in the law that | :48:10. | :48:14. | |
needs to be addressed, and also a missing is person charity has been | :48:15. | :48:18. | |
influential in the creation of the Bill and supporting its current | :48:19. | :48:21. | |
form. There is no mechanism in England and Wales which protects the | :48:22. | :48:25. | |
property and affairs of the missing person, the bill will do that. The | :48:26. | :48:29. | |
honourable member for Thirsk and Malton previously said that 2500 | :48:30. | :48:34. | |
people could benefit from a law of this kind. Courts will be how it to | :48:35. | :48:39. | |
appoint a guardian to manage the affairs on behalf of the missing | :48:40. | :48:43. | |
persons. Unfortunately the delay in filling this gap in the law has been | :48:44. | :48:48. | |
lengthy, too lengthy, and the cross-party support has been | :48:49. | :48:52. | |
long-standing and consistent. Happily it has wider support among | :48:53. | :48:57. | |
campaigners and other interested parties. Mr Deputy Speaker, we | :48:58. | :49:01. | |
should not frustrate laws like this when there is political consensus | :49:02. | :49:05. | |
about the positive case for acting. As I said at the outset, we support | :49:06. | :49:10. | |
this bill and I am glad of the opportunity to speak, albeit | :49:11. | :49:13. | |
briefly, in favour of it in the House today. | :49:14. | :49:19. | |
Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate my honourable friend the member for | :49:20. | :49:22. | |
Thirsk and Malton for introducing the bill to create the new legal | :49:23. | :49:26. | |
status of guardian of the property and financial affairs of a missing | :49:27. | :49:32. | |
person and on bringing it so far, so quickly. The Government is committed | :49:33. | :49:37. | |
to creating the new legal status and is pleased to support the bill. The | :49:38. | :49:42. | |
proposals now in the Bill have taken some time to evolve. It goes without | :49:43. | :49:48. | |
saying that the Bill would not create a panacea for all the | :49:49. | :49:53. | |
troubles and anguish caused by a sudden and unexplained | :49:54. | :49:58. | |
disappearance. But it will provide a clear, practical procedure for those | :49:59. | :50:02. | |
left behind to use to find solutions to the financial problems that they | :50:03. | :50:07. | |
face. Putting one person in charge of the property of another person's | :50:08. | :50:12. | |
property and affairs is a very significant step. But guardianship | :50:13. | :50:18. | |
is not unique in this respect. The proposals in the Bill have been | :50:19. | :50:20. | |
modelled in part on the provisions for the appointment of deputies in | :50:21. | :50:27. | |
the mental capacity act of 2005. The Guardian is, for example, to be | :50:28. | :50:31. | |
treated as the agent of the missing person. I hope this will mean that | :50:32. | :50:38. | |
businesses and other organisations can relatively quickly adapt their | :50:39. | :50:43. | |
systems to accommodate the new status and deal with guardians | :50:44. | :50:48. | |
confidently. Will he give way? The Government has said it will | :50:49. | :50:52. | |
bring forward the secondary legislation which this bill requires | :50:53. | :51:00. | |
within 12 months. In other words, by 2018. Can my honourable friend from | :51:01. | :51:03. | |
the front bench give that assurance to the House today, please? | :51:04. | :51:09. | |
I can assure the Haas that as the Government it supportive of this | :51:10. | :51:13. | |
bill, we will do everything in our power to bring forward regulation so | :51:14. | :51:17. | |
it will come into force as soon as practicable. Putting one person in | :51:18. | :51:26. | |
charge of another is... Another person's property and affairs is a | :51:27. | :51:30. | |
very significant step and guardianship, as I have said, is not | :51:31. | :51:34. | |
unique in this respect. The character and qualities of the | :51:35. | :51:38. | |
Guardian will be critical. Guardians can therefore only be appointed by | :51:39. | :51:42. | |
the court and can be held to account for their actions by the individuals | :51:43. | :51:46. | |
affected. They will be subject to supervision by the office of the | :51:47. | :51:50. | |
public Guardian. The detail will be worked out in secondary legislation, | :51:51. | :51:55. | |
in codes of practice, just as occurs in relation to deputies. The key | :51:56. | :52:02. | |
principle that the guardian must observers that he or she must act in | :52:03. | :52:05. | |
the best interests of the missing person, which is defined in the | :52:06. | :52:09. | |
Bill, it might be further defined in regulations, but it does not simply | :52:10. | :52:13. | |
mean preserving and protecting and where possibly augmenting the assets | :52:14. | :52:19. | |
of the missing person. That would do some good but it would do nothing | :52:20. | :52:23. | |
until the person returned for those left behind. The Guardian is able, | :52:24. | :52:27. | |
subject to the tests in the Bill and in terms of the guardianship order, | :52:28. | :52:31. | |
to use the missing person's assets for the benefit of people for whom, | :52:32. | :52:36. | |
had they not disappeared, the missing person would probably have | :52:37. | :52:41. | |
supportive. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the | :52:42. | :52:44. | |
charity Missing People which, along with its pro bono lawyers, Clifford | :52:45. | :52:47. | |
chance, had assisted the Ministry of Justice in preparing legislation. | :52:48. | :52:55. | |
The Department is grateful to the charities Prisoners Abroad and | :52:56. | :53:00. | |
Hostages Uk, who have contributed to the development of this bill. As I | :53:01. | :53:05. | |
have said I would like to thank the member for Thirsk and Malton for his | :53:06. | :53:09. | |
hard work in steering the Bill the spa. I am grateful to all those | :53:10. | :53:15. | |
families affected by a disappearance who had shared their experiences in | :53:16. | :53:21. | |
public to help ways awareness of the need for reform, particularly Peter | :53:22. | :53:24. | |
Lawrence. Touch to help raise awareness. As my honourable friend | :53:25. | :53:28. | |
the member for Thirsk and Malton said, the letter of the law will | :53:29. | :53:33. | |
call this bill the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Bill, but I know | :53:34. | :53:36. | |
as my honourable friend said, that this bill will always be known as | :53:37. | :53:43. | |
Claudia's Law. This bill has taken a long way in coming and arriving to | :53:44. | :53:48. | |
the stage. Your party Parliamentary group for runaway missing children | :53:49. | :53:53. | |
and adults, for example, called the legislation in 2011. The vent | :53:54. | :53:57. | |
Government undertook to consider when legislation was required in a | :53:58. | :54:04. | |
cross government strategy published that year. I am delighted to commend | :54:05. | :54:10. | |
the bill to the House. The question is that the bill now be read a third | :54:11. | :54:13. | |
time. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". | :54:14. | :54:18. | |
The ayes have it, the ayes have it. Kew Gardens (Leases) Bill, not | :54:19. | :54:29. | |
amended in public committee, to be considered. I beg to move the Bill | :54:30. | :54:35. | |
on behalf of the honourable member for Bridgwater and West Somerset. | :54:36. | :54:43. | |
Objection. I was going to move my amendments Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I | :54:44. | :54:47. | |
speak to my amendments in the three seconds that remain? I would like to | :54:48. | :54:55. | |
move the amendments to this Bill because I think it is very important | :54:56. | :54:58. | |
that they should be properly articulated in this House. Order, | :54:59. | :55:07. | |
order. Consideration, what day? Friday 12th of May. Crown Tenancies | :55:08. | :55:19. | |
Bill... Sorry. We have come to the end of the time for private bills | :55:20. | :55:27. | |
this session. Four private bills have been passed this session with | :55:28. | :55:31. | |
another three today, it is not possible to debate anymore today's | :55:32. | :55:34. | |
bills which will make progress only if no member objects. There are no | :55:35. | :55:41. | |
remaining sitting Friday is appointed for consideration of | :55:42. | :55:44. | |
private members bills. Following a recommendation in the procedure | :55:45. | :55:47. | |
committee there is a list on the Parliamentary website of many | :55:48. | :55:54. | |
private members bills. Thought the House is not expected to be sitting | :55:55. | :55:59. | |
on Friday 12th of May. The clerk will read over the titles of the | :56:00. | :56:02. | |
rest of the Bill is set down for today. If there are objects is -- | :56:03. | :56:09. | |
objections, then Friday 12th of May be named or any other day of their | :56:10. | :56:14. | |
particular choice. Crown Tenancies Bill to be considered. Object. | :56:15. | :56:22. | |
Objection taken. Friday May the 12th. Farriers registration Bill to | :56:23. | :56:34. | |
be considered. The question is as on the order paper, the Ayes have it. | :56:35. | :56:49. | |
Third reading. No. As many of that opinion say Ayes, the contrary, now, | :56:50. | :56:58. | |
the Ayes have it. Awards for valour protection Bill. To be further | :56:59. | :57:08. | |
considered. I beg to move. Road traffic offenders Bill. Not amended | :57:09. | :57:17. | |
to be considered. To remove no. Object. Objection taken. Friday the | :57:18. | :57:26. | |
12th of May. Adjourned debate on consideration to be further | :57:27. | :57:30. | |
considered. I beg to move now. Object. Objection taken, what the? | :57:31. | :57:37. | |
Friday 12th of May. Carbon monoxide poisoning second reading. Object. | :57:38. | :57:44. | |
Objection taken. Friday the 12th of May. Harbours, docks and peers | :57:45. | :57:53. | |
clauses 1847 Amendment Bill, second reading. What day? The question is | :57:54. | :58:01. | |
that the Bill... Not moved. Double taxation treaties, adjourned debate | :58:02. | :58:09. | |
on second reading. Not moved. House of Lords exclusion of hereditary | :58:10. | :58:16. | |
peers Bill, second reading. I beg to move. Object. What the? Friday 12th | :58:17. | :58:28. | |
of May. Modern slavery transparency and supply chains Bill, second | :58:29. | :58:36. | |
reading. And solicitors marketing communications second reading. Beg | :58:37. | :58:43. | |
to move. Object. What day? Friday 12th of May. Statutory nuisance | :58:44. | :58:53. | |
aircraft noise Bill, second reading. I beg to move. Object. Objection | :58:54. | :59:04. | |
taken. What day? Friday 12th of May. Second reading, what day? Electoral | :59:05. | :59:11. | |
reform, local elections and miscellaneous provisions Bill, | :59:12. | :59:18. | |
second reading. Not moved. Feeding products for babies and children, | :59:19. | :59:21. | |
advertising and promotion Bill, second reading. That the Bill be | :59:22. | :59:30. | |
moved. Object. What day? Friday 12th of May. Wild animals in circuses | :59:31. | :59:38. | |
Prohibition Bill, second reading. I beg to move no. Object. Objection | :59:39. | :59:46. | |
taken, second reading what the? 12th of May. Animal fighting sentencing | :59:47. | :59:51. | |
Bill, second reading. I beg to move no. Object. Second reading, what | :59:52. | :00:01. | |
day? Friday 12th of May. National health service Bill, second reading. | :00:02. | :00:07. | |
Beg to move. Object. Friday 12th of May. Asset freezing compensation | :00:08. | :00:17. | |
Bill, second reading. On behalf of my friend, no. Object. What day? | :00:18. | :00:24. | |
Friday 12th of May. That is a very popular day. Workers' rights, | :00:25. | :00:29. | |
maintenance of EU standards Bill, second reading. I beg to move. | :00:30. | :00:34. | |
Definitely object. We would have been shocked if they had not. Friday | :00:35. | :00:41. | |
12th of May. Vehicle noise limits enforcement Bill, second reading. I | :00:42. | :00:47. | |
beg to move no. Object. My word, and echo around the chamber. What the? | :00:48. | :00:55. | |
Friday 12th of May. Families with children and Young People's Bill | :00:56. | :01:00. | |
debt, respite Bill, second reading. I beg to move no. Object. What the? | :01:01. | :01:10. | |
Friday May the 12th. Unlawful killing, recovery of remains Bill, | :01:11. | :01:14. | |
second reading. I beg to move. Object. Second reading? Friday 12th | :01:15. | :01:25. | |
of May. Protection of family homes, adjourned debate on second reading. | :01:26. | :01:34. | |
I beg to move. Object. Debate to be resumed what day? Friday 12th of | :01:35. | :01:43. | |
May. We know come to the business of the House motion. I beg to move. | :01:44. | :01:50. | |
Question is as on the order paper, the Ayes have it. I beg to move this | :01:51. | :02:01. | |
House do know adjourned. But not on the 12th of May. Jim Fitzpatrick. I | :02:02. | :02:07. | |
am grateful for the opportunity to raise a question of funding on | :02:08. | :02:22. | |
cochlear implantation. The starting point is a petition calling for a | :02:23. | :02:29. | |
review of the tests for implants approved by Nice. I have been | :02:30. | :02:38. | |
contacted by my honourable friend 's, both constituents fall foul of | :02:39. | :02:43. | |
the tests, it is this aspect that concerns them and they are in people | :02:44. | :02:47. | |
mac and able wanted reviewed. I will come back to that later. As well as | :02:48. | :02:53. | |
the case of a constituent of the honourable member for Daventry, whom | :02:54. | :02:58. | |
I am pleased to see in his place on the Treasury bench. I also want to | :02:59. | :03:01. | |
register my appreciation for assistance with briefings for this | :03:02. | :03:06. | |
debate to action on hearing loss, implant action group. If I may start | :03:07. | :03:15. | |
with the paper said to me by the ear foundation. Sue Archibald writes, I | :03:16. | :03:19. | |
was at the World Health Organisation in Geneva on world health Day, 12th | :03:20. | :03:26. | |
of March, when for the first time they confirmed that cochlear implant | :03:27. | :03:30. | |
and hearing aids were cost-effective and should be made more widely | :03:31. | :03:36. | |
available globally. The World Health Organisation has produced two | :03:37. | :03:40. | |
documents, cost effectiveness and interventions, and action for | :03:41. | :03:43. | |
hearing loss, I am sure officials for the department will have brought | :03:44. | :03:45. | |
these to the attention of the Minister. One of the UK's meeting | :03:46. | :03:54. | |
clinicians e-mails me and said cochlear implants are funded for a | :03:55. | :04:00. | |
health and Nice only looks at this aspect, what needs to be addressed | :04:01. | :04:04. | |
is value for the taxpayer, for example in education, children with | :04:05. | :04:14. | |
CIs are going into the mainstream sector. We have a generation going | :04:15. | :04:18. | |
through higher education and this not only means better employment | :04:19. | :04:22. | |
prospects but also more people paying more tax. Adults who go deaf | :04:23. | :04:27. | |
can expect better health outcomes with CIs. Deafness is associated | :04:28. | :04:32. | |
with illness and unemployment and studies in the USA and France have | :04:33. | :04:38. | |
shown improvement and reduction in dementia in the elderly. It says | :04:39. | :04:43. | |
they are spending ?13 billion on dementia and Professor concludes | :04:44. | :04:48. | |
with the recommendation. The ear foundation has produced a document | :04:49. | :04:54. | |
improving access to cochlear implantation change lives and save | :04:55. | :05:01. | |
society money. It recommends among other things that Nice urgently | :05:02. | :05:08. | |
conducts a formal review of its current guidance on cochlear | :05:09. | :05:13. | |
implants, to lowering the threshold for candidates, any cost benefit | :05:14. | :05:19. | |
analysis done should ensure real-world benefits are taken into | :05:20. | :05:24. | |
account including in social care, and a screen for a candidacy for | :05:25. | :05:30. | |
cochlear implants should be the interview team audiological | :05:31. | :05:33. | |
appointments. Action on hearing loss rights, more adults could benefit | :05:34. | :05:38. | |
from cochlear implantation than are currently doing so. Nice should | :05:39. | :05:43. | |
review and update its current cadence on cochlear implantation, | :05:44. | :05:47. | |
they also say 74% of children who could benefit from cochlear | :05:48. | :05:55. | |
implantation aged up to three, have not received them, increasing to 94% | :05:56. | :06:01. | |
by the time the age 17. The compatible figure for adults is only | :06:02. | :06:06. | |
around 5%, and I am sure the Minister is aware of that. Research | :06:07. | :06:12. | |
is underway to see whether the sentence tests could be excluding | :06:13. | :06:16. | |
adults who would benefit. The document recommends reviewing | :06:17. | :06:21. | |
guidelines and raising awareness of the benefits of cochlear | :06:22. | :06:25. | |
implantation amongst the public and professionals, and finally Brian | :06:26. | :06:34. | |
Lamb, writes, hearing loss is one of the most challenging health and | :06:35. | :06:37. | |
social issues facing the UK. Those with hearing loss have higher rates | :06:38. | :06:43. | |
of unemployment and underemployment. Hearing loss is associated with | :06:44. | :06:46. | |
risks of developing dementia, and those with severe hearing loss have | :06:47. | :06:51. | |
five times the risk of developing dementia than those with normal | :06:52. | :06:55. | |
hearing. I refer back to the billions that they are spending on | :06:56. | :06:59. | |
dementia. An older age people with hearing loss are at greater risk of | :07:00. | :07:04. | |
social isolation and reduced mental well-being yet we have never had it | :07:05. | :07:08. | |
solutions to addressing hearing loss. They go on to see hearing aids | :07:09. | :07:15. | |
can make a huge difference to the majority of people but for those who | :07:16. | :07:20. | |
are severely or profoundly deaf cochlear implantation offers the | :07:21. | :07:23. | |
main way of healing spoken language again. We now have world leading | :07:24. | :07:30. | |
technology in cochlear implants to address hearing loss but more people | :07:31. | :07:34. | |
could benefit from this transformative technology than | :07:35. | :07:39. | |
currently do. It goes on, there are an estimated 100,000 people with | :07:40. | :07:44. | |
profound hearing loss, and 360,000, with severe hearing loss, who might | :07:45. | :07:48. | |
benefit from implantation at any one time. Yet as I have said before, and | :07:49. | :07:57. | |
the Minister is where, only 5% receive CIs. The UK is currently one | :07:58. | :08:01. | |
of the most restrictive tests across Europe. In this country it is not | :08:02. | :08:07. | |
until hearing losses over 90 decibel is that people qualify, where in | :08:08. | :08:12. | |
Europe the majority of clinics use the measure of 75-80. They also use | :08:13. | :08:18. | |
a word test which is no longer fit for purpose. According to reviewed | :08:19. | :08:24. | |
by experts in the field they concluded, use of this measure alone | :08:25. | :08:28. | |
the to assess hearing function has become inappropriate, as the | :08:29. | :08:31. | |
assessment is not suitable for use with the diverse range of implant | :08:32. | :08:36. | |
candidates we have today. The guidelines have been in place since | :08:37. | :08:41. | |
2009 and not reviewed since 2011. The action plan on here and gloss | :08:42. | :08:45. | |
published by the Department of Health and NHS England in 2015 made | :08:46. | :08:50. | |
clear that there should be timely access to specialist services when | :08:51. | :08:54. | |
required, including assessment for cochlear implants. That action plan | :08:55. | :09:01. | |
was widely welcomed twin published and I and others commended the | :09:02. | :09:05. | |
Department, officials and ministers at the time, but much of it seems to | :09:06. | :09:11. | |
be being ignored by a number of commissioning groups, and some are | :09:12. | :09:14. | |
following policies in contradiction to the plan. The request is for more | :09:15. | :09:19. | |
research into the links between hearing loss and dementia and mental | :09:20. | :09:23. | |
health issues and in conclusion the right, the NHS has been a leader on | :09:24. | :09:28. | |
cochlear technology, and helped transform many peoples lives, the | :09:29. | :09:33. | |
Nice guidance was well come when produced in 2009, but we are now | :09:34. | :09:38. | |
falling behind the access available in many developed countries. It is | :09:39. | :09:42. | |
our health and social care services which will be the cost of not | :09:43. | :09:46. | |
intervening early for those who could benefit. Mr Deputy Speaker, as | :09:47. | :09:52. | |
you know, I where to hearing aids, primarily because of damage | :09:53. | :09:56. | |
sustained to my ears while in the Fire Service, but no added to by my | :09:57. | :10:02. | |
age, I am one of the 11 million people in the UK suffering from | :10:03. | :10:05. | |
hearing loss, one in six of the population. I know that despite the | :10:06. | :10:13. | |
annoyance of asking people to repeat, and the use of the loop | :10:14. | :10:21. | |
system, and I still rely on my hearing aids because they worked for | :10:22. | :10:26. | |
me despite sometimes limitations. But I have listed the problems for | :10:27. | :10:30. | |
people suffering profound hearing loss, which are much more serious, | :10:31. | :10:32. | |
and we can do something about. stop we have the technology and it | :10:33. | :10:41. | |
is not a matter of course because it should save money, it should save | :10:42. | :10:46. | |
the NHS and the tax payer money, as well as allowing profound hearing | :10:47. | :10:49. | |
loss sufferers to live more complete and productive lives. | :10:50. | :10:54. | |
If I make a main conclusion, returned to the e-mails of my | :10:55. | :10:57. | |
constituents and those of my honourable and right honourable | :10:58. | :11:01. | |
colleagues. Lemina passes the pure tone threshold for Cochlear implant | :11:02. | :11:07. | |
but had to take the speech recognition test in watcher regarded | :11:08. | :11:10. | |
as a ridiculously false at the sphere of the soundproof booth with | :11:11. | :11:15. | |
very simplistic sentences in an environment totally different from | :11:16. | :11:18. | |
real conversation or the normal outside world. She is, in her own | :11:19. | :11:23. | |
words, two deaths to hear but not deaf enough for an implant. Robert | :11:24. | :11:29. | |
Chi, the constituent of the honourable gentleman from Daventry | :11:30. | :11:32. | |
writes similarly, and gives us more details about what it is. He says | :11:33. | :11:37. | |
just to give you some benchmarks, 60 DBE equates to the volume of | :11:38. | :11:42. | |
conversation in a restaurant, 70 is twice that volume, equivalent to | :11:43. | :11:52. | |
busy traffic, 80 db is four times that, an alarm system, 90 db is | :11:53. | :11:57. | |
eight times in similar to factory machinery. He refers to the sentence | :11:58. | :12:01. | |
comprehension test, a candidate qualifies if they can only hear with | :12:02. | :12:04. | |
hearing aids fitted and repeated less than 50% of the sentences | :12:05. | :12:10. | |
played over speakers. The problem is that the test is conducted in a | :12:11. | :12:15. | |
soundproof booth with the sentences played at 70 decibel 's, double the | :12:16. | :12:19. | |
volume level of Stander conversation. This test does not | :12:20. | :12:25. | |
represent a reality at all. -- standard conversation. Mrs Diane | :12:26. | :12:29. | |
Matthews started the petition to ask Nice for review. She writes, I | :12:30. | :12:34. | |
started a petition for Nice to revise their Cochlear implant tests | :12:35. | :12:38. | |
after refusal again in January this year. The tests are in the | :12:39. | :12:46. | |
soundproof room at a sound intensity of 70 db. Whilst I understand there | :12:47. | :12:49. | |
have to be set parameters this does not mirror the real world. There | :12:50. | :12:52. | |
should be a test with background noise and sentences should be | :12:53. | :12:55. | |
comparable with adult conversation. Cochlear implant is life changing | :12:56. | :13:00. | |
and whilst it is not a cure, it is the best option. To know there is | :13:01. | :13:05. | |
something to help and be denied is heartbreaking when you want to work | :13:06. | :13:10. | |
and contribute to society. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that Nice will | :13:11. | :13:15. | |
accept the requests from individual patients, professional clinicians | :13:16. | :13:18. | |
and campaign organisations and I hope the minister in his response | :13:19. | :13:23. | |
can articulate something by way of support or at least acceptance and | :13:24. | :13:30. | |
understanding that there a major issue, and I will obviously right to | :13:31. | :13:33. | |
Nice directly at the same time. We have a solution, at worst it is cost | :13:34. | :13:38. | |
neutral and in reality it offers huge cost benefits in terms of | :13:39. | :13:42. | |
productivity, economic Lee and in human well-being, and I look forward | :13:43. | :13:44. | |
to hearing the response from the Minister. | :13:45. | :13:50. | |
I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I congratulate the member for Poplar | :13:51. | :13:55. | |
and Limehouse," in obtaining this debate on an important subject. The | :13:56. | :14:00. | |
whole issue of profound hearing loss is important and the issues are | :14:01. | :14:04. | |
substantial, I will address them. Also to congratulate him for his | :14:05. | :14:09. | |
work on the APPG for deafness and the awareness he is giving to this | :14:10. | :14:14. | |
major issue. Carriles congratulates of those who e-mailed stories to him | :14:15. | :14:18. | |
that he has used in this debate, particularly Diane Matthews and the | :14:19. | :14:22. | |
petition, which is also important in terms of getting awareness of an | :14:23. | :14:28. | |
important issue. He has raised, I guess, two issues of substance here, | :14:29. | :14:33. | |
one is around Nice and the tests that they do, particularly whether | :14:34. | :14:38. | |
or not the be Kebe test is appropriate, and also whether the | :14:39. | :14:45. | |
threshold is appropriate in terms of 90 kb, as opposed to what is used in | :14:46. | :14:49. | |
other parts of the world. I will not instruct Nice on what to do but I | :14:50. | :14:52. | |
will come back to them and their guidance. It is a particularly put a | :14:53. | :14:58. | |
piece of guidance, their guidance is technical and because of that it | :14:59. | :15:02. | |
means it is compulsory, unlike other Nice guidance which is just for | :15:03. | :15:05. | |
consideration. It is important we get that right, I will come to that. | :15:06. | :15:10. | |
The second issue is awareness amongst commissioners, he mentioned | :15:11. | :15:14. | |
the action plan not being implemented as effectively as | :15:15. | :15:17. | |
perhaps it should be, I will also talk to that. In doing so I am | :15:18. | :15:24. | |
informed amongst other things by the extremely good paper that The Ear | :15:25. | :15:28. | |
Foundation put out in October last year on improving access, also a | :15:29. | :15:33. | |
paper written by Brian Lamb, I think the University of Derby, in terms of | :15:34. | :15:38. | |
better assessment of the Cochlear implants. I thought both pieces were | :15:39. | :15:42. | |
very good work that I would not have it not been in preparing for this | :15:43. | :15:46. | |
debate, so we have achieved that, at least. In terms of the nature of the | :15:47. | :15:50. | |
problem we know there is something like 700,000 adults in our country | :15:51. | :15:56. | |
with severe or profound deafness. 80% of those are over retirement | :15:57. | :16:01. | |
age, that is a demographic that is increasing, so this issue is | :16:02. | :16:05. | |
increasing. It is important that we get it right. Also in terms of | :16:06. | :16:10. | |
children, we know that something like around 372 400 children are | :16:11. | :16:13. | |
born each year with profound deafness. -- 370 two 400 children. | :16:14. | :16:22. | |
This technology can be a life changer for children and adults in | :16:23. | :16:25. | |
terms about. As the member for Poplar told us, unless we get this | :16:26. | :16:32. | |
right, employability is affected, he mentioned the tax base, it is | :16:33. | :16:37. | |
important also to different reasons. Mental health is affected. People | :16:38. | :16:41. | |
with hearing loss have something like five times the likelihood of | :16:42. | :16:46. | |
contracting dementia as the rest of us, that is a very sobering | :16:47. | :16:51. | |
statistic. Of course the Rugby increased risk of isolation and all | :16:52. | :16:54. | |
of that, as the member for Poplar said, means more reliance on the | :16:55. | :16:59. | |
health system, the NHS and the social care systems and a number of | :17:00. | :17:03. | |
the papers that that out. There was a World Health Organisation paper | :17:04. | :17:06. | |
that spoke in a lot of detail about that. Let me describe, if you like, | :17:07. | :17:12. | |
the response to this and how the system ought to be working. Mr | :17:13. | :17:16. | |
Deputy Speaker, Cochlear implants are commissioned by the specialist | :17:17. | :17:21. | |
commissioning part of the NHS through 17 specialist centres across | :17:22. | :17:26. | |
the country. Typically there is effectively a 2-tier approach, the | :17:27. | :17:30. | |
CCG should do a general assessment, and then send the individual for | :17:31. | :17:33. | |
further assessment for the sorts of tests we have spoken about. Then, if | :17:34. | :17:39. | |
appropriate, on to an implant and the rehabilitation and the | :17:40. | :17:42. | |
maintenance work that it would follow on from that. Roughly | :17:43. | :17:49. | |
speaking, in our country, we do 1100 to 1200 of these implants each year, | :17:50. | :17:54. | |
probably split 60% to adults, 40% for children. That figure has been | :17:55. | :18:02. | |
fairly static over the last five to six years. The Nice guidance which, | :18:03. | :18:09. | |
in a way, drives that number, was last done in 2009, updated in 2011. | :18:10. | :18:18. | |
As the member for Poplar said, this technology is moving fairly quickly | :18:19. | :18:20. | |
and the question that we are addressing today is the extent to | :18:21. | :18:23. | |
which the guidance is still appropriate. In terms of response, | :18:24. | :18:30. | |
as the members said there is an action plan and hearing loss which | :18:31. | :18:35. | |
came out in 2015 which set out in Saint detail what best practices | :18:36. | :18:39. | |
should be being followed in the CCGs, the first point of contact in | :18:40. | :18:43. | |
terms of prevention, early diagnosis, patient centre management | :18:44. | :18:48. | |
and commissioning framework which came out after the action plan which | :18:49. | :18:53. | |
set out the requirement for consistency and the removal of the | :18:54. | :18:56. | |
inequalities of access that we have heard about. If I could read from | :18:57. | :19:00. | |
that it says that there are clearly defined referral arrangements such | :19:01. | :19:06. | |
as timely access to cochlear devices when required. The devil is in the | :19:07. | :19:10. | |
detail and the word when required as when we get into some of the issues. | :19:11. | :19:14. | |
The work following on from that, we can't work on a joint needs | :19:15. | :19:19. | |
assessment toolkit and what works guidance with case studies which | :19:20. | :19:22. | |
should help to get awareness and knowledge of all of this with | :19:23. | :19:27. | |
commissioners both at CCG Lovell and more generally. The problem that | :19:28. | :19:32. | |
still exists, it is the one we are really debating today, in spite of | :19:33. | :19:37. | |
all that there is evidence of under utilisation of this technology, | :19:38. | :19:40. | |
given its life changing characteristics. That evidence is | :19:41. | :19:44. | |
particularly to be seen amongst the adult population. I think the member | :19:45. | :19:47. | |
talked about 5% of adults that could benefit from it, my figure is 7%, | :19:48. | :19:53. | |
that is not a point we will quibble about. With children, the uptake | :19:54. | :19:59. | |
seems to be much higher, 74% of children under the age of three have | :20:00. | :20:05. | |
access to this or have this, 94% of children under the age of 17. That | :20:06. | :20:11. | |
takes us to a feeling that perhaps commissioners do not always regard | :20:12. | :20:16. | |
this, when an older person goes with hearing loss, as an appropriate | :20:17. | :20:20. | |
solution in the same way that they might with a child. In a sense, age | :20:21. | :20:26. | |
discrimination, I suppose. In international comparators, the paper | :20:27. | :20:31. | |
from the Ear Foundation talked about the US, Germany and Australia being | :20:32. | :20:37. | |
stronger users of this than we are, that is true. It is not quite as | :20:38. | :20:40. | |
clear that we are behind the field quite as badly as it might have | :20:41. | :20:47. | |
implied, I have looked at some more details numbers across Europe, we | :20:48. | :20:51. | |
are stronger than Luxembourg, Belgium and others, but I think it | :20:52. | :20:55. | |
is better to say that at very best we are at the third quartile of | :20:56. | :21:01. | |
this. Room for improvement. That brings us to the whole issue of | :21:02. | :21:06. | |
the Nice guidance, the crux of the point that the member for Poplar | :21:07. | :21:10. | |
raised and also what the Ear Foundation talked about. The first | :21:11. | :21:14. | |
thing I would say is that I don't tell Nice what to do, politicians | :21:15. | :21:19. | |
don't influence what is a technical and scientific evaluation. But I | :21:20. | :21:26. | |
think it is fair to say that we understand that that guidance has | :21:27. | :21:33. | |
not been updated now since 2011. There have been set of really quite | :21:34. | :21:37. | |
rapid changes to the technology here. Better surgical procedures as | :21:38. | :21:42. | |
well, and more evidence of the cost effectiveness. I'm very pleased to | :21:43. | :21:46. | |
say, you did not mention this in his speech but it is a fact, add nothing | :21:47. | :21:50. | |
to do with anything I have done, that Nice are currently reviewing | :21:51. | :21:54. | |
their guidance. That review is due to complete in the summer of 2017. | :21:55. | :22:02. | |
Part of the review, they will look at all new evidence out there, | :22:03. | :22:06. | |
including the work of the Ear Foundation, the world Health | :22:07. | :22:09. | |
Organisation and, indeed, Brian Lamb plus my paper. I will also see to it | :22:10. | :22:16. | |
that the issues raised in this debate, both his remarks and mine, | :22:17. | :22:21. | |
go to Nice as part of the process, so they are under no illusion as to | :22:22. | :22:24. | |
the fact that Parliament has considered this. I know we are | :22:25. | :22:28. | |
extremely keen that they come to the right answer. It is for them to | :22:29. | :22:33. | |
decide whether the test is right or not, for them to decide whether or | :22:34. | :22:41. | |
not 75 kilohertz is the right measure to use. I think the good | :22:42. | :22:45. | |
news from a point of view of this debate is that process is happening | :22:46. | :22:49. | |
and it is due to complete in the summer of 2017. I will touch briefly | :22:50. | :22:56. | |
on the issue, I guess, GP awareness. He mentioned the action plan. I | :22:57. | :23:00. | |
think there is probably an issue when you look at those figures for | :23:01. | :23:03. | |
children and adults as to whether or there is a reluctance to | :23:04. | :23:09. | |
commissioned this for older people, just because it is not regarded as a | :23:10. | :23:13. | |
natural thing to do if you have lost your hearing in your 80s, your 70s | :23:14. | :23:19. | |
or whatever. There is no pressure on the Government for that to happen, | :23:20. | :23:22. | |
indeed it should not. The action that we will take on that is that we | :23:23. | :23:29. | |
do work with health education England and others on GP training | :23:30. | :23:32. | |
and those types of matters, again this issue and the fact that | :23:33. | :23:36. | |
cochlear implants can make such a radical difference to people's | :23:37. | :23:40. | |
lives, we will make sure that is emphasised with the GPs as part of | :23:41. | :23:44. | |
that process. In any event I would say that when the new Nice guidance | :23:45. | :23:50. | |
comes out, particularly technological, that in itself is | :23:51. | :23:54. | |
likely to create quite a bit of impetus about getting that knowledge | :23:55. | :23:58. | |
out to the CCGs, the specialist centres and therefore the people | :23:59. | :24:05. | |
that make the decisions. I finish by just thanking the member for Poplar | :24:06. | :24:11. | |
again for raising this important debate, I have not discussed | :24:12. | :24:13. | |
deafness in a debate in this chamber since I have been a minister. | :24:14. | :24:22. | |
Subtitles will resume on 'This Week In Parliament' at 2300. | :24:23. | :24:30. |