26/01/2018 House of Lords


26/01/2018

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/01/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Second reading of the Conscientious

Objection (Medical Activities) Bill.

0:03:260:03:32

My Lords, I beg to move that this

bill now be read a second time. This

0:03:320:03:37

bill is designed to afford

protection to those in health care

0:03:370:03:40

who object on grounds of conscience

to being asked to participate in end

0:03:400:03:45

of life treatment. It's about a

human rights, the right to freedom

0:03:450:03:50

of belief, religion and conscience.

There have always been those who

0:03:500:03:53

when faced with a call to

participate or engage in the end of

0:03:530:03:57

life, object to so doing.

Conscientious objection was those

0:03:570:04:02

provided for in 1757 in the United

Kingdom. If we think back 100 years

0:04:020:04:07

ago on this day, a la country was at

war, the world was at war. But even

0:04:070:04:12

at this most parlous time, 16,000

men were excused from constriction

0:04:120:04:16

to military service on grounds of

conscience. Some, such as Quakers,

0:04:160:04:26

because of religious beliefs. Others

such as radical socialists because

0:04:260:04:28

of political principle. During World

War II we accommodated 60,000

0:04:280:04:33

registered conscientious objectors,

not easy for them, maybe some would

0:04:330:04:36

say not easy for others who fought.

It was not simple but, my Lords, it

0:04:360:04:40

was possible to accommodate

conscientious objection. The United

0:04:400:04:47

Kingdom therefore has a long and

proud record of recognition of

0:04:470:04:50

rights of conscience and respect for

conscience. It is a principle

0:04:500:04:55

recognised in international law as

well as in domestic legislation. The

0:04:550:05:01

European Court of Human Rights in

2011 interpreted the article nine

0:05:010:05:04

right to freedom to manifest

believed to include conscientious

0:05:040:05:09

objection and overturned the

conviction of an Armenian Jehovah's

0:05:090:05:12

Witness to his refusal to perform

military service at a time when

0:05:120:05:15

there was no other option available

to him.

0:05:150:05:19

As respect for conscience applies to

those who refuse to participate in

0:05:190:05:22

the taking of life in the war, so it

has been applied to those who refuse

0:05:220:05:26

to be involved in what they see as

the taking of life through health

0:05:260:05:31

care practice. My Lords, in 1967

when the UK legislated to

0:05:310:05:36

decriminalise abortion in certain

circumstances, provision was made to

0:05:360:05:41

conscientious objection because it

was understood that what was being

0:05:410:05:43

made legal was regarded by some as

the taking of life. Were it not so,

0:05:430:05:50

there would have been no need for

protection of conscience. And in

0:05:500:05:56

1990 when the human fertilisation

and the act was passed, there was

0:05:560:05:59

again limited provision for

conscientious objection. -- the

0:05:590:06:05

human fertilisation and embryology

act. Whenever Assisted Dying Bill is

0:06:050:06:08

being discussed, there has been

provision for conscientious

0:06:080:06:12

objection. Where conscientious

objection is permitted, it is not

0:06:120:06:16

absolute. Medical practitioners must

assess to save lives, prevent grave

0:06:160:06:21

or complex injury. It is a complex

peeled. Some have statutory rights,

0:06:210:06:26

some like GPs have contractual

rights not to engage, but it is

0:06:260:06:30

contractual and not statutory and

some have no rights at all.

0:06:300:06:33

Why does it matter anyway, my Lords?

Professor Dan Brock, a leading

0:06:330:06:40

bioethicist at Harvard, describes

conscience as the basis of an

0:06:400:06:44

individual's moral integrity. Saying

it defines who, at least morally

0:06:440:06:48

speaking, the person is. Maintaining

moral integrity, he asserts,

0:06:480:06:57

requires a person does not violate

their moral commitments and that is

0:06:570:07:00

why, my lord, we allow conscientious

objection in health care so that

0:07:000:07:02

people can maintain moral integrity,

without which major health and other

0:07:020:07:06

problems will almost inevitably

emerge. Through conscience, we each

0:07:060:07:10

decide whether an action is right or

wrong. Conscience is fundamental to

0:07:100:07:18

moral agency and it is a proper

feature of all areas of human

0:07:180:07:24

endeavour, including professional

practice. The provision of medical

0:07:240:07:27

services is never value free. Health

care practitioners make moral

0:07:270:07:33

judgments all day every day. Very

often very difficult judgments. In

0:07:330:07:38

2010 when the equality act was

passed, freedom of religion or

0:07:380:07:45

belief was awarded protected

characteristic status. Like six, age

0:07:450:07:50

and disability. And, my Lords,

protection from discrimination, from

0:07:500:07:55

exclusion on grounds of religion or

belief, is provided for in section

0:07:550:07:58

13 of that act which defines

religion and belief as any religious

0:07:580:08:02

or philosophical belief and says a

reference to belief includes a lack

0:08:020:08:08

of belief. Conscious, my lord, is

not the preserve of the religious --

0:08:080:08:13

conscience, my lord. Those who think

it is wrong to end human rights do

0:08:130:08:18

so for many reasons, scientific,

philosophical, religious and other

0:08:180:08:22

beliefs. The right to conscientious

objection exists as a protection for

0:08:220:08:26

medical professionals from the moral

injury of being involved in actions

0:08:260:08:29

which they believe destroy life. It

exists too for the protection of

0:08:290:08:35

patients, who can believe that the

professional looking them can act in

0:08:350:08:38

accord with their conscience.

Conscientious objection, my Lords,

0:08:380:08:43

operates at the margin of medical

treatment, where the duty to do no

0:08:430:08:47

harm moves to accommodate positive

action to life. It is not just

0:08:470:08:52

domestic law which recognises the

right of conscientious objection.

0:08:520:08:56

The Council of Europe's

parliamentary assembly adopted

0:08:560:09:02

resolution 1763 affirming the right

of conscientious objection for

0:09:020:09:04

medical professions. The resolution

states no person, hospital or

0:09:040:09:10

institution shall be coerced, held

liable or discriminated against in

0:09:100:09:14

any way because they refusal to

perform, accommodate, assist or

0:09:140:09:18

submit to an abortion. It is

non-binding but its rear forms the

0:09:180:09:23

normative understanding of freedom

of conscience.

0:09:230:09:26

Society has changed. The law has

been interpreted differently in the

0:09:260:09:29

United Kingdom. In 2014 the case of

Greater Glasgow health board was

0:09:290:09:36

heard by the Supreme Court. In this

case, Team Gresini midwives

0:09:360:09:41

conscientiously objected to having

delegate tasks to supervise or to

0:09:410:09:45

support those directly involved in

abortion. -- in this case, two

0:09:450:09:50

midwives. They were able to exercise

this right of conscientious

0:09:500:09:56

objection for their whole careers

until Alan Malcolm -- until an

0:09:560:10:00

amalgamation of hospitals led to

them being able to do this work.

0:10:000:10:03

Ultimately they could not in

conscience have any role in the

0:10:030:10:07

provision of abortion. They,

skilled, compassionate, experienced

0:10:070:10:11

midwives, were unable to continue to

serve as midwives, doing what they

0:10:110:10:15

had in all of their professional

lives, helping women through the

0:10:150:10:19

sometimes difficult process of

carrying and bearing a child.

0:10:190:10:23

I know that that is difficult,

anybody who has carried a child

0:10:230:10:27

knows the sensitivities attached to

it, and those good women were lost

0:10:270:10:32

in the profession because the

Supreme Court decided that indirect

0:10:320:10:34

routes taken by nurses and midwives

were excluded from protection under

0:10:340:10:39

section four of the Abortion Act.

My Lords, it simpler, be consistent

0:10:390:10:44

with conscience to say I cannot do

this, but I will order you to do it.

0:10:440:10:49

If one delegate, supervisors or

support some activity, then one is

0:10:490:10:52

not unreasonable in concluding that

one shares moral responsibility for

0:10:520:10:57

what happens.

There is a lot of evidence that

0:10:570:11:02

medical professionals are suffering

serious disadvantage and

0:11:020:11:04

discrimination for their beliefs. A

2016 at cross-party inquiry into

0:11:040:11:11

freedom of conscience in abortion

provision specifically received many

0:11:110:11:16

accounts by medical professionals

who have experienced discrimination

0:11:160:11:18

during their worklife due to their

beliefs. I have heard so many

0:11:180:11:23

stories of young doctors and nurses

contemplating their future who have

0:11:230:11:27

decided that although they would

dearly love to be involved in

0:11:270:11:32

obstetrics and gynaecology, even

though they are energised and feel

0:11:320:11:34

vocationally called to the medicine

of helping women through conception

0:11:340:11:38

and childbirth, nevertheless they

cannot do it because they could not

0:11:380:11:42

in conscience: unborn child. That is

why I have introduced this bill, it

0:11:420:11:50

aims to seek as a matter of statute

that nobody should be under any duty

0:11:500:11:54

to participate in activities they

believe involve resuming -- the

0:11:540:11:58

taking of human life, either in the

withdrawal of life-sustaining

0:11:580:12:02

treatment or any activity authorised

by the 19671990 acts. Such a reform

0:12:020:12:09

would re-establish legal protection

for medical conscientious objectors

0:12:090:12:14

and reaffirmed the rights of health

care workers. It would give reality

0:12:140:12:17

to the protections afforded in the

act. There is a serious shortage of

0:12:170:12:22

health care professionals, we are

having to bring doctors and nurses

0:12:220:12:25

from abroad. We spent £100 million

bringing 3000 GPs from other

0:12:250:12:30

countries this year. We are short of

3500 midwives and we spend,

0:12:300:12:35

according to the Royal College of

Midwives, nearly 100 million for

0:12:350:12:38

agency nurses. It is a problem. Many

young doctors, midwives and other

0:12:380:12:42

health care professionals are

leaving the UK. Many reasons for

0:12:420:12:50

this, one of them is that those who

labour at the coal face cannot

0:12:500:12:53

engage with certain activities. We

invest in their training, we need

0:12:530:12:55

their skills, it is time to

accommodate them. I emphasise again

0:12:550:12:59

that this bill is not about reducing

access to the termination of

0:12:590:13:03

pregnancy or the withdrawal of

life-sustaining treatment. It would

0:13:030:13:07

simply mean that health care workers

of many different kinds in

0:13:070:13:10

registering their objections to the

procedures defined in to the bill

0:13:100:13:15

must be reasonably accommodated by

those managing them so that they may

0:13:150:13:18

work without involvement in those

areas. My Lords, 60% of abortions

0:13:180:13:26

are religious and the provider by

private companies. 2% privately

0:13:260:13:30

funded. 30% take place in NHS

hospitals, alongside all the other

0:13:300:13:37

obstetric and biological procedures.

92% of abortions in 2016, 100

0:13:370:13:43

70,000, were carried out at under 30

weeks gestation. Increasingly

0:13:430:13:47

medical abortions involving the use

of medication. That gives rise to be

0:13:470:13:51

necessary to protect rights of

conscience above GPs and pharmacists

0:13:510:13:54

-- were carried out at under 13

weeks gestation.

0:13:540:14:04

Rather than forcing staff are other

reasons to engage in proceedings

0:14:040:14:08

which those staff simply, for

reasons of conscience cannot do.

0:14:080:14:12

Reasonable accommodation my Lords is

a matter of liberty and equality of

0:14:120:14:19

individual freedom and social

inclusion. That is why I believe

0:14:190:14:23

this is important and timely

legislation. I have heard that there

0:14:230:14:27

is widespread support for this bill.

I know it has attracted support from

0:14:270:14:31

all sides of this House and from the

Commons, but I hope that in moving

0:14:310:14:36

and through second reading, we will

enhance the quality of the service

0:14:360:14:39

provided to all our people and the

environment in which health care

0:14:390:14:43

professionals work. I beg to move.

The question is that this bilby

0:14:430:14:49

ready second time?

-- the question

is that this bill be ready second

0:14:490:14:58

time.

I really do not believe that

there are lots of professionals in

0:14:580:15:07

this country that feel that their

rights are insufficiently

0:15:070:15:11

represented by the current law. The

existing provisions for health care

0:15:110:15:14

professionals to reject on the

grounds of conscience in certain

0:15:140:15:17

well-defined circumstances is

currently sensible and balanced, and

0:15:170:15:22

this bill is both unnecessary and

potentially dangerous. Now, I very

0:15:220:15:27

much respect the concerns of health

care professionals to decline to

0:15:270:15:31

participate in a hands-on capacity

in specific medical activities. For'

0:15:310:15:37

reasons, firstly, because they have

that right to act in line with the

0:15:370:15:42

police. But for a second reason,

because in these often complicated

0:15:420:15:49

and vulnerable situations, where

patients themselves have had to make

0:15:490:15:52

really difficult decisions about

abortion, about IVF, about end of

0:15:520:15:58

life care, those patients deserve to

be treated by professionals who

0:15:580:16:05

respect the treatment decisions. And

so it is really important that

0:16:050:16:08

health care professionals have a

proper right to conscientiously

0:16:080:16:11

object. I believe this is allowed

for in the current legislation and

0:16:110:16:18

in the guidance issued by the

General medical Council the Nursing

0:16:180:16:23

and Midwifery Council and under

current employment law and under the

0:16:230:16:25

Human Rights Act. But patients have

very important rights as well and

0:16:250:16:30

this bill would threaten the very

principle of respect for the wishes

0:16:300:16:34

of the patient and the right to

exercise choice. This must not

0:16:340:16:37

happen. If I was to be brutal, the

bill to be seen as a tactic, to

0:16:370:16:43

allow campaigning health care

professionals to undermine the get

0:16:430:16:47

it and indeed vital patients

choices, and I would like to focus

0:16:470:16:51

on three areas. Firstly, employment

law. The bill has provisions for the

0:16:510:16:56

employer not to discriminate against

or victimise an employees for

0:16:560:17:00

involving, invoking conscientious

objection and in terms of their

0:17:000:17:06

employment, the opportunities for

promotion of transfer and training,

0:17:060:17:11

dismissal by subjecting individuals

to any other directorate. Now, that

0:17:110:17:13

looks great. Motherhood and apple

pie. But it is very unnecessary

0:17:130:17:21

because the existing legislation

defends the rights of employees in

0:17:210:17:27

the circumstances already and I

believe that we only hear of a very

0:17:270:17:31

few cases that have come to law,

where individuals appear to have

0:17:310:17:34

been discriminated against because

there are comparatively few cases. I

0:17:340:17:42

believe that a change of provisions

in the bill have the potential to

0:17:420:17:47

undermine the occupational

requirement exemption under the

0:17:470:17:53

equality act of 2010, which allows,

for example, an oncology hospital

0:17:530:18:00

ward not to employ a part of Ciaran

Norris under the conscientious

0:18:000:18:03

objection for caring for patients

whose life-saving treatment is by

0:18:030:18:08

agreement with the patient and

family Ron. The provisions in the

0:18:080:18:12

bill to extend the right of

objection by health care

0:18:120:18:14

professionals to activities required

to delegate or prepare for support

0:18:140:18:20

such activities which are subject to

the bill, would make this rest even

0:18:200:18:24

worse, and that we could see a

situation where a range of health

0:18:240:18:28

care professionals dotted across the

health care system and the care

0:18:280:18:33

pathway, in delegating and revising

and planning entire aspects of

0:18:330:18:35

health care and exercising the

conscience, could make it impossible

0:18:350:18:41

for the patients to achieve their

rights and the employer would have

0:18:410:18:43

no ability to prevent that. The

second point I would like to raise

0:18:430:18:48

is that the bill makes no obligation

on the individual to refer the

0:18:480:18:54

patient for the care that they need

and are entitled to. Some patients

0:18:540:19:00

who are less informed about their

entitlements, more vulnerable

0:19:000:19:03

patients, could simply failed to

secure a service that they should

0:19:030:19:05

have received, this inequity is

unacceptable. The third issue I

0:19:050:19:10

would like to cover its scope,

extending the scope of conscientious

0:19:100:19:13

objection puts us on a path towards

a living professionals to opt out of

0:19:130:19:18

providing even the basic end life

care. It elevates the important

0:19:180:19:25

personal beliefs of a health care

professional up to the patient, it

0:19:250:19:29

puts the needs and the wishes of the

patient at last, it is the very

0:19:290:19:34

opposite of patient centred care. We

know that 60% of Britons want more

0:19:340:19:39

control over decisions about their

health. The source global trends

0:19:390:19:44

survey in 2017 showed that very

clearly. We know that 82% of UK

0:19:440:19:49

citizens do not want doctors to make

decisions about end of life

0:19:490:19:52

treatment on their behalf. And the

Royal College of physicians,

0:19:520:19:57

national institute for clinical

excellence, and the public Health

0:19:570:20:02

Service Ombudsman has recognised

that more must be done to support

0:20:020:20:04

and people, particularly to exercise

their right to make decisions that

0:20:040:20:08

are right for them. So I believe

that this bill is impractical. I

0:20:080:20:14

respect entirely the noble baroness,

Baroness O'Loan's concern about

0:20:140:20:19

health care professionals' ability

to put this into practice, but I

0:20:190:20:25

believe the balance between the

rights of the health care

0:20:250:20:27

professional and the rights of the

patient would be fatally skewed by

0:20:270:20:31

this bill. Just last week the US

administration announced plans for a

0:20:310:20:35

conscience and religious freedom

division within the Department of

0:20:350:20:38

Health and human and this, together

with new rules that would

0:20:380:20:42

dramatically expand the ability of

health care institutions and workers

0:20:420:20:46

to refuse to provide medical care on

the basis of conscientious

0:20:460:20:51

objection. We are not living in the

land of Donald Trump, our laws

0:20:510:20:57

rightly put the needs of patients at

the centre, that is what our health

0:20:570:21:00

care system is for. I would urge my

fellow peers to this bill.

Lost, I

0:21:000:21:06

am pleased to speak in support of

this bill. The issue raised by the

0:21:060:21:12

bill is simple. -- Lords. If someone

objects to abortion or assisted

0:21:120:21:17

dying on the grounds of conscience,

how far should we be entitled to opt

0:21:170:21:24

out? The issue is simple, but the

solution is difficult. The Supreme

0:21:240:21:31

Court held that as a matter of

construction, the conscience clause

0:21:310:21:34

provisions of the 1967 abortion act

should be interpreted narrowly, so

0:21:340:21:42

that Mary Dougan was not entitled to

refuse to help facilitate abortions

0:21:420:21:48

by organising other nurses for the

purpose of providing abortions. The

0:21:480:21:54

aim of this bill is to change the

wording so that freedom of

0:21:540:21:59

conscience will be able to be

invoked as a grounds for refusing to

0:21:590:22:04

do acts which are less directly

connected to the abortion itself

0:22:040:22:07

than is presently the case. I think

that is a good thing and I shall

0:22:070:22:13

endeavour to explain why. The first

reason why it is a good thing is

0:22:130:22:19

because a significant number of

dedicated health care professionals

0:22:190:22:25

have profound moral objections to

both abortion and assisted suicide.

0:22:250:22:31

The role of the state is not to sit

in judgment on this moral

0:22:310:22:38

objections, it is not the role of

the state to coerce people into

0:22:380:22:42

acting against their conscience.

Therefore, it is a good thing and a

0:22:420:22:48

reasonable thing that the state

should make conscientious objection

0:22:480:22:51

provision sufficiently broad to

excuse acts which genuinely found

0:22:510:22:57

the conscience. I think the state

should air on the side of respecting

0:22:570:23:07

conscience, rather than placing

valuable medical staff any position

0:23:070:23:11

and nursing staff as well any

position where they have to choose

0:23:110:23:16

on the location and the conscience.

My Lords, I have a number of friends

0:23:160:23:24

who when they were applying for

consultant posts in obstetrics would

0:23:240:23:29

be asked the question, "Are you

prepared to take your share of the

0:23:290:23:35

abortions?" And if they said yes,

they would be considered for the

0:23:350:23:39

appointment. If, on the other hand,

they said, "Yes, I am prepared to

0:23:390:23:44

take my share of abortions within

the 1967 act," they were not

0:23:440:23:53

considered for the consultant post

and many of them had to emigrate.

0:23:530:23:58

And they were very good clinicians

and it was a great loss. The second

0:23:580:24:03

reason I support this bill is

because there is no evidence

0:24:030:24:10

whatsoever that if this bill is

passed, it will detrimentally affect

0:24:100:24:13

anyone seeking an abortion. The

third reason I support the bill is

0:24:130:24:20

that it is both unwise and

unnecessary to force medics and

0:24:200:24:28

nurses to act against their

conscience in any sphere whatsoever.

0:24:280:24:33

If we train them to do that in one

sphere of work, we have only

0:24:330:24:39

ourselves to blame if they do that

in other aspects of their work. For

0:24:390:24:46

these reasons, I support this bill.

My Lords, I am only sorry to

0:24:460:24:52

disagree with my noble friend,

Baroness O'Loan, but I cannot

0:24:520:24:57

support this bill. Of course, all of

us will agree that a proper account

0:24:570:25:02

must be taken of a person's

conscientious objection to

0:25:020:25:06

participation in medical treatments,

which, they believe, friend against

0:25:060:25:09

the principle of the sanctity of

life, but what amounts to

0:25:090:25:14

participation, how we should the

statutory exemption go? The

0:25:140:25:20

treatments or non-treatments hair

under consideration to do with the

0:25:200:25:27

withdrawal of racist engagement to

fertility treatments and treatments

0:25:270:25:30

corrected to the termination of

pregnancies and it is about the last

0:25:300:25:35

of these, abortion, that I presently

want to focus, and in particular,

0:25:350:25:39

have only 2014 unanimous decision of

the Supreme Court. In her article,

0:25:390:25:48

and lastly's house Magazine, the

noble baroness said that the Supreme

0:25:480:25:54

Court interpreted participation in

the abortion act conscience clause

0:25:540:25:59

to mean only direct performance. All

right for surgeons, but must mean

0:25:590:26:08

that nurses and midwives who

conscientiously object to the

0:26:080:26:10

material involvement in enabling the

procedure were stripped off formal

0:26:100:26:16

statutory protections and a little

later in the article, she suggested

0:26:160:26:22

that are bill would, "Re-establish

legal protections for medical

0:26:220:26:26

conscientious objections and

reaffirm, of health care workers." I

0:26:260:26:33

must tell you, I profoundly disagree

with that analysis of the Mary

0:26:330:26:38

Dougan case and I will make three

basic points. Firstly, there is

0:26:380:26:41

simply no question of Mary Dougan

having changed the law on the rights

0:26:410:26:49

of conscientious objection in this

context, no question the four of the

0:26:490:26:52

day's bill re-establishing

reaffirming anything. The Supreme

0:26:520:26:58

Court, they were simply construing

section 4.1, the conscience clause

0:26:580:27:04

in the 1967 abortion act on the

ordinary principles of construction,

0:27:040:27:08

declining to give its either a

particular wide or a particularly

0:27:080:27:15

narrow meaning. And on this

construction they held the two

0:27:150:27:18

practitioners, as you have heard,

experienced midwives, employed as

0:27:180:27:25

labour ward coordinators were

exempted by the conscience clause

0:27:250:27:29

from many of the tasks involved in

that. Including any medical, nursing

0:27:290:27:35

care connected with the purpose of

undergoing labour and giving birth,

0:27:350:27:40

but they are not exempted from the

managerial and supervisory tasks,

0:27:400:27:46

which are carried out by hospital

ward coordinators, such as picking

0:27:460:27:52

patients into the hospital ward,

allocating staff to the patients on

0:27:520:27:59

the hospital ward, communicating

with other professionals, for

0:27:590:28:04

example, paging anaesthetists.

Baroness talks about very compelling

0:28:040:28:16

judgment, considered how the

conscience clause applies to each of

0:28:160:28:19

an agreed list of 13 specified

tasks, or set out in the judgment

0:28:190:28:27

and it is good but it is not the

same as reading the judgment. This

0:28:270:28:32

bill is, of course, designed to

overturn the judgment. See the end

0:28:320:28:37

of clause 1.2, and of course,

Parliament is entitled to change the

0:28:370:28:40

law to widen vary considerably, as

this would, the definition, the

0:28:400:28:47

approach to participation, what a

change it would be, but not the

0:28:470:28:55

restoration of Pavon's original

decision. My Lord's the second point

0:28:550:28:59

arising directly with these concerns

of article nine of the human rights

0:28:590:29:05

Convention, which also was dealt

with by the Supreme Court, as indeed

0:29:050:29:09

was the Equality Act 2010. With

regard to discrimination on grounds

0:29:090:29:13

of

0:29:130:29:19

Now, as to these principles, the

court recognised an employer's duty

0:29:190:29:23

to make reasonable adjustments to

the requirements of a job to cater

0:29:230:29:29

to religious beliefs. But it pointed

out that the extent of the duty is

0:29:290:29:33

context specific and it added that

to some extent this would release

0:29:330:29:39

depends on issues of practicability.

And the court said much better

0:29:390:29:44

resolve those in employment tribunal

proceedings in the context of a

0:29:440:29:49

particular case than by an overall

declaration of the law, in either

0:29:490:29:55

judicial review or, as I would

suggest, the present bill. My Lords,

0:29:550:30:01

the third point is this, the Royal

College of Midwives and the British

0:30:010:30:08

pregnancy advisory service both

intervened in the Supreme Court

0:30:080:30:13

proceedings and argued against the

petitioners that to give a broad

0:30:130:30:17

scope to the right of conscientious

objection would put at risk the

0:30:170:30:22

provision of a safe and accessible

abortion servers and furthermore

0:30:220:30:27

might encourage other employers to

adopt the policy of refusing to

0:30:270:30:32

employ anyone who has any

conscientious objection to abortion.

0:30:320:30:38

This would reduce the job

opportunities available for highly

0:30:380:30:43

skilled and experienced midwives,

perhaps with less -- with less

0:30:430:30:47

extensive objections than these

particular petitions. In short, the

0:30:470:30:52

bill I suggest takes altogether too

absolute and extreme a position and

0:30:520:30:58

it would be unwise to adopt it. I

add this finally, to invoke in

0:30:580:31:06

support of this bill, as the noble

Baroness did in her Haas magazine

0:31:060:31:12

article and has again done today,

the appalling treatment of

0:31:120:31:18

conscientious objectors who resisted

fighting in the First World War, I

0:31:180:31:22

suggest it is really over the top,

rather like the bill itself is lax,

0:31:220:31:27

I suggest, the balanced approach

that these present issues deserve. I

0:31:270:31:33

am against this bill. -- rather like

the bill itself, its lacks.

0:31:330:31:38

As a precursor to this debate I read

with great interest the article from

0:31:380:31:42

the baronet in the House journal.

Let me first declare my interest, I

0:31:420:31:47

am a member of the all-party, and

regroup for choice at the end of

0:31:470:31:51

life. I am concerned about the

application of bill, especially as

0:31:510:31:58

existing medical and legal

regulations work well, striking a

0:31:580:32:01

sensible balance between allowing

health care professionals to

0:32:010:32:05

conscientiously object without

abandoning the patients and causing

0:32:050:32:09

distress to patients and families.

My Lords, I support the rights of

0:32:090:32:13

health care professionals to refuse

to participate in a hands-on

0:32:130:32:20

capacity in certain medical

activities and I'm confident that

0:32:200:32:23

this right to conscientious

objection is well established within

0:32:230:32:25

current medical laws on protocols.

I am very concerned that this bill,

0:32:250:32:31

which aims to expand existing

sensible provisions unclench inches

0:32:310:32:35

objection, as it relates to the

withdrawal of life-sustaining

0:32:350:32:39

treatment, will have a detrimental

effect on comprehensive person

0:32:390:32:45

centred care currently provided by

multidisciplinary teams. In some

0:32:450:32:51

situation I fear the bill, if

enacted, could lead to patients

0:32:510:32:54

being abandoned by health care

professionals.

0:32:540:32:57

This could also have the berry

detrimental impact on the families

0:32:570:33:00

and loved ones of patients

approaching the end of life at what

0:33:000:33:04

is already a difficult time.

My Lords, this bill would undermine

0:33:040:33:08

the medical capacity act of 2005,

existing legal provisions and

0:33:080:33:14

guidance on conscientious objection

strike the right balance between

0:33:140:33:19

respect the health care

professionals' belief and the best

0:33:190:33:23

interests of the patients.

As an example, this bill threatens

0:33:230:33:26

to undermine the entire degree is

double provisions of the Mental

0:33:260:33:30

Capacity Act code of practice 2007,

which is very clear that health care

0:33:300:33:37

professionals do not have to do

something that goes against their

0:33:370:33:40

beliefs, but they must not simply

abandon patients or cause their care

0:33:400:33:46

to suffer and should refer their

patients to another colleague

0:33:460:33:50

willing to participate.

I am not aware that the national

0:33:500:33:53

mandatory capacity Forum has

expressed a view on this particular

0:33:530:33:58

bill but I hope that organisations

with interest in and advancing

0:33:580:34:02

patients' capacity to make decisions

over their health and care will

0:34:020:34:07

ensure that conscientious objection

should not become a limit on

0:34:070:34:11

patients' ability to decide for

themselves.

0:34:110:34:14

My Lords, this bill would negatively

impact patients and their families.

0:34:140:34:19

Let me explain. Providing care for

those approaching the end of life

0:34:190:34:23

care can be challenging for health

care professionals, but the

0:34:230:34:27

well-being of the patients must be

of the first concern. If the patient

0:34:270:34:31

has capacity and wishes to do so,

they are entitled to make their own

0:34:310:34:36

decisions about consent or refusal

of treatment and should be supported

0:34:360:34:39

to do so. Equally, under the Mental

Capacity Act 2005 in England and

0:34:390:34:46

Wales, if the patient has decision

to refuse treatment or appointed a

0:34:460:34:52

lasting power of attorney for health

and welfare, their decision or that

0:34:520:34:57

of their attorney must be respected.

Those decision should be respected

0:34:570:35:00

in a timely manner. It would be

completely unacceptable for a

0:35:000:35:06

patient approaching the end of life

to have to continue treatment they

0:35:060:35:09

did not want whilst awaiting

transfer to palliative care or

0:35:090:35:14

another team of health care

professionals that did not object to

0:35:140:35:16

their decision. It would be

completely unacceptable for the

0:35:160:35:20

patient's family to have to watch

them receiving unwanted treatment,

0:35:200:35:25

and I'm afraid that could be the

implication of this particular bill.

0:35:250:35:28

Let me site a couple of examples

relating to this particular

0:35:280:35:32

argument. This case relates to Paul

Briggs ant Mrs N, the decision on

0:35:320:35:43

withdrawing treatment to people in a

persistent vegetative or minimally

0:35:430:35:46

conscious state. In several of these

cases such as that of Paul Briggs,

0:35:460:35:55

the policeman who suffered a brain

injury in a car crash on his way to

0:35:550:36:00

work, and Mrs N, a woman who was in

a minimally conscious state over a

0:36:000:36:04

period of many years, due to

advanced multiple sclerosis, it has

0:36:040:36:09

taken huge efforts by their family

members, sometimes in the face of

0:36:090:36:14

objection by professionals, to get

their cases heard by the Court of

0:36:140:36:19

Protection. Mrs N's daughter heard

the judge, -- told the judge, who

0:36:190:36:24

eventually heard the case, I cannot

emphasise enough how the indignity

0:36:240:36:29

of her current execs and says the

greatest contradiction to how she

0:36:290:36:33

lived her life, and if she was able

to express this then she would. --

0:36:330:36:39

the indignity of her current

existence. Paul Briggs' wife wrote,

0:36:390:36:44

and echoes, I love my husband but he

is dead in all but his body. I don't

0:36:440:36:49

know when I will ever laying him to

rest in peace. That is a limbo

0:36:490:36:53

nobody should be in. It must have

been incredibly difficult for them

0:36:530:36:58

to see their loved ones suffer over

a period of years, receiving

0:36:580:37:02

treatment they did not believe was

wanted. Even where the Court of

0:37:020:37:08

Protection has decided that

withdrawing treatment is in the best

0:37:080:37:11

interest of the patient, some

families have them struggle to find

0:37:110:37:16

health care facilities where staff

members do not conscientiously

0:37:160:37:18

object to that particular decision.

Let me conclude existing rules allow

0:37:180:37:25

for any health care professional to

conscientiously object to withdraw

0:37:250:37:28

life-sustaining treatment as long as

they find another health care

0:37:280:37:31

professional to take over the care

of the patient. I fear the bill

0:37:310:37:34

would cause additional unnecessary

strain at an already distressing

0:37:340:37:40

time for people at the end of life,

and their families. In doing so it

0:37:400:37:45

would encounter the principles of

patient centred care. I hope the

0:37:450:37:50

bill is substantially amended at a

committee stage.

0:37:500:37:55

My Lords, yesterday the River

restaurant downstairs helped us to

0:37:550:38:00

celebrate Burns night all day. I

thoroughly enjoyed the Scotch broth

0:38:000:38:06

at lunchtime, but I resisted the

main course as I was eating out in

0:38:060:38:10

the evening. I even resisted the

whiskey bread-and-butter pudding.

0:38:100:38:14

The main course which I resisted was

vegetarian haggis, celebrating Burns

0:38:140:38:23

in a way which respected the

consciences of those who didn't want

0:38:230:38:25

to eat meat. A very proper and good

thing to do. No legal requirement to

0:38:250:38:34

provide vegetarian haggis, but

welcome to many, and I think I would

0:38:340:38:38

have enjoyed it. Clearly Lord

Cormack did enjoy it. Yesterday was

0:38:380:38:45

not just Burns night, it was also,

for church people, the Festival of

0:38:450:38:50

the conversion of Saint Paul. In

simple's teaching he is very strong

0:38:500:38:56

in asserting that Christians,

although they are free to make many

0:38:560:39:02

decisions morally, must always

respected the conscience of those

0:39:020:39:06

who are weaker, those with a tender

conscience -- in St Paul's teaching.

0:39:060:39:13

That is an absolute requirement in

the Christian faith, that those

0:39:130:39:17

whose consciences are more tender

all week than our own must be

0:39:170:39:21

respected and not forced to go

against those consciences. We have

0:39:210:39:26

the same teaching in other areas of

religion as well. In real testament

0:39:260:39:32

it is very clear that the vulnerable

and the weak are to be supported and

0:39:320:39:36

helped. In the teaching of Jesus he

criticises those leaders who lay

0:39:360:39:43

burdens too heavy for people to bear

upon ordinary folk. As we have seen

0:39:430:39:50

the history of the world since the

time of Christ, and particularly our

0:39:500:39:55

own country, we have seen, I

believe, do a great deal of

0:39:550:40:00

influence from the Judaeo-Christian

tradition, the development of free

0:40:000:40:06

societies, of what we now tend to

call liberal democracies.

0:40:060:40:10

And in those societies there has

always been a great deal of

0:40:100:40:15

attention paid to the rights of

conscience, even though they go

0:40:150:40:22

beyond and are more tender and

sensitive than the views of many

0:40:220:40:25

other people. Every free society

respects the rights of conscience to

0:40:250:40:30

a great extent, and we have heard

some of that already in this debate.

0:40:300:40:35

The societies which restrict the

rights of conscience tend to be

0:40:350:40:39

those which are tyrannical, the

extreme left or the extreme right of

0:40:390:40:46

politics is where we find conscience

restricted. In free societies a

0:40:460:40:52

great deal of tolerance is given to

those with conscientious objections

0:40:520:40:58

to all sorts of things. Now, this is

not just a matter of religion.

0:40:580:41:05

Conscience is a very, very deep part

of what it means to be human. It is

0:41:050:41:10

not just religious rights we are

talking about, it is very deep human

0:41:100:41:15

rights that people should not be

forced to go against what they

0:41:150:41:18

believe to be right or wrong. In

this particular bill, which I

0:41:180:41:26

support strongly and look forward to

seeing further debated and possibly

0:41:260:41:33

amended, it recognises some changes

since the Abortion Act. Most

0:41:330:41:38

abortions now have far more

involvement from nurses and

0:41:380:41:42

pharmacists than they did in the

early days. Methods of doing

0:41:420:41:47

abortions have changed. I believe it

is right to extend the conscience

0:41:470:41:53

clause, for example, to pharmacists

since their involvement is greater

0:41:530:41:57

than it used to be. We need as a

society to find ways to modify the

0:41:570:42:08

law as it was set out in 67, nudges

to affirm the conscience clause

0:42:080:42:15

there. I believe this is a matter of

public concern. -- not just to

0:42:150:42:20

affirm the conscience clause there.

It is a matter for public policy and

0:42:200:42:24

public debate. If the 67 act needs

to be clarified, that should be done

0:42:240:42:30

not just in courts but in Parliament

on behalf of the people of the

0:42:300:42:35

country.

If the 67 act is breathing in some

0:42:350:42:38

way unsatisfactory in that some

people's consciences are not being

0:42:380:42:46

allowed then we need to do something

to modify it, not to reduce the

0:42:460:42:50

possibility of abortion, not to

reduce people's freedom to seek

0:42:500:42:55

medical treatment, which I want to

underscore, but to allow those which

0:42:550:43:01

have a tender conscience to exercise

that conscience. My Lords, I support

0:43:010:43:04

this bill.

0:43:040:43:09

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the

reverend who spoke about the burden

0:43:090:43:14

to bear. I would point out that

sometimes when you are member of a

0:43:140:43:18

minority, it is a burden that you

must bear. Indeed, it is a burden

0:43:180:43:24

that are sometimes reinforced by

0:43:240:43:34

religious and beliefs. I respect and

defend the right of religion and

0:43:350:43:38

belief that freedom but I do not, my

Lords, respect the rights to impose

0:43:380:43:41

religion on others who do not share

them and therefore diminish the

0:43:410:43:43

rights of others. I rise to speak

against this bill which I find

0:43:430:43:46

deeply worrying and troubling. It is

an attempt to rewrite laws which

0:43:460:43:50

respect conscientious objection and

which, my Lords, have been working

0:43:500:43:54

well. Working well, my lords. It is

an attempt to rewrite laws in light

0:43:540:43:59

of the 2014 Supreme Court judgment,

delivered by the noble Lady Hale and

0:43:590:44:06

tears of greater Glasgow health

board in Mary Doogan versus law. I

0:44:060:44:15

believe if this bill was to become

law, we would seek on changes

0:44:150:44:19

objections for Waverley against the

wise and learned words and judgment

0:44:190:44:25

of the deal as to make services such

as IVF treatment come end of life

0:44:250:44:30

care treatment and abortion is

difficult to excess and sustain

0:44:300:44:34

nationally. -- access. And we would

witness, my Lords, the curtailing of

0:44:340:44:40

the legal choices and options of

others. There have been many changes

0:44:400:44:45

in the last 50 years and

particularly since the 1967 Abortion

0:44:450:44:49

Act. Positive changes that have been

vigorously fought for and vigorously

0:44:490:44:56

fought against. Women's rights, the

right to abortion, fertility

0:44:560:45:02

treatment, IVF for married,

non-married and same-sex partners.

0:45:020:45:05

Equality and rights for LGBT people,

rights and the qualities which some

0:45:050:45:10

people, organisations and religious

bodies still refuse to accept and

0:45:100:45:15

still do their best to hold back.

Indeed, my Lords, a woman's right to

0:45:150:45:21

choose is shamefully denied in

Northern Ireland and same-sex

0:45:210:45:24

marriage is still not available, and

all of this is connected, my Lords,

0:45:240:45:29

as I have said, I defend the right

to freedom of religion or belief but

0:45:290:45:33

not the right to impose it, whereby

some posing you reduce the rights of

0:45:330:45:37

others. I sure the deep concerns of

Doctors for choice in UK, who write

0:45:370:45:43

that they support the current legal

provisions that allow medical

0:45:430:45:47

practitioners to opt out of

providing treatment that conflicts

0:45:470:45:50

with the personal and religious

beliefs. But that extending the

0:45:500:45:55

activities to which a health care

professional could claim a

0:45:550:45:59

conscientious objection from,

hands-on treatment to any

0:45:590:46:06

supervision, delegation, planning or

supporting staff, in respect of that

0:46:060:46:10

activity, could have a huge the

adverse effect on health care

0:46:100:46:14

provision in the United Kingdom. The

British pregnancy advisory service

0:46:140:46:19

are of the same opinion. They also

believe, my Lords, that by extending

0:46:190:46:25

conscientious objection in these

ways, again, as outlined by the

0:46:250:46:28

noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown

of Eaton-under-Heywood, this could

0:46:280:46:35

cause a staffing crisis, in

particular areas of health and this

0:46:350:46:38

is particularly true in the National

Health Service, where a hospital

0:46:380:46:43

wards and disciplines simultaneously

cover a number of procedures and

0:46:430:46:50

conditions. I thank these

organisations and particularly the

0:46:500:46:52

dignity in dying, who maintain that

as an unintended consequence, the

0:46:520:46:57

bill could undermine that might

undermine the principle of person

0:46:570:47:02

centred end of life care and drive a

wedge between health care

0:47:020:47:07

professionals and their patients.

The bill would allow any health care

0:47:070:47:12

professional, any health care

professionals, my Lords, to refuse

0:47:120:47:16

to participate in the supervision,

delegation, planning or support of

0:47:160:47:22

any activity which they do not

agree. And nothing any bill as had

0:47:220:47:27

been set earlier but it is worth

repeating, would obligingly

0:47:270:47:30

objecting health care professional

to develop that patient's care to

0:47:300:47:35

another. For example, if someone

with advanced care has the

0:47:350:47:41

artificial nutrition and hydration

water drawn, a health care

0:47:410:47:44

professional could reject to

providing basic care. They could

0:47:440:47:49

include providing Mulcaire, managing

a syringe driver for pain relief and

0:47:490:47:54

the alleviation of terminal

agitation, prevention of pressure

0:47:540:47:59

wins, coordinating spiritual and

family support and, if appropriate,

0:47:590:48:04

arranging to discharge the person to

die at home or in a hospice. My

0:48:040:48:11

Lords, having witnessed my own

partner died of cancer in the Royal

0:48:110:48:16

Marsden Hospital, and in light of

the debate yesterday, led by the

0:48:160:48:19

noble and reaches Baroness Jay

Howell, for the reasons outlined

0:48:190:48:26

today and for many others, I cannot

and will not support this bill.

My

0:48:260:48:34

Lords, I should probably declare an

interest as an only fellow of the

0:48:340:48:39

Royal College of Obstetricians and

Gynaecologists, and they have also

0:48:390:48:42

had some responsibility in

connection with the other matters

0:48:420:48:48

that are referred to in this bill.

My Lords, the simple analysis, as

0:48:480:48:54

far as I am concerned, is this... If

a person has an objection, let me

0:48:540:49:00

take it to abortion, for example,

someone objecting to abortion thinks

0:49:000:49:04

that it is wrong to carry out an

abortion. Generally speaking, there

0:49:040:49:10

is, of course, a provision limiting

that in connection where the life of

0:49:100:49:17

the mother is at risk. The present

law does not allow conscientious

0:49:170:49:24

objection in that respect, and that,

I believe, is a very general

0:49:240:49:33

realisation of what they

conscientious objection will be. But

0:49:330:49:36

the basic conscientious objection is

that it is wrong in the general case

0:49:360:49:40

to perform an abortion. And the

question is, to what extent only

0:49:400:49:47

should be required to do what is

contrary to one's belief. To do what

0:49:470:49:57

one's conscience requires that they

believe to be wrong. Therefore, in

0:49:570:50:04

my submission to your Lordships, it

would be right that they are

0:50:040:50:09

protected from doing what they think

is wrong. Now, of course, I am very

0:50:090:50:14

familiar with the judgment of the

Supreme Court and Baroness Hale,

0:50:140:50:19

whom I respect particularly because

of various reasons, which I will not

0:50:190:50:27

go into at the moment, but I respect

her judgment very much indeed. And

0:50:270:50:33

it is a judgment on the Act of

Parliament as it was. The Scottish

0:50:330:50:40

court, the judges of the Court of

Session, decided that the wider

0:50:400:50:46

interpretation was possible and they

were in favour of Mary Doogan and

0:50:460:50:56

the other lady. The situation was a

particular one that these ladies had

0:50:560:51:03

been in the health service for a

considerable time and they were

0:51:030:51:07

happy to do what they were doing and

they did not have to do anything

0:51:070:51:11

that they thought was wrong. The

arrangements were changed and then

0:51:110:51:17

they were required to do something

that they thought was wrong, and

0:51:170:51:22

that was where the matter came into

the courts. Now, my Lords, I have

0:51:220:51:28

been in correspondence with the

doctors for choice, the kindly sent

0:51:280:51:32

me an e-mail explaining what they

thought, and it is ask more detail

0:51:320:51:40

of what they were thinking. And what

it comes to is this, that they

0:51:400:51:46

believe that the National Health

Service depends, to a substantial

0:51:460:51:52

extent, on people doing what they

believe to be wrong. Now, I really

0:51:520:51:56

find it very hard to see that that

can be right. On the other hand, I

0:51:560:52:03

do not think and the minister might

be able to tell us, I do not think

0:52:030:52:06

that the amount of conscientious

objection to these various items

0:52:060:52:11

referred to in this bill is very

large. The numbers, I do not think,

0:52:110:52:17

are all that large. But let us

assume that there is a substantial

0:52:170:52:22

number, then what they are saying is

that it is necessary under present

0:52:220:52:26

circumstances to depend on people

who are serving in the health

0:52:260:52:32

service to do what they think is

wrong. So, as far as I am concerned,

0:52:320:52:37

that is precisely what the

conscientious laws of this country,

0:52:370:52:42

for many years, have been, that it

is not necessary and not right to

0:52:420:52:47

force people as part of their

employment to do what they believe

0:52:470:52:50

to be wrong. Now, it has been said

and many of your Lordships have

0:52:500:52:57

mentioned this, that, of course, it

will cause some problems for some

0:52:570:53:03

people. The point I think that we

must make is that the obligation to

0:53:030:53:08

provide these services is not only

employee, but on the health service

0:53:080:53:14

itself, and therefore, we have the

responsibility of making the

0:53:140:53:19

necessary arrangements to

accommodate the views of those who

0:53:190:53:24

think that these particular

activities are wrong. And they do

0:53:240:53:27

not believe it is right that the

health service or, indeed any other

0:53:270:53:32

service, should rely to a

substantial extent for its success

0:53:320:53:38

on requiring any of its employees to

do what these employees think to be

0:53:380:53:43

wrong. For that reason, I support

this bill. Of course, the bill the

0:53:430:53:50

subject, the detail of it, to

amendment if necessary, but as far

0:53:500:53:54

as I can see, the actual phraseology

is not far from that which was

0:53:540:53:59

adopted by the Court of session in

Scotland, that was the

0:53:590:54:02

interpretation that they thought

should be placed on the Act of

0:54:020:54:05

Parliament as it was.

I oppose this bill, but it was great

0:54:050:54:14

to have the article which has been

referred to in the House magazine by

0:54:140:54:17

the noble lady, to provide the

background as to how she got to this

0:54:170:54:23

point. As well as having the

excellent Lords library note which

0:54:230:54:28

expanded on some of the references

that the article mentioned, in

0:54:280:54:33

particular, the Supreme Court

judgment, all of which I will

0:54:330:54:35

shortly come to. One might ask as

they do more robustly in the House

0:54:350:54:43

of Commons, on private bills, what

is the need for this particular

0:54:430:54:46

private bill legislation? Given that

the first appearance we saw of it, a

0:54:460:54:55

similar Help to Buy to this was in

June 2015 when it only had time for

0:54:550:55:01

a first reading. -- bill. I wondered

if there was need for this

0:55:010:55:07

legislation in order to meet popular

demand and contempt that the current

0:55:070:55:10

law or if it was created by a small

group of the well-intentioned for

0:55:100:55:14

the betterment of mankind? I believe

that I have here is that the

0:55:140:55:21

direction is top-down and that there

may not be the popular clamour for

0:55:210:55:26

more statute law to do with what is

before us. As we have been made

0:55:260:55:31

aware in meetings and briefings we

have received, the four councils

0:55:310:55:35

referred to both the registers in

clauses one and two all have their

0:55:350:55:41

own procedures for dealing with

conscientious objection when it is

0:55:410:55:44

not covered by statute law, and I

was not sure if Lord Mackay of

0:55:440:55:50

Clashfern was fully aware of that,

and that is why I mention it now in

0:55:500:55:54

more detail. These are slight

variations but cover broadly the

0:55:540:55:59

same areas, particularly in passing

on the other that one individual can

0:55:590:56:04

reject for reasons of conscience the

particular needs of each of these

0:56:040:56:09

four councils. I noticed the one

major change to the early 2015 Bill,

0:56:090:56:16

there is a new addition in clause

1.2 p to the pharmaceutical Council.

0:56:160:56:22

That edition adds to the numbers

that could be directly or indirectly

0:56:220:56:25

affected by this bill by the 53,000

members on that register. I would

0:56:250:56:33

therefore have thought that at least

some sort of proper consultation but

0:56:330:56:36

that council should have taken place

before incorporating them into this

0:56:360:56:41

bill, but understand that that has

not happened, that is very much from

0:56:410:56:44

the top down. It also may have been

thought that the pharmacist could

0:56:440:56:49

become a major channel for the

distribution of medical abortion

0:56:490:56:54

pills and the noble baroness in her

speech made the connection. But as I

0:56:540:56:59

explained, without any further

statute law, the pharmaceutical

0:56:590:57:01

Council already have a perfectly

good provision in place for

0:57:010:57:07

conscientious objection by the

members, which is framed for the

0:57:070:57:12

particular professional

circumstances. To try to put all of

0:57:120:57:17

this council is under a common

straitjacket of statute provisions

0:57:170:57:21

would be counter-productive and

require extensive, continuing legal

0:57:210:57:25

dispute on the interpretation. I

believe that the deal's Supreme

0:57:250:57:33

Court judgment, already mentioned,

particularly in paragraph 38 and her

0:57:330:57:38

interpretation of the word

participate is a very good addition

0:57:380:57:41

of the existing position as the

water suitable for statute law and

0:57:410:57:46

what can be fairly achieved by

individual guidelines, which, as the

0:57:460:57:50

noble lord, Lord Brown, said Candy

context specific or decided by

0:57:500:57:58

unemployment tribunal. Also from a

practical point of view we have

0:57:580:58:01

learned from the various submissions

we received on this bill from

0:58:010:58:04

organisations, it is a very complex

medical procedures and specialised

0:58:040:58:08

man's. How much uncertainty this

bill would cause in the day-to-day

0:58:080:58:14

running of various organisations.

Malia never been quite sure what

0:58:140:58:19

staff are going to be available to

meet ever-changing needs in the

0:58:190:58:24

process of the patient wants to

suffer. In the article I mentioned

0:58:240:58:27

at the beginning and end the debate

today, the apparently simple phrase,

0:58:270:58:34

the taking of human life occurred

twice, which most of us hear no is

0:58:340:58:37

the beginning of divergent views in

the fields we are addressing today.

0:58:370:58:43

And I believe the noble Baroness,

Baroness O'Loan, used the same

0:58:430:58:48

phrase in her speech today.

0:58:480:58:54

For example, when exactly did human

life start? When is withdrawing

0:58:540:58:59

life-saving treatment or turning off

a machine justifiable? Many more

0:58:590:59:02

questions are baked... Begged by

that simple phrase. My Lords, I hope

0:59:020:59:09

I have highlighted some of the

potential difficulties of this bill,

0:59:090:59:13

which I oppose.

My Lords, I congratulate the

0:59:130:59:21

baroness on bringing forward this

bill, which sheds a welcome

0:59:210:59:26

spotlight on a very important area.

If I can be very brief, I think most

0:59:260:59:32

of the main arguments have been

made. I start from the position that

0:59:320:59:36

nobody should be obliged to

participate in a procedure to which

0:59:360:59:41

they have a conscientious objection.

Lord Mackay has already spoken with

0:59:410:59:45

his usual eloquence and power on

that aspect. The issue, however,

0:59:450:59:51

turns on what you mean by

participation. The draft bill is

0:59:510:59:56

very wide indeed on that subject and

Lord Cashman has referred to it

0:59:561:00:02

twice. Let me read the keywords

again. Participating in an activity

1:00:021:00:08

includes any supervision,

delegation, planning or supporting

1:00:081:00:16

of staff in respect of that

activity. That is very, very wide,

1:00:161:00:22

as Baroness Young pointed out. For

my part, I find myself in agreement

1:00:221:00:27

with Lady Hale's judgment that it is

unlikely that Parliament originally

1:00:271:00:32

intended to include a host of

ancillary and administrative and

1:00:321:00:36

managerial matters in the coverage

of this bill. On the other hand, I

1:00:361:00:41

think she went too far in confining

the application to those taking part

1:00:411:00:49

in, quote, a hands-on capacity. That

seems to me to be far too narrow. I

1:00:491:00:54

hope that in further discussions,

perhaps that committee stage, Common

1:00:541:00:58

cause can be found.

My Lords, the situation in respect

1:00:581:01:05

of the withdrawal of life-saving

treatment, life-sustaining

1:01:051:01:08

treatment, appears to be different

in respect of nurses who cannot

1:01:081:01:12

lawfully raise a conscientious

objection. Their professional code,

1:01:121:01:16

as I understand it, calls for them

to arrange free suitably qualified

1:01:161:01:20

colleague to take over.

This, of course, is a hugely

1:01:201:01:26

sensitive area. As a layman, it

seems to me that the present formula

1:01:261:01:31

is about the right balance in this

field. To extend the widest

1:01:311:01:36

definition in this bill to issues

arising from life support seems to

1:01:361:01:40

need to be a step too far.

My Lords, for my part this bill

1:01:401:01:47

would needs and amendments before I

could support it.

1:01:471:01:52

I speak as a layman and someone who

feels it a privilege, and indeed

1:01:521:01:57

refreshing, to be able to take part

in such a debate, nonpartisan and

1:01:571:02:02

with so many experts leading

lawyers, leading medics in this

1:02:021:02:07

field. It is indeed the House of

Lords at its best.

1:02:071:02:11

But I put on record immediately that

I am not with the noble lady Lady

1:02:111:02:21

O'Loan in terms of abortion, which I

see is justified in terms of social

1:02:211:02:28

concerns, but I agree with her

conscientious objection. For me, the

1:02:281:02:33

recognition of a conscientious

objection is something which is the

1:02:331:02:37

sign of a civilised society as

against a non-civilised society. And

1:02:371:02:44

my presumption always would be in

favour of looking at conscientious

1:02:441:02:49

objection. The problem here, of

course, as I think my noble friend

1:02:491:02:54

Lady Young says, if one agrees that

the Court of sessions was correct

1:02:541:03:00

and the current law needs to be

extended, as I do, where does one

1:03:001:03:04

draw the line? How does one find

some position of defining what is

1:03:041:03:14

participation, that participation

can be extended so far as to be

1:03:141:03:17

ridiculous. There is, of course,

much learning both in respect of

1:03:171:03:24

participation and in respect of

remoteness. I think many people

1:03:241:03:27

would agree on grounds of

conscientious objection that we need

1:03:271:03:32

to go beyond a very narrow

interpretation which a number of

1:03:321:03:35

colleagues here have put on the

relevant clause of the 1967 act.

1:03:351:03:44

Yes, to extend, but also perhaps by

amendment in committee to say how

1:03:441:03:49

one defines the extent of

participation so as not to make it

1:03:491:03:57

absolutely ridiculous. The

importance of freedom of conscience

1:03:571:03:59

is recognised in so many

international instruments. I know

1:03:591:04:05

that the noble lady Lady O'Loan has

gone through a number from the

1:04:051:04:10

universal declaration, articles one

and 18, which is accurate in article

1:04:101:04:15

nine of the European Convention on

human rights. I may say, for the

1:04:151:04:20

rest of the week I have been in

Strasbourg sitting on the legal

1:04:201:04:25

affairs and human rights committee

and indeed on the committee

1:04:251:04:29

responsible for the selection of

judges to the court. As Lady O'Loan

1:04:291:04:34

said, our own Equalities Act has

religion and belief as protected

1:04:341:04:39

characteristics and includes a

reference to, quotes, lack of

1:04:391:04:42

religion or belief. And freedom of

conscience, conscientious objection,

1:04:421:04:50

surely it should not just be a wish

but also something that is relevant

1:04:501:04:57

in practice. Relevant in practice

also in the workplace. The European

1:04:571:05:04

Court of Human Rights interprets the

Convention rights, or has

1:05:041:05:12

interpreted in a case against the

UK, it was a strong chords and this

1:05:121:05:16

is the case of the Coptic Christian

who wished to wear a cross working

1:05:161:05:23

for British airway 's, and the Court

held in her favour, a strong chords,

1:05:231:05:30

on the basis of her freedom of

religion. There have been some

1:05:301:05:35

concerns expressed both in the

assembly of the Council of Europe

1:05:351:05:39

and here that the unregulated use of

a conscientious objection clause

1:05:391:05:44

could limit a woman's right of

access to lawful medical care. I

1:05:441:05:49

think there would be taking a too

far. The noble Baroness Baroness

1:05:491:05:57

O'Loan has already mentioned the

resolution 1763 passed by the

1:05:571:06:03

Parliamentary assembly of the

Council of Europe in 2010, so I

1:06:031:06:08

shall not quotes what is already on

record.

1:06:081:06:12

It is surely wrong to deter

individuals from entering and

1:06:121:06:17

remaining in the medical profession,

particularly in this case of Dougan

1:06:171:06:24

where the circumstances of

employment of this two women had

1:06:241:06:27

changed from the time where they

first entered and employment.

1:06:271:06:30

Particularly, of course, the

question about recruiting and

1:06:301:06:35

retaining is relevant at a time of

the current crisis in the National

1:06:351:06:41

Health Service, not just during this

current winter crisis. And we should

1:06:411:06:45

be very well conscious of any

deterrent which might be put in the

1:06:451:06:52

way of people who are very caring

individuals and who might be

1:06:521:06:57

inclined to apply for work in the

health service.

1:06:571:07:00

But clearly the NHS is struggling at

the moment to hire and retain GPs.

1:07:001:07:09

The number of surgeries, which I

accept is a wider matter, dropped

1:07:091:07:13

from around 8500 to eight decades

ago to 7500 today. And we all want

1:07:131:07:21

to see a GP when we need to -- from

around 8501 decade ago to 7500

1:07:211:07:29

today. There should not be a way

where we cannot accommodate as far

1:07:291:07:35

as possible conscientious objection

while finding appropriate lines of

1:07:351:07:37

half -- of how far one can go.

Perhaps the president might be in

1:07:371:07:43

the way that the committee of

ministers dealt with the prisoners

1:07:431:07:50

voting case from 2005. At in

December of last year

a reasonable

1:07:501:07:56

accommodation was reached on the

margin of appreciation. And I

1:07:561:08:03

applaud the Minister, David

Lidington, for this. Is there not a

1:08:031:08:10

margin of appreciation, is there not

a reasonable accommodation in these

1:08:101:08:15

cases where the reasonable person

can say this is the current law, it

1:08:151:08:21

has been construed too narrowly. We

need to jewel these lines. Perhaps

1:08:211:08:30

by amendment is one can see a way

through this, but I understand we

1:08:301:08:33

need a debate on this highly

sensitive issue and therefore, for

1:08:331:08:37

the moment, I support the bill and

the very excellent way it was put

1:08:371:08:43

forward by Baroness O'Loan.

My Lords, in my contribution to the

1:08:431:08:49

debate about this important bill,

which I welcome and thank the noble

1:08:491:08:53

lady Baroness O'Loan is introducing,

I wish to discuss the concept of

1:08:531:08:59

conscience and how necessary I think

it is to have effective provision to

1:08:591:09:05

protect it in medicine.

When we talk about conscience, it

1:09:051:09:08

seems to me that we mean the part

about the that constitutes moral

1:09:081:09:13

integrity, the deeply held and

important moral judgments of our

1:09:131:09:19

conscience constitute the central

personal call. They define who we

1:09:191:09:23

are, at least morally speaking, and

what we stand for.

1:09:231:09:28

The central moral core of our

character. In order for any

1:09:281:09:34

individual to maintain their

integrity, they cannot violate their

1:09:341:09:38

fundamental moral commitments.

If they achieve this, this gives

1:09:381:09:42

others clear reason to respect them,

not because those commitments must

1:09:421:09:46

be true or justified in the eyes of

everyone else or even just the

1:09:461:09:52

majority, but because the

maintaining of moral integrity is a

1:09:521:09:57

crucial action central to our

personal coherence and well-being.

1:09:571:10:02

Conscience involves the moral

wholeness of the person, there are

1:10:021:10:07

emotional, intellectual and moral

life. When someone betrays their

1:10:071:10:11

conscience they do nothing less than

disregards a deep, core aspect of

1:10:111:10:17

their personal identity.

Given this reality, my Lords, it is

1:10:171:10:22

utterly impossible to detach

conscience from the professional

1:10:221:10:26

life of anyone, let alone a medical

professional who deals with often

1:10:261:10:31

grave moral situations every day. A

conscientious doctor or nurse or

1:10:311:10:38

midwife is conscientious because of

their internal moral life, not

1:10:381:10:42

merely because they are proficient

at mechanical is to clean following

1:10:421:10:47

official rules and guidelines.

Following this, I think to

1:10:471:10:52

illustrate how important legal

conscience protections are, it would

1:10:521:10:56

be helpful to note one crucial

difference between the obviously

1:10:561:10:59

pertinent parallel major ready by

the noble lady Baroness O'Loan,

1:10:591:11:06

between conscientious objection in

military service to what someone

1:11:061:11:13

believes is unjust killing and to

the same in medicine. That

1:11:131:11:17

difference is the nature of the role

of the coalition. Medical

1:11:171:11:23

professionals are vocational actors,

not mere conscripts in a logistical

1:11:231:11:27

machine. Medical professionals are

not functional lists with the

1:11:271:11:31

medical system, they are not people

providing a shopping service. They

1:11:311:11:42

are not merely employees of the NHS

who must do whatever the system

1:11:421:11:47

tells them. We would not want a

doctor to do something about when

1:11:471:11:52

Stig -- that went against their

professional judgment, no matter

1:11:521:11:56

what a patient might want. I am

reminded that according to the

1:11:561:12:01

mental capacity act, one may refuse

consent to treatment but one may not

1:12:011:12:06

demand that something is done to

you. The integrity of the individual

1:12:061:12:11

clinician is part and parcel of the

integrity of medicine itself. Would

1:12:111:12:18

we really trust a doctor who did

whatever we wanted and put aside his

1:12:181:12:22

judgment for the sake of fulfilling

our wishes? Of course not. We would

1:12:221:12:28

want them to, frankly, give us their

best and most conscientious

1:12:281:12:33

judgment, for them to you, as some

people think they should,

1:12:331:12:39

compartmentalised their most

fundamental moral beliefs from their

1:12:391:12:41

professional behaviour would be to

seriously compromise their

1:12:411:12:46

integrity. This would be in no one's

best interest. It is crucial, then,

1:12:461:12:52

to the right practice of medicine

for both medical professionals and

1:12:521:12:55

patients, as in public life itself,

to protect freedom of conscience.

1:12:551:13:01

This bill, it seems to me, would

allow for areas of medicine that are

1:13:011:13:08

particularly controversial to remain

open to those people with very high

1:13:081:13:12

conscience standards and who would

therefore be welcome individuals to

1:13:121:13:16

enter these sorts of roles. It would

require a minority of medical

1:13:161:13:22

professionals to be reasonable, --

reasonably accommodated, a concept

1:13:221:13:26

which I believe is highly important

in this debate, and thereby

1:13:261:13:30

including a manner consistent with

our treatment of minorities more

1:13:301:13:33

generally. Insofar as this is the

case, it would allow for a society

1:13:331:13:39

more truly liberal and open, as well

as qualitative and its medical care,

1:13:391:13:44

due to the fully integral character

of those allowed to act within it in

1:13:441:13:49

all sectors of medicine. This can

only be for the common good. If we

1:13:491:13:55

care about conscience in society,

particularly in medicine, we should

1:13:551:14:01

maintain a framing of our laws which

allows for as much liberality as is

1:14:011:14:07

sensibly feasible in conscientious

objection when it comes to the

1:14:071:14:10

perceived ending of human life.

1:14:101:14:18

them in for that reason I am

delighted it has been introduced and

1:14:181:14:21

I am passionate to supported. The

NHS relies on the commitment of

1:14:211:14:32

thousands of people willing to use

their skills and the training in

1:14:321:14:36

order to promote well-being of

patients and to provide particular

1:14:361:14:40

care with the compassion. Every

patient deserves to be treated by

1:14:401:14:46

those whose primary tasks is to seek

the welfare and respect their

1:14:461:14:51

wishes. Many, many of those people

who work in the health service do so

1:14:511:14:57

out of religious conviction, but the

fees has led them to believe that

1:14:571:15:04

this is a way through vocation to

give particular service to others.

1:15:041:15:09

And this is to be welcomed, they are

the stimulates what they do and

1:15:091:15:15

sustains them through difficult

thing is that they are required to

1:15:151:15:18

do. A minority of those find the

faith or belief system is not

1:15:181:15:26

compatible with what they are being

asked to do on locations. They are

1:15:261:15:32

firmly held convictions are

established as a right in law to be

1:15:321:15:40

respected and protected already.

This bill has an expressed intention

1:15:401:15:46

to clarify what those with a

conscientious objection bored or

1:15:461:15:57

ought not to be invited to

participate in. Its intention is to

1:15:571:16:01

clarify that participation, but, in

fact, the bill goes much further

1:16:011:16:06

than that. It expands the level of

participation that could be

1:16:061:16:13

protected. We have already heard so

many times, not just a hands-on

1:16:131:16:20

active participation, but extends it

to supervision, delegation, planning

1:16:201:16:27

and support for staff. It feels to

determine where responsibility lies

1:16:271:16:35

for the exercise of care for those

patients to whom conscientious

1:16:351:16:41

objector finds it difficult to care.

-- fails. The current practice is

1:16:411:16:49

that they must inform colleagues and

patients and that care must be

1:16:491:16:54

passed onto another. But what is

defined as the participation in this

1:16:541:17:02

bill, seems to deny that right to

remove that responsibility, but it

1:17:021:17:09

does not define it as to where it

should go. My Lords, I am well aware

1:17:091:17:16

that anecdotes do not always make

good evidence, but personal

1:17:161:17:21

experience informs opinions. My

husband, at the age of 42, was

1:17:211:17:29

diagnosed with a brain tumour. For

the next ten years we managed that

1:17:291:17:34

condition at home, repeated

operations and procedures,

1:17:341:17:39

increasing disability and family

trauma. And then his consultant

1:17:391:17:45

decided that he would attempt

aggressive surgery. That surgery was

1:17:451:17:52

carried out and at the end of the

operation the consultant said to me,

1:17:521:17:57

the tumour had been removed, but in

doing so, he had done extensive

1:17:571:18:03

damage to the left frontal lobe. My

husband had had a stroke during the

1:18:031:18:10

procedure, he was unlikely to have

any good life, he was unlikely to

1:18:101:18:19

live through the night and it was

not in his best interest to do so.

1:18:191:18:25

He was therefore not put into

intensive care but onto an open

1:18:251:18:29

hospital ward so that the family

could see their goodbyes. In the

1:18:291:18:34

evening, he was obviously failing

and be on duty registrar was called.

1:18:341:18:44

He insisted, despite all my pleas,

that my husband should be put on

1:18:441:18:49

life support in intensive care. It

was his duty, he said, to do so, to

1:18:491:18:55

preserve his life. He survived. We

suffered 8.5 months of attempted

1:18:551:19:05

rehabilitation in hospital and we

had 14 years of residential care,

1:19:051:19:12

before he died at the age of 69. My

Lords, my family paid a very high

1:19:121:19:19

price for that Doctor to have a

clear conscience. Of course,

1:19:191:19:28

honestly held conscientious

objections must be respected and

1:19:281:19:34

protected, but it must not be in

order to jeopardise the duty of care

1:19:341:19:42

and respect for the best interest of

the patient and the wishes of the

1:19:421:19:45

family. I was a little concerned at

reading the excellent library

1:19:451:19:52

briefing, at the end of that it

gives some figures from a survey

1:19:521:19:56

that was held in 2012 as to the

views of medical students. Of 733

1:19:561:20:07

people who were asked for their

views, almost half of them believed

1:20:071:20:11

in the right for doctors to hold

conscientious objections and to be

1:20:111:20:16

protected. As medical science grows

and develops, and more interventions

1:20:161:20:23

are likely to raise moral and

ethical dilemmas, perhaps it will be

1:20:231:20:30

necessary to clarify aspects of the

law as it relates to conscientious

1:20:301:20:36

objections. But, my Lords, this bill

is not the way to do it.

1:20:361:20:48

My Lords, I find many reasons to

support this bill on moral,

1:20:481:20:53

philosophical, legal and practical

grounds, but I wish to be brief and

1:20:531:20:56

I will try to keep the format, five

points. Firstly, there is inadequate

1:20:561:21:01

protection in law at the moment I

believe. Yes, there are lines of

1:21:011:21:06

professional guidance issued by the

General Medical Council and the

1:21:061:21:11

general pharmaceutical Council, but

the guidance is not underpinned by

1:21:111:21:14

statute or provision and it is

easily changed by a small number of

1:21:141:21:18

people or by pressure groups and the

presumption of conscientious

1:21:181:21:22

objection can be quickly eroded.

Secondly, I disagree with the

1:21:221:21:28

arguments of some previous speakers

that the bill will in fact restrict

1:21:281:21:31

access to any service that the NHS

is obliged to provide. What it does

1:21:311:21:37

is to clarify the right

conscientious objection in so far as

1:21:371:21:41

caselaw has indeed narrowed the

interpretation of what participation

1:21:411:21:44

actually means any operations under

consideration. Furthermore, since

1:21:441:21:51

the passing of the Abortion Act in

1967, medicine has developed to the

1:21:511:21:56

extent that the role of the doctor

or surgeon is now less common than

1:21:561:22:00

it was then, Norse and Francis

prescribers exist now and it is

1:22:001:22:05

doubtful under the current law state

whether it protects those

1:22:051:22:09

petitioners if they wish to invoke a

protection under being involved.

1:22:091:22:16

Firstly, on practical grounds alone,

it is clear that the current state

1:22:161:22:19

of the law is deterring some nurses

and new-look qualified doctors from

1:22:191:22:25

entering on a career in obstetrics

and gynaecology. There is not only

1:22:251:22:29

fear of discussing this issue but

people have been put off from

1:22:291:22:32

applying for such posts as the moral

convictions may result in the

1:22:321:22:37

failure to advance in these careers.

And this is not a question of

1:22:371:22:42

adherence to a specifically

Christian professional morality, I

1:22:421:22:45

know of one case in which a

distinguished registrar, a highly

1:22:451:22:49

skilled and eminent gynaecologist

who is a Muslim, was undoubtedly

1:22:491:22:52

sidelined in his career because of

his objections to conduct any kind

1:22:521:22:56

of operations at rest in this bill.

He did not find that the protection

1:22:561:23:06

offered by clause 1.3 before you

today was available to him. But as

1:23:061:23:08

Baroness O'Loan has said, it is not

even a question of professional

1:23:081:23:12

adherence to any religious belief,

it is fundamental to our law and

1:23:121:23:18

that is fundamental to European

laws. My Lords, if I may include, I

1:23:181:23:24

have lived much of my working life

in countries and under regions whose

1:23:241:23:28

citizens have had no presumption to

conscientious objection or to the

1:23:281:23:32

protection of freedom of conscience.

And where conscience is not a

1:23:321:23:37

protected within the society, it is

discernible in the case that

1:23:371:23:41

individuals may develop as

diminished human beings as the

1:23:411:23:44

person may have no alternative to

act in violation of principles on

1:23:441:23:49

which he or she recognises as

defining his or her own humanity. To

1:23:491:23:55

withhold or deny this protection can

have a profoundly damaging effect on

1:23:551:23:58

personality and ultimately can lead

to my realisation of impoverished

1:23:581:24:03

beings and that is, I must disagree

with the broad thrust of the

1:24:031:24:10

argument made by the Honourable Lord

Mackay. For these reasons I believe

1:24:101:24:14

that the passage of this bill may

be, in an amended version, will

1:24:141:24:20

present the world with a defined

example of British medical ethics,

1:24:201:24:23

destined to be the admiration of

many.

My Lords, I must apologise, I

1:24:231:24:31

have just had some injections for

nervous, it has affected my

1:24:311:24:38

pronunciation. So, on this occasion

I may have to speak slightly more

1:24:381:24:44

slowly than usual to make myself

understood and I will try not to

1:24:441:24:50

speak to slowly. My Lords, I

congratulate the noble baroness,

1:24:501:24:54

Baroness O'Loan, on introducing her

bill, which I support. And they do

1:24:541:25:01

so not only as someone who has

severe disability would have made me

1:25:011:25:07

a prime candidate for abortion, but

also from the perspective of the

1:25:071:25:11

patients, which Baroness Young of

old stone said were so important. --

1:25:111:25:22

old squad. Today is quite a big day

for me, 22 years ago to this very

1:25:221:25:28

day, I almost died. -- Baroness

Young of Old Scone. 22 years on, I

1:25:281:25:35

remember that my neurosurgeon could

not give me all its own survival.

1:25:351:25:41

But I am still here and I am acutely

aware that it could have so easily

1:25:411:25:47

have been very different. The

treatment I received quite literally

1:25:471:25:54

sustained my life. Equally, its

withdrawal or denial was undoubtedly

1:25:541:26:04

would have been the end of it. So,

in terms of relevance to me

1:26:041:26:12

personally, I can detect the box for

11 eight, 11 B and 11 C. At the

1:26:121:26:22

patient who has pleased my life in

the hands of medical professionals,

1:26:221:26:28

and may well need to do so again, I

believe, as I am sure all noble

1:26:281:26:35

lords do, that trust in both the

clinical contents and personal

1:26:351:26:42

effort is an essential element of

the patient practitioner

1:26:421:26:48

partnership. I therefore totally

agree that no medical practitioner

1:26:481:26:57

with the conscientious objection to

participating in certain activities

1:26:571:27:03

covered by the registration

mentioned because it goes against

1:27:031:27:08

their personal beliefs, should be

under any duty to participate. And I

1:27:081:27:15

also agree that there is it need to

clarify the law in light of the way

1:27:151:27:24

in which it has been put forward by

both president and practice as we

1:27:241:27:30

have already heard. As the noble

baroness, Baroness O'Loan has

1:27:301:27:36

already said, conscience is not the

preserve of religion. Indeed, I am

1:27:361:27:43

certainly not assuming that a

medical practitioner's personal

1:27:431:27:49

beliefs will necessarily be informed

by a religious faith. For example,

1:27:491:27:58

they might know a person who is

diagnosed with a disability before

1:27:581:28:06

birth and who has turned the

preconception of a disabled person's

1:28:061:28:15

quality-of-life is that they can

contribute to society and the

1:28:151:28:17

ability to love and be loved as an

equal buyout human being, all those

1:28:171:28:25

things may have turned a medical

practitioner's preconception of

1:28:251:28:33

disability on its head.

1:28:331:28:38

I should add that as I've stated

previously, I do not take a position

1:28:381:28:45

on abortion per se. I do, however,

take a position on equality. The

1:28:451:28:57

central point for me, and I hope for

all noble Lords participating in

1:28:571:29:03

this debate is that genuine equality

doesn't have a cut-off point. A

1:29:031:29:11

beginning or an end. And neither is

it relative. Equality is as

1:29:111:29:18

fundamental to who we are as human

beings as the other unique hallmarks

1:29:181:29:25

of humanity. Our capacity to anchor

our actions within the context of

1:29:251:29:34

conscience. For it is our

conscience, surely, which exposes

1:29:341:29:38

the dangerous deceit that it is

somehow consistent with the concept

1:29:381:29:45

of equality for a more powerful

group of human beings to Act as if

1:29:451:29:53

they were more equal than another,

weaker group of human beings. And

1:29:531:30:02

moreover, for them to decide that

their superiority and strength means

1:30:021:30:09

that they can pretend that

exercising their power is actually a

1:30:091:30:16

human right. My Lords, a group may

be more powerful, and which group is

1:30:161:30:27

not more powerful than disabled

human beings, but more equal? Never.

1:30:271:30:34

Anyone who cares to read George

Orwell's Animal Farm knows he well

1:30:341:30:44

and truly nailed that life. My

Lords, this is a Bill which defends

1:30:441:30:48

not just the fundamental human right

to freedom of conscience, but also

1:30:481:30:55

the right not to prevaricate and

prejudice. The right not to

1:30:551:31:05

equivocate on equality. This Bill

defends a human being's right to

1:31:051:31:11

choose, to recognise our common

humanity, and thus our intrinsic

1:31:111:31:18

equality regardless of disability,

or, for that matter, race, sexuality

1:31:181:31:24

or gender. If we truly believe in

genuine equality, how can disabled

1:31:241:31:33

human beings be treated any

differently from any other protected

1:31:331:31:43

group covered by the equality act

2010, at any stage of our existence,

1:31:431:31:50

whether before or after death.

Surely a medical practitioner is

1:31:501:32:02

entitled in all conscience to ask

themselves that simple question. My

1:32:021:32:07

Lords, this is not religion. This is

cold, hard, clinical logic. And, if

1:32:071:32:16

having asked themselves that

question, they should come to the

1:32:161:32:20

logical conclusion that

participating in the activities

1:32:201:32:28

covered in 1.1 of this Bill

compromises their conscience, the

1:32:281:32:32

law must protect them in line with

1.3. No medical practitioner should

1:32:321:32:41

themselves suffer discrimination for

their conscientious objection. My

1:32:411:32:53

Lords, in conclusion, this Bill

attack is no one. It condemns no

1:32:531:33:00

one. And it threatens no one.

Instead, it affirms. It upholds, and

1:33:001:33:09

it protects what we all value.

Integrity, equality, our common

1:33:091:33:19

humanity, and the greatest human

rights of all. The freedom to think,

1:33:191:33:25

to speak, and to act in accordance

with our conscience. In backing this

1:33:251:33:35

Bill, we all not only affirm our

shared values, as equal human beings

1:33:351:33:41

endowed with a conscience, we affirm

ourselves.

My Lords, I rise to

1:33:411:33:54

support this important Bill. It's a

timely recognition of the importance

1:33:541:33:57

of conscience and ethical belief in

looking at the end of life decisions

1:33:571:34:04

and the increasingly complex issues

and personal dilemmas that many face

1:34:041:34:10

in their daily lives. Speaking from

a Sikh perspective, I fully support

1:34:101:34:18

its sentiments and aims and

objectives. Majority opinion can at

1:34:181:34:22

times be unthinking and we need to

be wary of being pushed or pushing

1:34:221:34:29

others to support debatable

attitudes which at times the front

1:34:291:34:32

ethical and moral principles. This

year, as has been mentioned, while

1:34:321:34:40

commemorating the centenary of the

end of the carnage of World War I,

1:34:401:34:44

we should pause and reflect that it

was also a war in which

1:34:441:34:49

conscientious objectors were

brutally treated or even shot for

1:34:491:34:54

their belief that it is wrong to

kill. Something of the same dilemma

1:34:541:35:01

was faced by Sikh soldiers when the

Indian army attacked the Golden

1:35:011:35:06

Temple in Amritsar in 1984. This

attack on the holiest of Sikh

1:35:061:35:12

shrines on one of the holiest days

in the Sikh Callender was clearly

1:35:121:35:18

political. Soldiers were ordered to

shoot innocent pilgrims. Some Sikh

1:35:181:35:22

soldiers refused and were accused of

mutiny. Some were shot, somewhere to

1:35:221:35:30

spend years in prison. They were

accused of treason and disloyalty to

1:35:301:35:33

their oath of allegiance. Yet in

refusing to shoot noncombatants they

1:35:331:35:42

were being true to the ethical

teachings of their religion. This

1:35:421:35:46

requirement to be true to our

conscience is embedded in Sikhs

1:35:461:35:52

Scriptures. The fourth guru of the

Sikhs wrote "All human powers men

1:35:521:35:58

make pacts with subject to death and

decay"

1:35:581:36:05

make pacts with subject to death and

decay". In the Nuremberg trials many

1:36:051:36:08

Germans accused of war crimes

against the dues and others pleaded

1:36:081:36:12

that they would duty bound to follow

orders, however questionable -- of

1:36:121:36:17

war crimes against the Jews. The

requirements of any state were

1:36:171:36:24

secondary to the overriding norms of

civilised behaviour. My Lords, rapid

1:36:241:36:29

advances in the fields of medicine

and today's increasing tendency to

1:36:291:36:33

over focus on the right of an

individual can easily lead us to

1:36:331:36:37

ignore the rights of wider society

and the ethical dilemmas that

1:36:371:36:44

sometimes questionable procedures

pose for those immediately involved.

1:36:441:36:48

The downside of what we do is not

always immediately apparent. The

1:36:481:36:54

initial, clearly limited humane

objectives of the abortion act 1967

1:36:541:37:01

have over time been largely ignored.

Abortion has become contrary to the

1:37:011:37:08

original intentions of the Act and

the ethical teachings of most

1:37:081:37:12

religions and beliefs, has simply

become another method of birth

1:37:121:37:19

control. We must have the right to

object and not take part in what we

1:37:191:37:24

considered to be the unnecessary

taking of human life. The human

1:37:241:37:31

fertilisation and embryology act

1990 which legalised embryo

1:37:311:37:36

destructive forms of research, and

the rapid expansion in molecular

1:37:361:37:40

biology, a new genetic modification

techniques, can impinge on deeply

1:37:401:37:49

held ethical beliefs. People should

not be compelled to do anything they

1:37:491:37:52

believe is contrary to the

respectful life. While conscience

1:37:521:37:58

clauses were included in initial

legislation, these have been

1:37:581:38:03

continually eroded by social

pressures to conform. Those involved

1:38:031:38:08

in procedures that impact on

sincerely held ethical beliefs must

1:38:081:38:13

be given the right to opt out. This

need to respect conscience goes

1:38:131:38:22

beyond the field of medicine.

Yesterday I was invited to give a

1:38:221:38:29

Sikh perspective on relationship

teaching in schools. As a Sikh I am

1:38:291:38:35

appalled that the undue emphasis on

sexual relationships and sexual

1:38:351:38:41

identity currently being taught in

schools. Young children are led to

1:38:411:38:48

questioning their gender and

unhelpful helpfully offered support

1:38:481:38:50

to make permanent their potential

differences, passing phases of

1:38:501:39:01

growing up. Parents and teachers

should have a right to question or

1:39:011:39:05

opt out of such teachings. Today we

need to heed the words of the great

1:39:051:39:11

philosopher James Russell Lao all

who wrote "We owe allegiance to the

1:39:111:39:15

state but deeper, truer still, to

the sympathies that God has set

1:39:151:39:20

within our spirits"

1:39:201:39:25

the sympathies that God has set

within our spirits". The Bill is

1:39:251:39:27

timely, well considered and

necessary, I give it my full

1:39:271:39:30

support.

I first had the pleasure of

meeting the noble lady Baroness in

1:39:301:39:38

Northern Ireland many years ago. I

was very impressed with the work she

1:39:381:39:43

did there, the excellent way she

contributed to the peace process and

1:39:431:39:46

life in Northern Ireland. It is

therefore with some regret that I'm

1:39:461:39:51

afraid I have to differ with her on

this occasion. I feel bad about that

1:39:511:39:55

but I feel I must do that because

she was such an important figure in

1:39:551:40:00

those years in Northern Ireland. My

Lords, of course we all agree about

1:40:001:40:05

the right to conscientious

objection. It seems to me we are

1:40:051:40:07

simply debating where to draw the

line. There is no real point of

1:40:071:40:13

principle here. I think the current

provision for conscientious

1:40:131:40:18

objection in medical practice has

just about got the balance right.

1:40:181:40:21

Between health care professionals'

moral beliefs and patients' freedom.

1:40:211:40:30

I fear this Bill will tip the

balance in the wrong direction away

1:40:301:40:32

from the rights of patients. That is

the basis of my objection. I don't

1:40:321:40:37

think the case has been made out for

the Bill, at least not to my

1:40:371:40:42

satisfaction. There is one

particularly important point. There

1:40:421:40:46

is nothing in this Bill which would

oblige the objecting health care

1:40:461:40:51

professional to refer a patient's

case to another professional who

1:40:511:40:58

didn't have an objection. In other

words, if a doctor or whoever it is

1:40:581:41:02

is unhappy about being asked to

carry out a procedure or treatment,

1:41:021:41:06

surely they should be able to do

what has been traditionally done. I

1:41:061:41:11

can't do this, but I'll refer you to

somebody else it can. To me that is

1:41:111:41:15

an enormous gap in the Bill. I don't

think I'd miss read it but it isn't

1:41:151:41:19

there and I think that is

unfortunate. My Lords, I think the

1:41:191:41:27

Bill would significantly widen the

scope of conscientious objection. It

1:41:271:41:30

would increase the number of medical

procedures to which conscientious

1:41:301:41:34

objection would apply under the law.

If you broaden the razor

1:41:341:41:38

professionals to whom it would

apply, for example in clause 1.2 it

1:41:381:41:44

says that participation includes

"Any supervision, delegation,

1:41:441:41:51

planning or supporting of staff in

respect of that activity". That may

1:41:511:41:56

be so peripheral to the activity

itself that it seems to me it's

1:41:561:42:01

extending the principle of

conscientious objection to far. I

1:42:011:42:04

prefer the Baroness's comment about

it having to be hands-on. Even if we

1:42:041:42:09

don't like her being too narrow in

this, I think the Bill itself goes

1:42:091:42:14

far too far in the phrase I've read

out.

1:42:141:42:21

What we are talking about is in fact

supervision, delegation, planning.

1:42:211:42:27

Let me spell this out slightly. For

example, you might have a palliative

1:42:271:42:34

care clinical nurse specialist

supervising be specific care needs

1:42:341:42:38

for an oncology ward patient

including those who may have refused

1:42:381:42:42

life-sustaining treatment such as

chemotherapy. It seems to me that it

1:42:421:42:47

is the right of many patients who

suffer from cancer to refuse

1:42:471:42:50

chemotherapy. I know some people

myself. Surely, that ought not to be

1:42:501:42:55

with in the ambit of the Bill and I

could give many other examples of

1:42:551:43:03

this. It seems to me that the rights

of patients should not be forgotten

1:43:031:43:09

in this way. My Lords, the bill also

seeks to expand the activities to

1:43:091:43:14

which a health care professional

good object and I think it is

1:43:141:43:24

crucial not to distinguish between

people starting treatment as people

1:43:241:43:27

stopping treatment at a time of

their choosing. We heard a very

1:43:271:43:31

emotional speech from the noble lady

opposite about her own personal

1:43:311:43:36

family circumstances and it seems to

me that the right to not have

1:43:361:43:40

treatment or the right to stop

treatment is absolutely fundamental

1:43:401:43:44

and my fear is that this bill will

make that freedom less effective.

1:43:441:43:52

Lastly, there is a case that people

who want to refused life-sustaining

1:43:521:44:01

treatment in advance because of the

possibility of deterioration in

1:44:011:44:06

their mental health condition and,

again, I fear that the bill is

1:44:061:44:09

silent on an issue of whether health

care professionals can object to

1:44:091:44:19

adults refusing life-sustaining

treatment in advance that others may

1:44:191:44:23

decide is necessary. I regret having

to object to this bill, but I'm

1:44:231:44:27

afraid I do object. I think it will

be to the detriment of patients and

1:44:271:44:30

I do not think it takes the argument

of conscientious objection any

1:44:301:44:37

further in a sensible way.

I

congratulate my noble friend for

1:44:371:44:41

introducing this bill. The point I

wish to make have already been made

1:44:411:44:45

in far more eloquent contributions

than my would-be but I wish to give

1:44:451:44:49

a very briefly my reasons for

strongly supporting this bill. I

1:44:491:44:52

should acknowledge my position as

honorary reader of the Royal College

1:44:521:45:00

of nurses. It seems that all the

health care who would be positively

1:45:001:45:06

affected by the successful passage

of this bill, none would be more so

1:45:061:45:10

than nurses and midwives. It is

nurses who are likely to be asked to

1:45:101:45:14

assist in the withdrawal of

treatment and midwives with

1:45:141:45:21

performing abortion. My Lords, it is

not a matter of imposing values or

1:45:211:45:25

beliefs on patients but to ask for

the right of conscientious objection

1:45:251:45:29

where a human life is being taken by

asking the National Health Service

1:45:291:45:32

to accommodate at professionals who

have religious authors -- religious

1:45:321:45:41

or philosophical convictions. Such

beliefs are given protection under

1:45:411:45:44

from discrimination in conscience

clauses recognised and originally

1:45:441:45:50

called for by professional bodies. I

refer, for example, to the clause in

1:45:501:45:55

the abortion act. The Royal College

of nurses, the general nursing

1:45:551:45:59

Council and to date the nursing

midwifery Council and the Royal

1:45:591:46:03

College of midwives all called for a

provision to help protect the

1:46:031:46:06

professionals they represented and,

indeed, rightly so. It was this

1:46:061:46:10

representation that informs the

framing of that act and which should

1:46:101:46:13

inform our interpretation of it

today. As a Royal College of Nursing

1:46:131:46:18

position statement on abortion

states, I quote, the equally

1:46:181:46:23

acknowledge and respect those

nurses, midwives and health care

1:46:231:46:26

assistants who have a conscientious

objection within current

1:46:261:46:29

legislation. My Lords, this

acknowledgement is important because

1:46:291:46:33

it reflects the understanding that

conscientious belief is not just a

1:46:331:46:38

personal idiosyncrasy, but a central

element of what it is to be a human

1:46:381:46:42

being. Most importantly in this

context, a human being providing

1:46:421:46:47

health care and medical treatment.

Such belief is protected and

1:46:471:46:51

equality legislation and we have

taken pains in previous law to

1:46:511:46:54

accommodate the consciousness of

medical and other health care

1:46:541:46:58

professionals. However,

unfortunately, as has been mentioned

1:46:581:47:01

that highlighted by others, these

legal judgments have demonstrated a

1:47:011:47:07

degradation in these protections in

law. Correcting the situation as

1:47:071:47:10

this bill would do and thereby

allowing freedom of conscience by

1:47:101:47:14

health care workers, ensuring their

freedom from unjust discrimination

1:47:141:47:18

and respecting diversity of belief

would be a very significant and

1:47:181:47:23

much-needed achievement. For the

sake of those serving, the medical,

1:47:231:47:27

nursing and midwifery professions

and the patients they serve and for

1:47:271:47:32

the sake of the integrity of health

care professions, I believe ensuring

1:47:321:47:36

that conscientious objection is

given proper protection in law would

1:47:361:47:41

be a truly important reform which

this bill seeks to ensure and why I

1:47:411:47:45

give this bill my strongest support.

I rise to support this bill brought

1:47:451:47:52

forward by my noble friend. I wish

to bring us back for one moment, as

1:47:521:48:00

has just been referred to by the

noble lady, to the title of the bill

1:48:001:48:07

we are debating, conscientious

objection. And I agree in the

1:48:071:48:13

context of the term conscience. I

support and agree with the

1:48:131:48:17

mainstream academic view which has

been briefly referred to earlier as

1:48:171:48:25

articulated by Professor Dan Brock

of the Harvard medical school in

1:48:251:48:30

2008. I quote, deeply held and

important moral judgments of

1:48:301:48:38

conscience constitutes the central

basis of individuals' moral

1:48:381:48:43

integrity. They define who, at least

morally speaking, the individual is,

1:48:431:48:51

what she stands for, what is the

central moral core of her character.

1:48:511:48:57

The truth that there is a sense

which I think Brock draws out rather

1:48:571:49:03

well in which the role of conscience

highlights an important part of what

1:49:031:49:08

makes us human. My Lords, there is

something sinister, oppressive and

1:49:081:49:18

inhuman about societysocieties that

do not make space for conscience

1:49:181:49:23

which make people suffer for

remaining true to their moral

1:49:231:49:29

judgments of conscience whether

through secular or religious values.

1:49:291:49:36

As an academic and experts in this

field, Doctor Mary Newell of the

1:49:361:49:41

University of Strathclyde 's legal

department puts it, I quote,

1:49:411:49:44

conscience clauses exist primarily

to protect people from moral

1:49:441:49:51

responsibility for what they regard

as wrongdoing. This seems a vital

1:49:511:49:58

part of our legal framework and one

which, in the areas of medicine we

1:49:581:50:06

are discussing today, is widely

respected internationally. Article

1:50:061:50:12

nine of the European Convention on

human rights outlines that everyone

1:50:121:50:17

has the right to freedom of thought,

of conscience and of religion.

1:50:171:50:24

Further, has has been referred to,

resolution 163 of the Parliamentary

1:50:241:50:31

Constitution of Europe calls on the

Council of Europe members to

1:50:311:50:35

guarantee the rights to a

conscientious objection for medical

1:50:351:50:41

procedures in these various very

areas described in the bill. Whilst,

1:50:411:50:49

and importantly, also ensuring

patients are able to access

1:50:491:50:56

appropriate treatment. At this

point, some might say that whilst

1:50:561:51:05

they have no desire to force people

to act against their conscience,

1:51:051:51:11

people with conscientious objections

to procedure is caused by clause one

1:51:111:51:15

should not enter the medical

profession. No one has to be a

1:51:151:51:19

doctor or a midwife or a nurse.

Well, I don't find that position at

1:51:191:51:26

all remotely persuasive. As someone

who has spent his life in business,

1:51:261:51:35

commercial, education and the

performing arts, I am keenly aware

1:51:351:51:39

that every industry wants

hard-working, dedicated people

1:51:391:51:44

operating in their field. We want

hard-working, dedicated doctors,

1:51:441:51:53

nurses and midwives working in this

country. Individuals who enter these

1:51:531:51:58

professions also do so because of

their deep concerns first human

1:51:581:52:02

life. It is therefore no surprise

that the medical procedure is

1:52:021:52:07

covered by clause one of this bill

would be problematic to some of

1:52:071:52:11

them. In the absence of this bill,

two groups, I believe, really get

1:52:111:52:18

into difficulty. First, let's

consider those who are already

1:52:181:52:24

trained and have become medical

professionals

1:52:241:52:28

conscientious objections to

abortion. The 2016 report, freedom

1:52:281:52:35

of conscience in abortion provision,

highlights evidence of clear

1:52:351:52:39

conscientious objection based

discrimination against those already

1:52:391:52:44

in the medical profession. These

were not frivolous claims but

1:52:441:52:51

serious concerns expressed by those

who report is that they would not be

1:52:511:52:55

able to progress their careers if

they objected to abortions. It is

1:52:551:53:01

for this reason, my Lords, that I

strongly recommend the employment

1:53:011:53:05

discrimination protections in clause

three. Second, let us consider the

1:53:051:53:12

implications of asserting that only

those without a conscientious

1:53:121:53:16

objection should enter a medical

profession. This would be clearly a

1:53:161:53:20

huge disappointment to those who

aspire to be medical professionals

1:53:201:53:24

and who have otherwise have become

talented doctors or nurses. I know

1:53:241:53:31

we are all greatly disturbed of the

News of the shortage of medical

1:53:311:53:35

staff in the National Health

Service. In this context, therefore,

1:53:351:53:40

putting any barriers in the way of

entering the medical profession

1:53:401:53:44

because individuals feel they cannot

exercise their freedom of conscience

1:53:441:53:47

is clearly counter-productive. The

irony is that some would argue

1:53:471:53:55

against conscience on the basis that

it will apparently restrict services

1:53:551:54:00

and this is greatly confounded by

the fact that the right to

1:54:001:54:04

conscientious objection proposed to

this bill and already in law only

1:54:041:54:08

applies to individual professionals.

The National Health Service in both

1:54:081:54:14

England and Wales has a legal

obligation to provide abortion

1:54:141:54:18

services and they have the

responsibility to ensure sufficient

1:54:181:54:24

provision. My Lords, I do not wish

to see medical professions condemned

1:54:241:54:32

to be providers rather than

individuals. I do not wish to see

1:54:321:54:37

services delivered, especially

health care services, by people who

1:54:371:54:39

have been forced to renounce a key

aspect of their humanity. We once

1:54:391:54:45

doctors and nurses who are more, not

less, human and that will only

1:54:451:54:51

happen if we honour their humanity.

I want to live in a country where we

1:54:511:54:57

have a richer conception of human

beings and where we do not wear

1:54:571:55:00

consumer rights such that the

consumer can demand a pound of flesh

1:55:001:55:09

from the provider without any

concern for the moral difficulty it

1:55:091:55:11

might place him or her in. It seems

to me that part of this challenge of

1:55:111:55:20

living in a civilised society is

having the grace to exercise one's

1:55:201:55:26

rights in a way that has regard for

how doing so impact other people. My

1:55:261:55:32

Lords, I am committed to this bill.

I rise to express my great respect

1:55:321:55:41

for my noble friend but also my

considerable concern about the

1:55:411:55:44

likely consequences of this bill if

it were to reach the statute book

1:55:441:55:48

and I want to pay tribute to the

extraordinary moving contribution by

1:55:481:55:54

the baroness which, to me, says it

all, frankly. The focus of my

1:55:541:55:58

remarks will be clause 1.2 of the

bill and particularly whitening the

1:55:581:56:02

definition in that clause of the

term participation in the treatment

1:56:021:56:07

process. I also would like to make

remarks on the withdrawal of life

1:56:071:56:12

prolonging treatment at the request

of the patient. The right of

1:56:121:56:17

patients to decide when and whether

to accept medical treatment is at

1:56:171:56:20

the heart of this. In the past, it

was assumed that the doctor knew

1:56:201:56:24

best and that the patient should not

have any say in what happened to

1:56:241:56:28

them should they fall into the hands

of the medical profession. In recent

1:56:281:56:33

years, a basic tenants of medical

treatment the rights of the patients

1:56:331:56:37

to know about the side-effects of

treatments, the consequences of

1:56:371:56:42

nontreatment, so so the treatment

himself or herself can make an

1:56:421:56:47

informed decision about what they

know is in their own best interest.

1:56:471:56:51

The centrality of the patient in

treatment decisions is assumed

1:56:511:56:55

throughout adult life until the

months before death and then the

1:56:551:57:02

General medical Council makes clear

that the duties of medical

1:57:021:57:05

practitioners in their guidance on

treatment and care towards the end

1:57:051:57:09

of life, good practice in

decision-making published in 2010.

1:57:091:57:14

All important for me, the GMC makes

clear that a doctor must not refuse

1:57:141:57:19

to withdraw life prolonging

treatments because of a

1:57:191:57:23

conscientious objection without

first ensuring that arrangements

1:57:231:57:27

have been made for another doctor to

take over. In other words, a

1:57:271:57:33

conscientious objector, fair enough,

they can have their objection but

1:57:331:57:37

they must not interfere with the

ending of life prolonging treatment

1:57:371:57:41

if that is the wish of the patient

and, obviously, if it is the wish of

1:57:411:57:46

the patient it is because it is in

the best interest of the patient.

1:57:461:57:53

Similar emphasis is placed on the

patient's right to decide by the

1:57:531:57:57

mental capacity act code of practice

and the nursing and midwifery

1:57:571:58:05

Council.

The provisions of this Bill

will place an unnecessary additional

1:58:051:58:10

burden on the medical professionals

and others in our already

1:58:101:58:15

drastically overstretched NHS. That

worries me deeply, because basically

1:58:151:58:18

we want patients to get the

treatment they want and deserve. If

1:58:181:58:24

the GMC and other guidance is not

fully complied with, then the

1:58:241:58:29

important needs of the patient will

not be met. The current law works

1:58:291:58:36

well, as they say if it ain't broke

don't fix it. The law allows the

1:58:361:58:43

medical profession to

conscientiously object without

1:58:431:58:45

abandoning their patients and

without promoting the principles of

1:58:451:58:50

person centred care. Clause 1.2 of

the Bill intends to extend the

1:58:501:59:00

definition of participate in the

withdrawal of treatment to encompass

1:59:001:59:05

any supervision, delegation,

planning or supporting of staff. As

1:59:051:59:08

other noble Lords have said, this is

in direct conflict with the Supreme

1:59:081:59:13

Court decision delivered by Lady

Hale that it "Participate means

1:59:131:59:17

taking part in a hands-on capacity".

It's terribly important I think that

1:59:171:59:24

a medical professional shouldn't be

required to do something directly

1:59:241:59:32

contrary to their conscience. I hope

your Lordships will want to uphold

1:59:321:59:36

the Supreme Court decision and

therefore to reject the Bill. I

1:59:361:59:40

realise my noble friend Lord Browne

said how that decision in detail

1:59:401:59:45

which was most helpful. I want to

support Lord Dubs's concerned that

1:59:451:59:50

the Bill also says nothing about

whether health care staff could

1:59:501:59:54

conscientiously object to helping

mentally competent adults with their

1:59:541:59:59

advanced care plan, including

clarification of situations, when

1:59:592:00:02

they would want treatment to be

withdrawn. If that happened it would

2:00:022:00:08

have a swathe of further detrimental

effects for patients. It's important

2:00:082:00:13

for us all to try and put ourselves

in the position of a dying person

2:00:132:00:18

who is suffering has become

unbearable and whose treatment is

2:00:182:00:22

only prolonging a situation they

find intolerable. The patient wants

2:00:222:00:25

to be able to decide how much

suffering they are willing and able

2:00:252:00:30

to take. Can anyone really say the

patient should be denied that right?

2:00:302:00:35

Particularly vulnerable if this law

were passed would be a terminally

2:00:352:00:40

ill patient in a hospice who decided

they wanted treatment to cease but a

2:00:402:00:46

charge nurse who had general

management responsibility for the

2:00:462:00:50

hospice as a whole and for their

care had a conscientious objection

2:00:502:00:56

to that patient's decision. With

that charge nurse really be able to

2:00:562:01:00

ensure that someone else took over

their management responsibility?

2:01:002:01:05

Would there be such a person? This

law is dangerous, my lords. It would

2:01:052:01:10

have a negative impact on palliative

and hospice care, terminally ill

2:01:102:01:14

patients could be required to suffer

more than they already do, people

2:01:142:01:19

suffer enough, and therefore wrongly

in my view. My Lords, this is a

2:01:192:01:24

complex issue but I believe the

current law strikes a pretty good

2:01:242:01:29

balance. I therefore cannot support

this Bill.

My Lords, in the

2:01:292:01:36

beginning perhaps I should try and

allay some of the anxieties the

2:01:362:01:39

noble Baroness by referring had to

clause one of the Bill which

2:01:392:01:46

restricts its effect to activities

under the embryology act 1990 and

2:01:462:01:51

the Abortion Act 1967. That's not

going to take us, I think into the

2:01:512:01:57

area of hospices and so one. I will

speak very briefly because so much

2:01:572:02:05

has been said so well. If I could

say that my noble and Leonard friend

2:02:052:02:15

has set out very clearly most of the

reasons for which I support this

2:02:152:02:19

Bill -- noble and learned friend.

And my noble friend the Baroness has

2:02:192:02:28

set the margin for philosophic

terms. I would rather turn to the

2:02:282:02:32

practicalities, and there is a

common concern not limited to those

2:02:322:02:37

who oppose the Bill in principle,

about the extent to which the

2:02:372:02:41

exemption of the Bill supplies, the

whiteness of that extent. My Lords,

2:02:412:02:50

it seems to me that two things need

to be held in mind when we start on

2:02:502:02:57

this. The first is to empty our

minds of our own views as to the

2:02:572:03:07

rightness or wrongness of the

termination of life. What we are

2:03:072:03:11

looking at is the rightness or

wrongness of requiring people to do

2:03:112:03:16

things which are absolutely

abhorrent to them. The question is

2:03:162:03:21

how close to the deed that is done

do you have to be before you are

2:03:212:03:26

right to think you are in some sense

guilty? Therefore it might be

2:03:262:03:31

helpful to look at how we apply this

test elsewhere. For instance, if

2:03:312:03:36

there is a burglary and if I make

arrangements for the burglar to have

2:03:362:03:49

somebody to keep watch while he

burbles, or if I arrange for there

2:03:492:03:53

to be a getaway car and delegate the

duty of driving it to somebody else,

2:03:532:04:02

it would be quite clear I would have

thought in a court that guilt

2:04:022:04:07

attached to me because I had made it

possible for the burglary to take

2:04:072:04:11

place. The question is, in my mind,

at what stage in the administrative

2:04:112:04:19

and preparatory procedures can a

person who is involved probably say

2:04:192:04:24

that if I had not done this, that

would not have happened. If I have

2:04:242:04:29

not provided this particular

pharmaceutical product, or if I had

2:04:292:04:41

not myself being present at a

particular time in neighbouring some

2:04:412:04:45

function to take place, then it

could not have happened. I think the

2:04:452:04:50

definition we must seek in committee

is a definition which makes clear

2:04:502:04:56

where the line stops in the

administrative and preparatory

2:04:562:05:02

training, where the line below which

there is no guilt. Whether you are

2:05:022:05:13

organising the bus service that goes

past the House that was burgled and

2:05:132:05:17

not the car that the burglar got

away in. It's a simple illustration,

2:05:172:05:21

I hope it's helpful. I warmly and

enthusiastically support the Bill

2:05:212:05:27

and its intentions and the noble

Baroness and I would like to see

2:05:272:05:31

more about the contributions but I

think we need to bring this to an

2:05:312:05:34

end because we are focusing very

clearly -- not focusing very clearly

2:05:342:05:41

and what the real issues are.

I

thank you for bringing this timely

2:05:412:05:45

Bill to her Lordship's house and for

her eloquent and persuasive

2:05:452:05:50

introductory remarks. My interests

link to various charities which work

2:05:502:05:54

on these issues are declared in the

register. I served as a member of

2:05:542:05:59

the all Parliamentary party pro-life

group enquiry into freedom of

2:05:592:06:04

conscience in abortion provision

which has been referred to during

2:06:042:06:07

the course of this debate, and

enquiry admirably chaired by Fiona

2:06:072:06:12

Bruce MP. On Wednesday this week I

met Mary Dougan, one of the two

2:06:122:06:18

midwives referred to by my noble

friend and others. The call of the

2:06:182:06:24

midwife is an incredibly high

calling. It's a call to bring new

2:06:242:06:28

life into the world. And to tell

such women that they must facilitate

2:06:282:06:33

the taking of the lives of babies in

the womb or lose their jobs is not

2:06:332:06:37

the hallmark of a liberal or a

tolerant society. In the 18th

2:06:372:06:44

century, the renowned German

philosopher Emanuel Kant understood

2:06:442:06:48

conscience as "An internal quote in

man". -- internal court in man. It

2:06:482:06:58

acts as an external constraint on

human behaviour. Whether it's

2:06:582:07:01

inspired by religious or secular

belief is largely irrelevant.

2:07:012:07:06

Conscience is unfounded and where

more personal preference but rather

2:07:062:07:11

it provides meaningful conviction

which allows people to structure

2:07:112:07:13

their own ethical identity and to

exercise their judgment. It was in

2:07:132:07:19

accordance with cant's dictum that

the framers of the 1948 universal

2:07:192:07:26

declaration of human rights, written

as the world emerged from the

2:07:262:07:32

horrors of the Second World War,

that they understood conscience.

2:07:322:07:38

Conscience features prominently in

the document, with the very first

2:07:382:07:42

article recognising that all human

beings are born free and equal in

2:07:422:07:47

dignity and rights. They are endowed

with reason and conscience. Both the

2:07:472:07:54

Universal Declaration of Human

Rights and the European Convention

2:07:542:07:57

on human rights explicitly guarantee

a right to freedom of conscience for

2:07:572:08:04

all and it's been recognised in

every major human rights treaty

2:08:042:08:08

since then. My Lords, it was also

recognised in another place and here

2:08:082:08:13

during the debates in 1967 that

formed the Abortion Act. It was

2:08:132:08:19

David Steele who told the House of

Commons" the Bill imposes no

2:08:192:08:31

obligation on anyone to participate

in an operation. The clause also

2:08:312:08:36

gives nurses and hospital employees

a clear right to opt out". My Lords,

2:08:362:08:45

the case of Mary Dougan shows how

that assurance which was given in

2:08:452:08:50

sincerity and in the genuine belief

that it would be prevented has at

2:08:502:08:54

least been diluted and watered down.

While conscientious protection in

2:08:542:08:59

section four was specifically

enshrined in the Act, in practice

2:08:592:09:02

the report that we undertook over

the last two years found that

2:09:022:09:08

medical professionals are far too

dependent on the individual

2:09:082:09:11

attitudes and discretion of their

personal line managers or

2:09:112:09:15

colleagues. During the enquiry

evidence from the British Medical

2:09:152:09:20

Association confirmed some doctors

had complained of being harassed and

2:09:202:09:25

discriminated against specifically

because of their conscientious

2:09:252:09:29

objection to abortion. The enquiry

also heard evidence on how career

2:09:292:09:32

progression, a point the noble lord

with so much experience in this

2:09:322:09:38

field may during his speech earlier

today, of how career progression

2:09:382:09:44

opportunities in gynaecology and

abstract checks had been limited for

2:09:442:09:47

those who wanted to exercise their

conscience -- gynaecology and

2:09:472:09:55

obstetrics. I was struck by this

from Professor John Wyatt. He told

2:09:552:09:59

us, over the last century there have

been many startling and egregious

2:09:592:10:03

cases in which the core moral

commitments of medicine have been

2:10:032:10:07

corrupted and violated because of

state coercion being exercised and

2:10:072:10:12

physicians. The vast majority of

evidence that was received accorded

2:10:122:10:17

with what John Wyatt said to us, and

recognised the importance of

2:10:172:10:22

conscience as a key part of what it

means to live in a free unfulfilled

2:10:222:10:27

society, in a diverse and democratic

society. My noble friend referred to

2:10:272:10:33

Doctor Mary Neal a senior lecturer

in Law at the University of

2:10:332:10:37

Strathclyde. I met with her earlier

this week. In her written evidence

2:10:372:10:43

she said, we should not expect

someone who believes abortion to be

2:10:432:10:46

seriously morally wrong to be

willing to participate in it in any

2:10:462:10:54

capacity and conscience provisions

should be drafted and interpreted so

2:10:542:10:58

as to protect health care

practitioners against any such

2:10:582:11:01

expectations. My Lords, at its core

this Bill is about the minority's

2:11:012:11:08

right to dissent from mainstream

opinion and to resist compelled

2:11:082:11:11

action. It prevents abuse of a

dominant position and is deeply

2:11:112:11:15

concerned with the right of

individual liberty. Most of the

2:11:152:11:18

arguments that have been advanced

during today's debate simply do not

2:11:182:11:23

stand up to scrutiny. The arguments

against the Bill. The Abortion Act

2:11:232:11:28

already limits scope of

conscientious objection, and if it

2:11:282:11:33

was working in such a pernicious way

as some have described in preventing

2:11:332:11:39

people participating in abortions it

would not enable one abortion to

2:11:392:11:42

take place every three minutes this

country, 20 every hour, over 8

2:11:422:11:48

million since the passage of that

legislation. I don't believe that

2:11:482:11:52

argument stacks up. The state has a

duty to safeguard the conscience of

2:11:522:11:57

individual professionals as well as

providing an effective health care

2:11:572:12:00

service. The denial of conscience is

an attribute of an illiberal

2:12:002:12:04

society. It is the hallmark of an

illiberal society because it is an

2:12:042:12:08

act of coercion. A doctor, nurse or

midwife isn't a functionary or

2:12:082:12:16

automata on. I'm acutely conscious

of the high calling of the healer.

2:12:162:12:25

Hippocrates, the father of medicine,

Gates said it was an extraordinary

2:12:252:12:33

calling for the protection of human

life. As has previously been said,

2:12:332:12:39

we do not want to go to

extraordinary lengths to keep

2:12:392:12:43

someone alive who has no wish to and

her story was heartbreaking, but

2:12:432:12:47

neither should we tell doctors they

must give lethal injections to take

2:12:472:12:52

life. The bill is consistent with

the tradition of Hippocrates who

2:12:522:12:56

said, in a fundamental move away

from more primitive medical

2:12:562:13:01

traditions, there would be

prohibitions on abortion and

2:13:012:13:04

euthanasia. He refused to

accommodate those who believes that

2:13:042:13:07

care and kill could be used as

synonyms and nor does my noble

2:13:072:13:11

friend and that is why I hope that

our bill will receive a second

2:13:112:13:15

reading in neurologic's has today.

I

declare interest as the new chair of

2:13:152:13:23

the Parliamentary group on sexual

and reproductive health, a position

2:13:232:13:27

I have taken over from the noble

Baroness, Baroness Gould, as I wish

2:13:272:13:31

to place on record my thanks to her

for all the work she has done in her

2:13:312:13:36

time in that position. I also, in

that capacity, had the great

2:13:362:13:46

privilege of talking to the noble

Lord, Lord steel. He could not be

2:13:462:13:50

here today. If you were, he would,

like me, seeks to vigorously oppose

2:13:502:13:58

the noble Baroness's bill and he

would have picked up the noble Lord,

2:13:582:14:06

Lord Alton, on his partial quotation

from 1967 because what the noble

2:14:062:14:13

Lord went on to say was that a

conscientious objection was written

2:14:132:14:19

into his bill but with the proviso

that no woman would be denied access

2:14:192:14:22

to the services which would then

become illegal and the thing that he

2:14:222:14:26

wanted to stay to the noble Lords

today, had he been present, is do

2:14:262:14:31

not be fooled by this bill. This is

taking us back to the early 1960s

2:14:312:14:36

when practitioners such as the

senior registrar in the West

2:14:362:14:40

Midlands effectively denied women

their legal rights. My Lords, I

2:14:402:14:45

often talk to students about the

contracting systems of the United

2:14:452:14:51

States and this country when we come

to discussing and legislating on

2:14:512:14:59

matters of morality and conscience.

I draw the contrast between the

2:14:592:15:03

United States of America where such

is the level of religiosity in

2:15:032:15:07

debate that no elected politician

can go against the prevailing

2:15:072:15:12

religious orthodoxy and therefore

they do not and matters of

2:15:122:15:16

conscience and morality are

mitigated in the courts. We in the

2:15:162:15:20

House of Lords do things rather

differently. We bring in all shades

2:15:202:15:25

of religious opinion and we debate

these matters extensively. I ask

2:15:252:15:29

them to compare and contrast the

two. I think it is right that we

2:15:292:15:33

have our system and I think it is

right that we engage in debates such

2:15:332:15:38

as these. I therefore agree with the

right reverend is that we take these

2:15:382:15:44

matters and look at them in very

informed and deliberative ways. I

2:15:442:15:49

agree with him that it is time that

we perhaps reviewed the 1967 act. It

2:15:492:15:56

was brought in 50 years ago and

times have changed, though unlike

2:15:562:16:03

him I believe it is now too

restrictive and I would wish to see

2:16:032:16:08

it liberalised. I want to take,

address this issue of conscience and

2:16:082:16:15

I listened very carefully to the

speeches of the noble Baroness Seton

2:16:152:16:18

and the noble Lord Elton. I think

somebody looking at our debate today

2:16:182:16:24

would believe that only those who

object to abortion are holders of

2:16:242:16:31

conscience and morality. I do not

believe that that is true for a

2:16:312:16:34

moment. I remember talking to the

noble Lord Stanley, a young doctor,

2:16:342:16:38

who held David Steel to...

I made it

clear at the beginning that the

2:16:382:16:45

question of whether you believe in

the right or wrong of the act is

2:16:452:16:51

absolutely immaterial. What matters

is the effect on the person so I

2:16:512:16:55

attribute no beliefs to anybody.

The

point that I wish to make stems

2:16:552:17:03

exactly from that. Noble Lords will

remember during the passage of the

2:17:032:17:07

same-sex marriage act, there was a

proposal that registrars should dash

2:17:072:17:15

public servants dash should

according to their conscience be

2:17:152:17:18

permitted to deny services to people

who would be married under that act,

2:17:182:17:23

the effect of that meaning that

people like me and my noble friend,

2:17:232:17:27

were we to turn up to a registry

office to register at the death of

2:17:272:17:31

our loved one would not be accorded

the same treatment and dignity as

2:17:312:17:35

any other person. I feel that, and

the noble Baroness Young talks about

2:17:352:17:44

the United States of America. I feel

that this bill is just one example

2:17:442:17:50

of a very much larger movement in

which people who are opponents of

2:17:502:17:55

certain legislation and matters of

what I would consider social

2:17:552:18:02

progress use the issue of conscience

as a proxy measure by which to

2:18:022:18:07

undermine laws which are

democratically passed. I believe

2:18:072:18:10

that that is a very, very serious

and insidious development and one

2:18:102:18:15

that we in this House should

strongly, strongly resist. This is

2:18:152:18:20

not about the clarification of

conscience, it is about the

2:18:202:18:26

extension of the rights of people to

opt out of provision of laws which

2:18:262:18:30

have been very carefully considered

and agreed in great detail in our

2:18:302:18:38

democratic institutions. I believe

that the impact of this is exactly

2:18:382:18:42

what the noble Baroness sought to

deny. She said this is not about

2:18:422:18:49

restricting access to services. It

absolutely is, my lords. We already

2:18:492:18:53

have examples of it. We have

examples in the NHS of GPs who

2:18:532:18:59

refuse to provide access to

contraceptive services. There are

2:18:592:19:03

borrowers in London where there is

no provision. What happens in those

2:19:032:19:08

circumstances? Poor woman and women

who do not have the freedom or the

2:19:082:19:13

wherewithal to travel elsewhere to

get the services suffer. This is a

2:19:132:19:19

deeply, deeply pernicious Bill and I

hope that my Lords, when we get the

2:19:192:19:23

opportunity to do so, we will vote

against it in such overwhelming

2:19:232:19:28

numbers that we put an end to the

arguments that lie behind it which I

2:19:282:19:32

believe are thoroughly disingenuous.

The end of a powerful speech. May I

2:19:322:19:43

ask her, is she delivering the line

of her party on this bill is he

2:19:432:19:46

speaking personally?

I make it

absolutely clear, as in all other

2:19:462:19:53

benches, we have a variety of

beliefs on the subject and what I

2:19:532:19:57

think I can say in all clear

conscience is that I represent the

2:19:572:20:01

majority of my colleagues in this

debate.

Was able question from me,

2:20:012:20:09

to clarify what I think she said. Am

I right in thinking that she said

2:20:092:20:16

that in medical practitioner who has

a conscientious objection to helping

2:20:162:20:21

with an abortion would still have to

to help with an abortion if that was

2:20:212:20:28

necessary? Because that is what I

understood she said.

For the

2:20:282:20:34

avoidance of doubt, I am in

agreement with the statements that

2:20:342:20:37

were made in the court judgment in

2016 that's no practitioner needs to

2:20:372:20:47

be compelled to take part in the

hands on offering of a procedure but

2:20:472:20:51

they cannot indirectly deny women

access to treatment to which they

2:20:512:20:57

are legally entitled.

My Lords, in

many ways, the noble Lords kind of

2:20:572:21:10

gave the game away rather about this

particular piece of legislation.

2:21:102:21:15

That it is in fact an opposition to

a whole range of legislation,

2:21:152:21:20

abortion rights, human fertilisation

and embryology, the equality act,

2:21:202:21:24

several others that have been

referred to. In fact, when I read

2:21:242:21:29

this bill, the words wolf in sheep's

clothing into my mind. I think I

2:21:292:21:35

need to, from the outset, that

MUSIC

Make the Labour Party's position on

2:21:352:21:39

this clear.

We will not oppose the bill at

2:21:392:21:45

second reading but only because that

is the customs practice of this

2:21:452:21:49

House. However, this proposal flies

in the face of our party policy and,

2:21:492:21:54

indeed, much of the legislation it

seeks change we put on the statute

2:21:542:21:58

books or supported being put on the

statute books. I will read from the

2:21:582:22:03

front bench the opposition to the

proposals it contains. I find myself

2:22:032:22:09

in agreement with Baroness Young,

Lord Browne and several others. And

2:22:092:22:25

Baroness Richardson, who I commend

for moving a very appropriate

2:22:252:22:29

contribution. There is no doubt... I

would also like to add to the Bishop

2:22:292:22:42

of Peterborough, right reverend, the

word I look for in his contribution

2:22:422:22:48

is the word equalities and the

reason I looked for that is because

2:22:482:22:53

this House and many of us struggled

with how to reflect conscience and

2:22:532:22:59

help to ensure equalities and I

think I would ask the right reverend

2:22:592:23:04

to reflect on that because many of

the proposals in this bill will

2:23:042:23:10

affect LGBT rights and the rights of

other groups. Because he is wise in

2:23:102:23:14

his ways, I think it is also

necessary for him to reflect on the

2:23:142:23:23

fact that this bill will restrict

rights to abortion and other

2:23:232:23:26

procedures. It will dramatically

extends the scope of conscientious

2:23:262:23:31

objection, increasing the number of

medical procedures to which it could

2:23:312:23:35

apply under law, increasing the

types of professional to which it

2:23:352:23:38

would apply and expanding the

activities which would be applicable

2:23:382:23:41

from abortion to IVF and the

withdrawal of end of life care. The

2:23:412:23:46

reason it is significant is that it

represents a new front in the

2:23:462:23:50

attempt to undermine our equalities

laws to extend the number of areas

2:23:502:23:56

were conscientious objection can be

used to refuse to provide state

2:23:562:23:59

services. In this case, the

extension proposed in the bill is so

2:23:592:24:02

radical it has the potential to have

a real impact on everything from

2:24:022:24:06

obstetrics to gynaecology provision

to geriatric care, care in chronic

2:24:062:24:12

and terminal conditions. I believe,

like others, that the reason the

2:24:122:24:17

bill is being brought is because

there was a case of midwives who are

2:24:172:24:22

being referred to who lost in the

Supreme Court. They lost a case

2:24:222:24:26

where they wanted the right to

refuse to supervise staff who

2:24:262:24:30

performed abortions and reversed

patients to staff who did not

2:24:302:24:35

object. The judgment has already

been mentioned and I will not repeat

2:24:352:24:41

that now, but it is a judgment which

I think was wise in its wake. I also

2:24:412:24:46

agree with the noble Baroness Barker

that I think this private members

2:24:462:24:52

bill follows a trend we have seen in

America with the introduction of

2:24:522:24:56

state legislation to undermine LGBT

and other equality laws with an

2:24:562:25:02

increase of so-called conscientious

objection opt outs. We believe the

2:25:022:25:10

current provisions of conscientious

objections which cover the refusal

2:25:102:25:15

to perform certain activities are

balanced and working practice. All

2:25:152:25:19

the medical professional body

support the legal provision of

2:25:192:25:22

conscientious objection to allow

health care professionals to

2:25:222:25:25

practice in line with their personal

beliefs alongside the guidelines

2:25:252:25:28

that make clear the obligations of

an individual with a conscientious

2:25:282:25:32

objection to ensure that their

patient has access to appropriate

2:25:322:25:37

care. I will not repeat what is in

the abortion act of 1967 section for

2:25:372:25:46

because many noble Lords have

referred to that but it works. Ditto

2:25:462:25:51

the human fertilisation and

embryology act of 1990 along the

2:25:512:25:54

same lines. It allows individuals to

opt out of providing fertility

2:25:542:26:01

treatment, the storage of human

eggs, sperm and embryos and early

2:26:012:26:06

research. Parliaments did not have

in mind when it passed this

2:26:062:26:12

legislation that hospital managers

who decide to offer abortion

2:26:122:26:16

services, the administrator who

decide how best the service can be

2:26:162:26:19

organised, the caterers who provide

the food, the cleaners who provide a

2:26:192:26:25

safe and hygienic environment, those

were not the people in mind when

2:26:252:26:30

this legislation was drawn up. I

would like to thank the

2:26:302:26:33

organisations who sent me the many

briefing and materials including the

2:26:332:26:38

library. I have, however, to say

that I thought the brief from the

2:26:382:26:44

library was not complete and was not

balanced and that is an issue that I

2:26:442:26:48

have raised with them and, in a way,

maybe it is better if our extremely

2:26:482:26:55

good, excellent and brilliant

researchers who opts to stay out of

2:26:552:27:00

this area when the providing briefs

for noble Lords because it is

2:27:002:27:03

dangerous territory for them to

enter. But that being said, I think

2:27:032:27:10

that they do an excellent job. I

believe, and we believe, that the

2:27:102:27:16

current law and practice works, that

the recent testing in the court is

2:27:162:27:22

further evidence that that is so and

I hope that the Government will also

2:27:222:27:25

be able to say that they believe the

current legal framework and practice

2:27:252:27:30

works. This is the position that we

support. This is the position that

2:27:302:27:34

we will continue to support.

2:27:342:27:40

My Lords, I congratulate the noble

Baroness for securing this second

2:27:402:27:45

reading debate on her Bill. The Bill

aims to clarify the extent to which

2:27:452:27:50

a medical practitioner with a

conscientious objection may refrain

2:27:502:27:55

from participating in certain

activities relating to abortion

2:27:552:27:59

care. Assisted reproduction and

fertility treatment, and withdrawal

2:27:592:28:04

of life-sustaining treatment. As is

usual when it comes to the sensitive

2:28:042:28:09

matters, the government is taking a

neutral approach to the Bill. It is

2:28:092:28:14

of course right, as the Baroness

mentioned in her speech and also the

2:28:142:28:19

right reverend bishop of

Peterborough, it is of course right

2:28:192:28:26

that medical practitioners and other

health professionals should have

2:28:262:28:30

their personal beliefs respected.

And as broad mentioned, the to

2:28:302:28:35

object to participate in treatment

is enshrined in the Abortion Act

2:28:352:28:42

1967, and the Human Fertilisation

and Embryology Act 1990. I feel I

2:28:422:28:51

should add, while medical

practitioners are within their

2:28:512:28:53

rights to refrain from participating

in certain medical activities on the

2:28:532:28:58

basis of conscientious objection,

this should of course cause no

2:28:582:29:01

detriment or barriers to the care

patients are entitled to. Section

2:29:012:29:06

four of the Abortion Act allows

those with a conscientious objection

2:29:062:29:13

to opt out and I quote

"Participating in treatment

2:29:132:29:18

authorised by the Act, unless that

treatment is immediately necessary

2:29:182:29:23

to save the life or prevent grave

permanent injury to the physical and

2:29:232:29:27

mental health of a pregnant woman"

2:29:272:29:30

permanent injury to the physical and

mental health of a pregnant woman".

2:29:302:29:32

The Baroness mentioned private

clinics and interestingly two thirds

2:29:322:29:35

of abortions are carried out by the

independent sector, where staff

2:29:352:29:39

actively choose to work in relation

to abortion care. My Lords, the

2:29:392:29:47

courts including most recently the

Supreme Court have considered

2:29:472:29:50

whether participants in treatment

should include an ciliary activities

2:29:502:29:54

to the actual procedure such as

managing ward resources, supervising

2:29:542:30:02

other staff and providing

post-operative care to women on the

2:30:022:30:04

ward. The Supreme Court held that

participate should be construed

2:30:042:30:12

narrowly and the provision should

only cover those activities which

2:30:122:30:21

involve actually taking part in the

termination procedure. Section 38 of

2:30:212:30:29

the Human Fertilisation and

Embryology Act regulates the

2:30:292:30:31

provision of certain fertility

treatments and services and research

2:30:312:30:35

involving the use of human embryos.

It already allows staff to withdraw

2:30:352:30:40

from participation in an activity

covered by the Act if they have a

2:30:402:30:46

conscientious objection to that

activity. However, similar to the

2:30:462:30:51

Abortion Act, the Act doesn't define

participation. The department

2:30:512:30:55

therefore relies upon guidance

issued by regulatory bodies. This

2:30:552:31:03

helps ensure the rights for

conscientious objection are

2:31:032:31:09

exercised within the parameters set

up by the current legislation and in

2:31:092:31:12

line with the principles of good

medical practice. In addition, the

2:31:122:31:18

nine regulatory bodies that regulate

health and care professionals in the

2:31:182:31:21

UK each have their own publication

which sets out the standards and

2:31:212:31:28

behaviour and conduct expected of

the professionals on their register.

2:31:282:31:33

The Act provides protection for all

staff who feel unable to take part

2:31:332:31:36

in an activity regulated by the Act

to which they have a conscientious

2:31:362:31:41

objection. My Lords, moving onto end

of life care. Life-sustaining

2:31:412:31:49

medical treatment is to benefit the

patient by restoring maintaining

2:31:492:31:55

health as far as possible. If

however all suitable treatments fail

2:31:552:32:00

or cease to provide benefit to the

patient, they may ethically and

2:32:002:32:04

legally be withheld or withdrawn and

the focus of treatment changed the

2:32:042:32:09

relief of symptoms. As noble lord

Snow, in practice the decision to

2:32:092:32:15

withhold or withdraw life-sustaining

treatment is often very difficult.

2:32:152:32:19

It is also very stressful for the

patient's' family and staff. The

2:32:192:32:28

Baroness Richardson talked movingly

about her experiences with the

2:32:282:32:30

treatment of her husband. Guidance

from the GMC states that doctors can

2:32:302:32:37

withdraw from providing care if

there beliefs about providing

2:32:372:32:43

treatment lead to object to

complying with either a patient's

2:32:432:32:47

decision to refuse such treatment or

a decision that providing such

2:32:472:32:53

treatment is not of overall benefit

to a patient who lacks capacity to

2:32:532:32:57

decide. However, as Baroness Meacher

mentioned the guidance is also

2:32:572:33:03

explicit that doctors must first

ensure that arrangements have been

2:33:032:33:07

made for another doctor to take over

their role and it is not acceptable

2:33:072:33:12

to withdraw from -- withdraw the

patient's care if this would leave

2:33:122:33:18

them with nowhere to turn. Baroness

Young and the Lord mentioned the

2:33:182:33:26

importance of patient's views and

the government's commitment to

2:33:262:33:32

everyone at the end of life is to

focus on the perspective of the

2:33:322:33:35

dying person and those important to

them. Before I end I just want to

2:33:352:33:41

answer a couple of questions that

were raised. The Bishop of

2:33:412:33:46

Peterborough mentioned pharmacists.

The GPA agency which is the general

2:33:462:33:55

pharmaceutical Council informed us

they are currently analysing the

2:33:552:34:01

responses to their recent

consultation on religion, personal

2:34:012:34:05

values and beliefs in delivering

care. They will then make

2:34:052:34:14

recommendations. My noble friend

asked if there was data on the

2:34:142:34:24

numbers of conscientious objectors

and the data is not held centrally

2:34:242:34:26

on the numbers of staff with these

views. As Baroness Meacher said,

2:34:262:34:34

these are difficult and challenging

issues and I have listened with

2:34:342:34:39

interest to the range of views

expressed today. I'd like to join

2:34:392:34:43

the noble Lords in paying tribute to

the noble Baroness for bringing

2:34:432:34:48

forward the Bill and highlighting

the complex issues. I've heard and

2:34:482:34:53

taken note of all the noble Lords

have said today and I know the

2:34:532:34:58

Department want to reflect on the

points raised. I thank her and other

2:34:582:35:03

noble Lords for their contribution

on this important issue.

I would

2:35:032:35:08

like to thank all those who took

part in this debate, it has been an

2:35:082:35:12

interesting and challenging debate.

If I could first of all address the

2:35:122:35:16

issue raised by the noble Baroness

Baroness Barker and noble Baroness

2:35:162:35:21

Baroness Thornton, I can report that

at the very end of the report stage

2:35:212:35:31

when a House of Commons debated

possible amendments, David steel MP

2:35:312:35:38

said "It also gives nurses and

hospital employees a clear right to

2:35:382:35:42

opt out. That is what David Steele

said. I'd like to just say a word

2:35:422:35:47

about what this Bill does not do.

This is a very serious issue. It

2:35:472:35:57

doesn't remove patient

decision-making in any respect. I'd

2:35:572:36:00

like to assure them it's not about

abandoning patients or their

2:36:002:36:05

families, it's not about causing

them to suffer. It's not about

2:36:052:36:09

forcing people to be treated against

their will. The terrible experience

2:36:092:36:18

Baroness Richardson which I think

the whole house would want to

2:36:182:36:21

express their sympathy was bad

medical practice. It's not about

2:36:212:36:25

restricting access to abortion, it's

not about allowing patients to force

2:36:252:36:29

medical professionals to do

anything, it's not about seeking to

2:36:292:36:34

reject or deny the welfare and

wishes of patients. It's not about

2:36:342:36:39

depriving people of the right to

reject treatment or to refuse

2:36:392:36:44

consent to treatment. It's not about

the merits or otherwise of abortion,

2:36:442:36:49

fertility treatment or the

withdrawal of treatment at the end

2:36:492:36:55

of life. It would not have a

negative aspect on hospice care. I

2:36:552:36:59

watched my brother-in-law die in the

hours before his death from Moti

2:36:592:37:04

nearing disease, and I watched him

lying in of moving -- motor neurone

2:37:042:37:11

disease. Before he accepted what was

suggested, having satisfied himself

2:37:112:37:19

it was in accordance with his

conscience. He died shortly

2:37:192:37:24

afterwards. My Lords, this Bill

would not deny others that right.

2:37:242:37:29

This Bill would provide a right of

conscientious objection to those who

2:37:292:37:34

genuinely object to engaging in

particular medical situations. It's

2:37:342:37:38

about highlighting the fact the

responsibility to provide the

2:37:382:37:42

National Health Service care is the

responsibility of the health service

2:37:422:37:45

and not of the individual employee.

It's about according staff statutory

2:37:452:37:58

protection to those who do not have

it, because the right to

2:37:582:38:03

conscientious objection is not a

universal right accorded to all

2:38:032:38:07

medical practitioners by statutes

under the Abortion Act. It does not

2:38:072:38:13

protect, for example, GPs and

pharmacists. It is about allowing

2:38:132:38:18

medical practitioners to act in

accordance with their conscience. It

2:38:182:38:22

is about recognising that people who

have a fundamental objection to

2:38:222:38:27

doing something should not be forced

to arrange others to do it. It is

2:38:272:38:31

about making the health service

inclusive, so that all medical

2:38:312:38:38

practitioners can take their

rightful place in the discipline of

2:38:382:38:40

their choice rather than being

restricted to areas in which they

2:38:402:38:48

can work, or alternatively being

forced to leave the UK. It is, as

2:38:482:38:52

the noble lord said, about asserting

that it is not necessary or right to

2:38:522:39:02

force people to do things which they

hold to be wrong. It is about

2:39:022:39:08

legislating to ensure that we have

the best possible health service,

2:39:082:39:13

staffed by the best possible medical

practitioners, providing the service

2:39:132:39:17

in accordance with the wishes of the

patient and capable of accommodating

2:39:172:39:24

the conscientious objection of

medical practitioners. My lord,

2:39:242:39:27

there seems to be a slight

disconnect in that a suggestion is

2:39:272:39:32

that word this Bill to be passed it

would be impossible to provide

2:39:322:39:37

services to people. It would be

interesting to know how many

2:39:372:39:41

conscientious objections there are

but the evidence would suggest that

2:39:412:39:45

this Bill would not deprive people

of treatment. I ask the House is

2:39:452:39:50

therefore to give this Bill a second

reading.

The question is that this

2:39:502:39:55

Bill be now be read a second time.

As many of that opinion site

2:39:552:40:03

content, the country not content.

The contents habit.

I beg that this

2:40:032:40:08

Bill be moved to the committee of

the whole house.

As many as are of

2:40:082:40:14

that opinion say content. And the

country not content. The content's

2:40:142:40:19

have it.

Second reading of the

registration of marriage Bill, the

2:40:192:40:26

Bishop of St Albans. I beg to move

that this Bill now be read a second

2:40:262:40:37

time.

My Lords, the purpose of this

Bill is to correct a clear and

2:40:372:40:41

historic injustice. When a couple is

married, and that marriage is

2:40:412:40:49

registered, there is currently only

provision for a father 's name to be

2:40:492:40:54

recorded. This is an archaic

practice and unchanged since

2:40:542:41:00

Victorian times when children were

seen as a father's property and

2:41:002:41:05

little consideration was given to

mother's roles in raising children.

2:41:052:41:11

As we approach the centenary of the

representation of the people act,

2:41:112:41:15

it's only right that we consider how

existing legislation excludes or

2:41:152:41:21

doesn't recognise the contribution

paid by women. This Bill allows for

2:41:212:41:27

this important and symbolic change

to be made. I'm a bishop in the

2:41:272:41:33

Church of England and I think it's

important to note that this Bill

2:41:332:41:35

will allow mother's names to be

included when registering all

2:41:352:41:40

marriages, not just those taking

place in Church of England churches.

2:41:402:41:46

I also wish to draw attention to an

identical bill in the other place by

2:41:462:41:53

Dame Caroline Spelman. We are hoping

that between us appropriate time

2:41:532:41:59

will be given so that this change

can be made. A marriage officially

2:41:592:42:05

recognises the start of the new

company. Including parents' names on

2:42:052:42:09

marriage registers gives children

the opportunity to recognise the

2:42:092:42:17

contribution of their parents in

bringing them to that day. It is

2:42:172:42:20

only right that mothers are

recognised in their role just as

2:42:202:42:25

much as fathers. Unsurprisingly, as

many members of this House are

2:42:252:42:29

aware, calls for reform of this

system of marriage registration are

2:42:292:42:35

not new. Indeed, in August 2014,

then Prime Minister David Cameron

2:42:352:42:40

announced his support for a move to

facilitate the inclusion of a' names

2:42:402:42:46

on marriage registers and members in

the other place from all major

2:42:462:42:52

parties have supported early day

motions in favour of the change.

2:42:522:42:56

Much to the amusement of the staff

in my office, and number of

2:42:562:43:00

magazines written for what you might

call the stylish woman have been

2:43:002:43:06

interested and supported my bill,

but that should not be surprising. I

2:43:062:43:10

imagine many members of this House

who have either been married

2:43:102:43:13

themselves or had their children get

married will have been shocked that

2:43:132:43:18

only the child's father's details

are recorded. As someone who has

2:43:182:43:23

performed hundreds of marriages, it

seems to me all the unreasonable

2:43:232:43:28

mothers are systematically

overlooked on this special occasion.

2:43:282:43:32

The Church welcomes this change and

has been working with the Home

2:43:322:43:36

Office and General register office

on the finer points of

2:43:362:43:39

implementation for many years. We

have also solicited feedback from

2:43:392:43:42

the Dean of the archdeacons and

diocesan registrar 's. Interestingly

2:43:422:43:49

I have received a great deal of

correspondence from genealogists who

2:43:492:43:53

are anxious for this change to be

made. They find the current system

2:43:532:43:59

of registration very frustrating as

it only registers one half of the

2:43:592:44:02

family tree. I believe that the bill

I have put forward is the best way

2:44:022:44:10

to enact this necessary change. But

unfortunately enacting the change is

2:44:102:44:15

not as simple as creating another

box for mothers' names on marriage

2:44:152:44:20

certificates, as has previously been

proposed. Doing so would require

2:44:202:44:24

84,000 hard copy marriage registers

located around the country to be

2:44:242:44:31

replaced at a cost of roughly £3

million. It would also not solve the

2:44:312:44:36

problems that arise when 84,000 hard

copy registers serve as the formal

2:44:362:44:43

legal record. Books can be easily

lost or damaged and an opportunity

2:44:432:44:48

for fraud exists where blank

registers and certificate stock are

2:44:482:44:53

stolen. Thus, the bill also provides

for marriages to be registered

2:44:532:45:00

electronically, as already exists in

Scotland and Northern Ireland. The

2:45:002:45:04

General registry office already have

a system for this sort of electronic

2:45:042:45:07

registration and apart from setup

costs, no wheels need to be

2:45:072:45:12

reinvented. Before I outline some

further details of the bill, I would

2:45:122:45:20

like to outline what the bill does

not intend to do. The bill does not

2:45:202:45:24

alter those who can get married,

where they can get married, all who

2:45:242:45:28

can perform that marriage. The bill

does not propose any changes to

2:45:282:45:33

marriage ceremonies or the Church of

England's doctrine of marriage.

2:45:332:45:38

These are far greater questions but

they all fall outside the scope of

2:45:382:45:44

this quite narrowly focused bill. I

understand some members of this

2:45:442:45:49

House may have strong feelings on

some of the other issues, but

2:45:492:45:54

respectfully submit that I hope

these concerns will not get in the

2:45:542:45:57

way of this simple and important

change being made that many people

2:45:572:46:01

have wanted for such a long time. I

would also like to comment on the

2:46:012:46:05

way in which this change will be

enacted. It has been drawn to my

2:46:052:46:10

attention that there may be some

anxiety either in this House or the

2:46:102:46:14

other place about the power this

bill grants the Secretary of State

2:46:142:46:21

to make provision in relation to the

registration of marriages in England

2:46:212:46:23

and Wales by regulation. Concern has

been expressed this constitutes a

2:46:232:46:30

Henry VIII clause. Before your

lordships take a view on the

2:46:302:46:34

constitutional appropriateness of

the power provided for in the bill,

2:46:342:46:38

I would humbly submit the port is

very banded in clause one and the

2:46:382:46:46

explanatory notes. The powers

enacted are simply those required to

2:46:462:46:51

make this change in the simplest and

most logical manner possible. I'm

2:46:512:46:57

also extremely grateful to all the

members who have come to speak in

2:46:572:47:01

today's debate and I hope that I

will gain their support soap

2:47:012:47:04

necessary change can be made. My

Lords, beg to move.

The question is

2:47:042:47:11

that this bill be read a second

time.

May I gently remind those

2:47:112:47:16

taking part in this debate of the

advisory backbench speaking time and

2:47:162:47:19

urge them to follow the excellent

example of the right reverend.

My

2:47:192:47:26

Lords I congratulate the right

reverend for bringing forward this

2:47:262:47:30

bill and for his explanation of the

purpose and cruises. I warmly

2:47:302:47:34

welcome the bill itself. We are

advised that the Home Office

2:47:342:47:37

assisted in the drafting of the

explanatory notes and I hope

2:47:372:47:41

therefore that this means that when

my noble friend the Minister comes

2:47:412:47:45

to respond, she will be able to

indicate first the Government's

2:47:452:47:49

support for the bill and also

explain how that support will be

2:47:492:47:52

demonstrated. As the right reverend

set up, for almost two centuries

2:47:522:48:00

wedding certificates have featured

the names and occupations of the

2:48:002:48:03

spouses and names and occupation of

their fathers. Today we have the

2:48:032:48:07

chance to begin the work to ensure

that the details of the couples'

2:48:072:48:13

mothers can be included, too, on a

new online schedule based system.

2:48:132:48:17

This bill indeed put right what most

people would be astonished can still

2:48:172:48:22

be the case in 2018, that the

father's details can be recorded for

2:48:222:48:27

posterity but not the mother's.

There has been cross-party work on

2:48:272:48:40

this for some years to achieve the

move towards equality in the

2:48:402:48:42

registration of details on marriage

in England and Wales. However, in

2:48:422:48:45

the past, as the right reverend set

out in detail, it was argued

2:48:452:48:47

changing certificates would be too

expensive and it is indeed a matter

2:48:472:48:50

that would mean producing hard

copies of the registers if we were

2:48:502:48:55

simply to go ahead without

legislation and without

2:48:552:48:59

consideration of cost. Adding the

mother's name would mean producing

2:48:592:49:04

those hard copy registers at an

estimated cost of £3 million. The

2:49:042:49:08

solution, therefore, to create a

digital register, is most welcome,

2:49:082:49:15

it removes the objection on cost

grounds. The bill also has a

2:49:152:49:19

practical impact, it removes the

opportunity for criminal gangs to

2:49:192:49:24

steal blank registers and

certificate stock to create a false

2:49:242:49:28

identity. I note that the impact

assessment itself was prepared back

2:49:282:49:34

in October 2015 and states that in

the previous 12 months there had

2:49:342:49:38

been 12 burglaries in church

buildings, causing the loss of

2:49:382:49:42

marriage registers and certificate

stock. Can the right reverend all my

2:49:422:49:47

noble friend the Minister update the

house on those figures for the

2:49:472:49:50

period since October 2015? I only

have one further question but I

2:49:502:49:55

would be great for the right

reverend might address when he

2:49:552:49:58

responds to the debate, I wonder

whether he might say just a little

2:49:582:50:03

about the powers conferred by

regulations in clause one? Indeed,

2:50:032:50:09

subsection four Npower was the

Secretary of State to amend the

2:50:092:50:12

marriage act 1949 to create a

specific criminal offence aimed at

2:50:122:50:17

enforcing the registration of

marriage. It passes the book, so to

2:50:172:50:19

speak. This House has recently

expressed its concern in debate on

2:50:192:50:28

the Government bill about new

criminal offences being created by

2:50:282:50:31

regulations and I would not wish to

see any difficulty in passing this

2:50:312:50:36

bill and therefore would be grateful

if the right reverend could take

2:50:362:50:39

this opportunity to dispel any

concerns others might have. My

2:50:392:50:45

Lords, I also congratulate my right

honourable friend Dame Caroline

2:50:452:50:48

Spelman for her work on this matter

and for securing a debate for the

2:50:482:50:51

second reading in the other place.

There has been some puzzlement, I

2:50:512:50:55

know, in the press about why there

are two bills. As a

2:50:552:51:08

past Chief Whip, I'm not in the

slightest puzzled. It is wise for

2:51:182:51:20

the right reverend and my noble

friend, my right honourable friend,

2:51:202:51:22

to take this course, because it has

several advantages, ones I wish I

2:51:222:51:25

had taken when I put forward a

Private Members Bell. It gives a

2:51:252:51:28

greater chance of securing not only

a second reading debate but

2:51:282:51:30

smoothing successful passage of the

bill. It gives an early indication

2:51:302:51:32

of the strength of support in both

houses. And it can identify and

2:51:322:51:35

address any concerns expressed by

parliamentarians. Because, as we

2:51:352:51:37

know, Private Members Bell boss Bill

's based notoriously choppy waters

2:51:372:51:40

as their sponsors seek to make

progress to Royal assent. In another

2:51:402:51:44

place there has often been an

objection to Lord starters being

2:51:442:51:50

passed simply because they originate

from an unelected house. A single

2:51:502:51:55

cry of no is enough to kill a bill

out right at second reading. That

2:51:552:51:59

happened to my bill when I sponsored

a National Heritage bill in 2001,

2:51:592:52:04

having had good scrutiny in this

House it passed to the Commons,

2:52:042:52:09

where it was summarily rejected. But

that was not the end of the story, I

2:52:092:52:13

had a great sponsor in Sir Sydney

Chapman, he did not give up, shall

2:52:132:52:17

we say he spoke to the people

concerned against the bill and they

2:52:172:52:23

change their mind. Another date was

bound and it became a national

2:52:232:52:27

heritage act. So, my Lords, I hope

the cross-party support for the bill

2:52:272:52:31

and the fact it has a number two

Bill tabled in the Commons will

2:52:312:52:34

ensure that nobody seeks to jettison

this bill when, as I hope it will,

2:52:342:52:39

it reaches another place. I wish it

and untroubled and speedy passage.

2:52:392:52:46

My Lords, I have pleasure in

supporting the Registration of

2:52:462:52:50

Marriage bill and hope it receives a

smooth passage through Parliament.

2:52:502:52:54

And I thank the right reverend the

Bishop of St Albans for initiating

2:52:542:53:00

the bill and particularly for his

clear exposition of the case. As he

2:53:002:53:06

mentioned genealogist, I should

perhaps declare my interest as a

2:53:062:53:09

fully paid-up member of

findmypast.com. I speak as an

2:53:092:53:21

outsider, I was married in Peckham

registry office and have no direct

2:53:212:53:24

experience of the process he

described, I am not a member of a

2:53:242:53:28

church and if civil partnerships had

been available to heterosexual

2:53:282:53:32

couples, that would have been my

personal preference. It is fair to

2:53:322:53:36

say that preparing for this debate

has been a complete education for

2:53:362:53:42

me, both fascinating and

exasperating. How does it take so

2:53:422:53:47

long to do anything in this country?

I was fantasising that if we had

2:53:472:53:53

given the job of sorting the

bureaucracy surrounding marriage to

2:53:532:53:58

the Brexiteers, it would have kept

them out of mischief for a decade. I

2:53:582:54:06

see there have been noble attempt in

the recent past to change things,

2:54:062:54:09

they have all failed, probably

because of a combination of too

2:54:092:54:14

little Parliamentary time, too

little priority, and possibly

2:54:142:54:16

because it was in the too difficult

in trade. We have an opportunity to

2:54:162:54:22

simplify the procedure, hopefully

before the 200th anniversary of the

2:54:222:54:29

legislation in 2037. Let's, as the

noble lady baroness said use the

2:54:292:54:37

100th anniversary of votes for women

to make the change to add both

2:54:372:54:42

parents' names to the marriage

certificate. I had to do a

2:54:422:54:45

double-take when I saw that mothers'

names were not included, and most

2:54:452:54:49

people I have spoken to were not

aware of it either. I understand, as

2:54:492:54:54

has been that Victorian Britain the

father would be seen as head of

2:54:542:54:59

household but in this day and age it

is becoming extraordinary. I

2:54:592:55:06

understand there are draft

legislation is but so far I have not

2:55:062:55:10

been able to access them. May I ask

the noble lady Minister in her reply

2:55:102:55:14

for and as Europe is that they will

be available before the committee

2:55:142:55:17

stage? -- for her assurance. The

explanatory notes, impact assessment

2:55:172:55:24

and library notes were extremely

useful and I have now become best

2:55:242:55:27

friends with ONE, otherwise known as

registration online. Just as there

2:55:272:55:40

are guidelines at present for the

definition of fibre, I am reassured

2:55:402:55:44

that there will be careful

definitions which cover all aspects

2:55:442:55:47

of the description of parent. One

anxiety I had which has already been

2:55:472:55:52

expressed by the noble lady baroness

was about the transfer of

2:55:522:55:57

responsibility to register the

marriage to the married couple, with

2:55:572:56:01

the possibility of fines being

imposed for failing to carry out

2:56:012:56:05

their responsibility. The Bishop's

office kindly checked with the GR

2:56:052:56:10

oh, you said in Scotland, where the

system exists, the penalty for

2:56:102:56:14

failing to register has not yet had

to be used. I have known information

2:56:142:56:20

about Northern Ireland where the

system also exists but I imagine it

2:56:202:56:23

is the same. As I said, we have the

opportunity to simplify the

2:56:232:56:27

procedure, save on costs, and

improve security. At present,

2:56:272:56:34

criminal gangs obtain access to

blank documentation and use it to

2:56:342:56:38

provide false evidence of a marriage

taking place, and the fact that

2:56:382:56:42

there is one robbery every month

should be an important incentive to

2:56:422:56:46

remove the requirement for blank

registers and certificate stocks to

2:56:462:56:50

be held in churches and religious

buildings. Although changes to the

2:56:502:56:56

content of the register entry could

be made by secondary legislation, as

2:56:562:57:01

has already been said, any change

would necessitate replacement of all

2:57:012:57:08

84,000 marriage register books

currently in use in 13,000 religious

2:57:082:57:13

buildings. The change to an

electronic system will enable the

2:57:132:57:17

form and content of the marriage

register entry to be easily amended

2:57:172:57:22

to include, for example, details of

both parents of the couple without

2:57:222:57:26

having to replace all marriage

register books. That is why this

2:57:262:57:31

primary legislation is so necessary.

Similar bills have had support from

2:57:312:57:36

various Government ministers and the

Fawcett Society has said it would be

2:57:362:57:42

another step forward. In conclusion,

my Lords, I understand that the

2:57:422:57:47

Church of England is not the only

institution which will be affected

2:57:472:57:50

by the passing of this bill, but as

long as it is the established

2:57:502:57:56

church, surely Parliament has an

obligation to facilitate a long

2:57:562:58:00

overdue improvement. I wish the bill

all speed.

2:58:002:58:09

I rise to support the Bill

wholeheartedly and congratulate the

2:58:092:58:15

bishops are sponsoring the Bill.

It's long past time that the

2:58:152:58:19

mother's name should appear on

marriage registers and I share the

2:58:192:58:22

view it is truly remarkable this has

taken many years to reach this

2:58:222:58:26

point. I particularly want to

support the comments which I believe

2:58:262:58:31

are going to be made by Baroness

Bakewell. The speaking order is not

2:58:312:58:39

ideal but we will manage. About the

need for legal recognition for

2:58:392:58:43

humanist marriages and the

opportunity for this Bill to bring

2:58:432:58:48

about that recognition. I introduced

the amendment to the 2013 same-sex

2:58:482:58:55

marriage act which provided for

legal recognition of humanist

2:58:552:58:57

marriages. The government tabled its

own amendment making provision in

2:58:572:59:05

law for humanist marriages to be

legally recognised, a move that have

2:59:052:59:10

broad support in both houses. This

is nothing controversial. The

2:59:102:59:15

limitation of the government's

Amendment however was that it

2:59:152:59:18

required a ministerial order to

bring it into being. Since then I

2:59:182:59:24

have patiently attended many

meetings with ministers about this

2:59:242:59:26

where they have assured us they are

making progress. But my Lords, we

2:59:262:59:31

are now in 2018 and this section of

the Act of 2013 remains to be

2:59:312:59:37

brought into effect. Baroness

Bakewell's aim is to simply ensure

2:59:372:59:44

progress is made on the issue. Legal

recognition of humanist marriages

2:59:442:59:48

would be hugely popular and as I

understand it, it requires pretty

2:59:482:59:52

much nothing else except adding the

terms humanist marriages in some

2:59:522:59:57

document that already provides

special provisions for Quaker

2:59:573:00:03

marriages. Not exactly complex or

time-consuming. I understand with

3:00:033:00:08

Brexit one can't have time-consuming

matters but really this is not one

3:00:083:00:12

of those. When humanist marriages

are already so overwhelmingly

3:00:123:00:16

popular in Scotland, Ireland and

elsewhere, surely it is past time

3:00:163:00:21

that legal recognition is given in

this country. I therefore hope there

3:00:213:00:25

will be a consensus across the House

that five years after the law

3:00:253:00:30

permitting legal recognition of

humanist marriages was passed a

3:00:303:00:34

small amendment to this Bill to

activate this provision should be

3:00:343:00:37

agreed.

My Lords, I welcome this

Bill wholeheartedly and congratulate

3:00:373:00:49

the Bishop of St Albans and

sponsoring it. It is very welcome

3:00:493:00:54

indeed. Indeed, how could one have

not realised that mother's names

3:00:543:00:59

have not been on marriage

certificates for so long? What an

3:00:593:01:04

extraordinary accident of history

that that has not been acknowledged.

3:01:043:01:10

I rather relish the idea that

putting the 84,000 marriage

3:01:103:01:17

registers out of the order and

digitalise in the whole process

3:01:173:01:20

seems well overdue as an enterprise.

As my colleague has already said,

3:01:203:01:26

I'm using the occasion to raise an

issue where this Bill by amendment

3:01:263:01:32

could bring to fruition a long hoped

for reform of marriage laws, one

3:01:323:01:37

that I understand from the tabling

office is within the scope of this

3:01:373:01:43

Bill. And that is the legal

recognition of humanist marriages in

3:01:433:01:51

England and Wales. Just to revisit

their history again because it is

3:01:513:01:53

very telling history, five years ago

as we've already heard the same-sex

3:01:533:01:59

marriage act promoted a major debate

in the House of Commons and in this

3:01:593:02:09

House which spoke in favour of such

recognition. But the government

3:02:093:02:16

didn't act as we hoped. The

government's own amendment gave the

3:02:163:02:24

power in the future enshrined in

section 14. They mandated the to

3:02:243:02:29

consult. The government consulted.

Over 90% were in favour of

3:02:293:02:35

registering humanist marriages. The

government asked the Law Commission

3:02:353:02:42

to do a scoping exercise. They did.

And they came back and emphasised

3:02:423:02:46

the unfairness of the situation as

it exists. There's been consultation

3:02:463:02:54

and there has been in action.

Elsewhere things have changed. In

3:02:543:03:01

Scotland there was legal recognition

for a humanist marriage in 2005 and

3:03:013:03:07

by 2016 17% of marriages in Scotland

where humanist marriages. This is a

3:03:073:03:16

popular format for people of

humanist beliefs. Will expand on the

3:03:163:03:23

term belief in a moment. In the

Republic of Ireland, in 2012,

3:03:233:03:29

humanist marriages were given legal

recognition. By 2016, 7% of

3:03:293:03:35

marriages where humanist marriages.

Northern Ireland is similar to

3:03:353:03:42

England, civil and religious

marriages are legal, humanist

3:03:423:03:46

marriages are not. Not yet. Last

summer in Northern Ireland the High

3:03:463:03:53

Court in Belfast ruled that under

article nine of the European

3:03:533:03:57

Convention on Human Rights,

recognition must be extended to

3:03:573:04:02

humanist marriages. That decision

has been stayed pending an appeal to

3:04:023:04:09

the Attorney General of Northern

Ireland and a decision is expected

3:04:093:04:12

soon. Meanwhile, Jersey has issued a

new draft law which is expected as

3:04:123:04:19

soon as next week. Change is afoot

to recognise with generosity and

3:04:193:04:27

sincerity a commitment to

acknowledge humanist marriages. My

3:04:273:04:33

Lords, humanism and humanist

marriage is not the same as a civil

3:04:333:04:40

ceremony. Humanists have a set of

moral beliefs that command huge

3:04:403:04:47

respect throughout the belief

communities of this country.

3:04:473:04:50

Humanist beliefs involve and

acknowledgement that we can live

3:04:503:04:56

ethical and fulfilling lives on the

basis of reason and humanity. These

3:04:563:05:06

beliefs are recognised and held

widely in this country, and they put

3:05:063:05:10

a burden of moral behaviour on the

here and now in this world. It is an

3:05:103:05:18

increasingly popular way of

expressing a spiritual outlook that

3:05:183:05:24

does not acknowledge the

supernatural. One that is recognised

3:05:243:05:27

by many of my Christian friends.

Can

I say that I strongly support, as

3:05:273:05:36

have other speakers, the Bill

introduced and I very much hope that

3:05:363:05:43

he and the House will feel able to

accommodate the amendment which is

3:05:433:05:48

being moved by the noble lady.

I

will be moving the amendment when

3:05:483:05:54

the Bill goes through but it is time

to legally recognise such sincere

3:05:543:06:01

marriages for people who come

together in a shared set of beliefs

3:06:013:06:03

that simply do not gain recognition

in England and Wales.

My Lords, it

3:06:033:06:12

is a pleasure to make a brief

contribution today in support of

3:06:123:06:17

this small but highly significant

private members Bill on the

3:06:173:06:21

registration of marriage. I pay

tribute to the right Reverend Bishop

3:06:213:06:25

of Saint organs for introducing this

Bill into your lordship's house --

3:06:253:06:31

St Albans. And to my right

honourable friend had tabling her

3:06:313:06:35

Bill in the Other Place. They are to

be congratulated for their wonderful

3:06:353:06:40

collaboration in ensuring this Bill

secured a second reading as soon as

3:06:403:06:45

was possible. My daughter was

married just over a year ago, so

3:06:453:06:51

from recent personal experience I

know from being at the heart of all

3:06:513:06:55

the preparation, decision-making and

the stress, that when it came to the

3:06:553:07:00

document that gave legal status to

the marriage, my name and my

3:07:003:07:06

son-in-law's mother's name were

airbrushed out of the picture, as

3:07:063:07:10

with all other mothers. Really it is

time that this anomaly was put

3:07:103:07:15

right. So changing from a

paper-based system to an electronic

3:07:153:07:19

system will allow this to happen.

Whilst I was thinking and chatting

3:07:193:07:24

to my daughter and friends, and my

daughter was appalled, she hadn't

3:07:243:07:29

realised that my name wasn't on her

wedding certificate, it raised a

3:07:293:07:34

question to which I don't know the

answer. As my mother taught me, but

3:07:343:07:38

if you are unsure you should always

ask the question even if it seemed

3:07:383:07:42

glaringly obvious. Under the present

law, what happens if someone doesn't

3:07:423:07:46

know who their father is? Is there

simply a gap or does it say father

3:07:463:07:51

unknown? At least with adding the

mother's name to the register in the

3:07:513:07:56

vast majority of cases one relative

would be named on the marriage

3:07:563:08:00

certificate. My Lords, I realise

that when something seems simple it

3:08:003:08:08

isn't always easy to rectify. There

can be unintended consequences and

3:08:083:08:14

cost. The way this Bill seeks to

overcome that is to be

3:08:143:08:18

congratulated. The means by which

this is to happen, the signing of a

3:08:183:08:26

certificate which is then handed to

the registrars and put on the

3:08:263:08:29

electronic register has another

benefit, in which it will still

3:08:293:08:33

allow for those lovely photographs

of signing the register which are

3:08:333:08:36

often some of the most special in a

wedding album. I don't know if your

3:08:363:08:42

Lordships are watching the BBC

documentary Vicar's Life which

3:08:423:08:49

follows three vicars in Hereford and

South Shropshire. If not I suggest

3:08:493:08:53

you get it and catch up. One of the

Vickers has important documents

3:08:533:08:58

stolen when thieves break into his

church and take an old box -- one of

3:08:583:09:04

the Vicars. Bailey to discard the

documents which are returned to the

3:09:043:09:08

church damp. I now know from

watching this episode that in order

3:09:083:09:12

to stop mildew growing an important

papers, you simply cover them up and

3:09:123:09:17

put them in the freezer. An

important life skill we should all

3:09:173:09:22

be aware. But did make me realise

that lovely as they are, paper-based

3:09:223:09:29

records are also vulnerable, so

there is another benefit to the

3:09:293:09:34

electronic register as well as

certificates that could be stolen.

3:09:343:09:38

My Lords, finally I would like to

pay to be to the country's

3:09:383:09:42

registrars. They were enormously

helpful when my daughter was married

3:09:423:09:45

and I wish them well in

accommodating the changes this Bill

3:09:453:09:50

will bring, as I sincerely hope it

reaches the statute book, and I give

3:09:503:09:54

it my wholehearted support.

I do add

my congratulations to the Bishop of

3:09:543:10:04

St Albans. In 1994I had the

privilege of piloting a marriage

3:10:043:10:12

built through this House. As a

result of that legislation, couples

3:10:123:10:16

were able to choose where a civil

marriage could take place in a

3:10:163:10:24

location in addition to a registry

office. That location had to be a

3:10:243:10:29

suitable location. It also ended the

practice where a suitcase was left

3:10:293:10:36

in a property near the site of the

marriage ceremony in order to prove

3:10:363:10:42

residency in this appropriate area.

Each Bill brings forward legislation

3:10:423:10:49

to modernise customs and conventions

that have existed for centuries. I

3:10:493:10:55

believe this Bill is a further step

in that direction which I

3:10:553:11:00

wholeheartedly commend. The

Registration of Marriage Bill amends

3:11:003:11:06

the legal documents so that the

mother's name will be included, and

3:11:063:11:10

as well as the fathers. I'm

delighted by this inclusion which is

3:11:103:11:18

long overdue. I do have, however, to

very minor questions for the right

3:11:183:11:26

Reverend. First, the terrific at

given to couples is a secure

3:11:263:11:34

document that cannot be hacked or

interfered with. After all, a

3:11:343:11:40

marriage certificate is a valuable

document and security is a high

3:11:403:11:51

priority. Secondly, I would not wish

the cost of marriage to be raised.

3:11:513:11:58

It used to be seven and 6p in the

past. It always seems to happen if

3:11:583:12:03

changes occur. The process seems to

be a little more bureaucratic, this

3:12:033:12:13

process, which is disappointing, and

the extra duties required by couples

3:12:133:12:16

could mean that they may decide

against marriage. This could result

3:12:163:12:23

in fewer people entering matrimony,

which I'm sure is not what the

3:12:233:12:28

church authority would wish. My

Lords, I am a keen advocate of

3:12:283:12:35

marriage. I was married for 58 years

and dearly wish that families could

3:12:353:12:41

share such happiness as I have been

blessed to have had.

3:12:413:12:52

I really do give wholehearted

support this bill.

My Lords, I speak

3:12:533:12:58

as someone who, in his youth,

thought marriage would be obsolete

3:12:583:13:03

by the time I grew up but of course

that was not to be. I welcome this

3:13:033:13:11

bill, especially the fact that the

mother's name will be added to the

3:13:113:13:16

Father's name, but I do wonder in

the names of IVF and all those

3:13:163:13:22

things whether the concept of mother

and father would be applicable with

3:13:223:13:26

such certainty everywhere and I

think maybe we will need another

3:13:263:13:32

bill and another ten years to

clarify that. I speak as a humanist

3:13:323:13:40

and all that I wish to say has been

said by my noble friend Baroness

3:13:403:13:44

Bakewell. So I will just say, yes, I

welcome the introduction of mothers'

3:13:443:13:52

names, I welcome the change to

online registration and I wish that

3:13:523:13:55

her amendment would have as good

support as the bill itself has.

My

3:13:553:14:04

Lords, this is a very interesting

occasion because I can't criticise

3:14:043:14:08

anything. I would have very much

like to say something critical but

3:14:083:14:12

the right reverend's bill is so

sensible and necessary there is

3:14:123:14:17

nothing to say to it in criticism.

I'm sure there is some minor

3:14:173:14:24

improvement which may be made if it

goes to committee stage but it is

3:14:243:14:30

necessary. It is interesting that

such a long time ago, when the

3:14:303:14:35

mother's name was left out, I think

the noble Baroness Lady Morris has

3:14:353:14:39

already referred to it in a sideways

way, what about knowing whose child

3:14:393:14:46

it is?! The only person who actually

knows whether they are a parent of

3:14:463:14:52

that child is the mother, not the

father! And yet the mother is left

3:14:523:14:57

out! So, my Lords, I have no

criticism to make but I do want to

3:14:573:15:03

bring something else up, because one

rarely gets an occasion when one can

3:15:033:15:09

bring up something which I think is

pretty serious. I'm sure the noble

3:15:093:15:16

Lords know how many marriages in

this country have no registration.

3:15:163:15:22

All these Muslim sharia marriages

have no registration, and I think

3:15:223:15:26

this is not right. It means that the

women have no rights under that

3:15:263:15:35

marriage, they have no status, and

they get thrown out by their

3:15:353:15:39

husbands without anything and if you

say to the men, why don't you do

3:15:393:15:45

something about looking after your

divorced wife, your ex-wife,

3:15:453:15:51

whatever? And children? They say,

why, the state will do that, why

3:15:513:15:56

should we do it? In every respect,

my Lords, it is wrong that anybody

3:15:563:16:01

who comes to live in this country

does not have a marriage registered

3:16:013:16:10

properly and I think the sooner the

Government pays attention to that,

3:16:103:16:13

the better it is for all these

Muslim women who have no rights and

3:16:133:16:19

also the state, which has to look

after the families of men who get

3:16:193:16:23

away without doing anything. So I

know this is not part of this bill,

3:16:233:16:28

but it is an occasion, we have

talked about humanist marriages, and

3:16:283:16:32

I would like to talk about sharia

marriages, and sharia is actually

3:16:323:16:38

not a proper law, it changes from

country to country, and it almost

3:16:383:16:43

changes from the group of Imams

making judgment as it comes. So we

3:16:433:16:51

have to be extremely careful, my

Lords, and I think some thought

3:16:513:16:55

should be given to this matter.

I

would like to add my thanks to the

3:16:553:17:02

right reverend for introducing this

small but very important bill. The

3:17:023:17:06

civil registration service is one of

the administrative hidden gems of

3:17:063:17:10

this country, every year up and down

the land around a million births,

3:17:103:17:15

marriages and deaths are recorded.

It happens routinely, usually

3:17:153:17:19

without drama, but provides the

legal evidential base for our very

3:17:193:17:23

existence and its accuracy is key.

Civil registration was introduced in

3:17:233:17:30

1837, it is administered by

registrars in 174 local authorities

3:17:303:17:34

as well as the General register

office up in Southport. When civil

3:17:343:17:40

registration was introduced, the

system drew very heavily on the

3:17:403:17:42

framework which was already in use

for the recording of baptisms,

3:17:423:17:47

marriages and burials. The keeping

of church registers had been pretty

3:17:473:17:52

haphazard until 1538, when Thomas

Cromwell ordered that each priest

3:17:523:17:55

should keep a record of the

baptisms, marriages and burials in

3:17:553:17:59

the parish. Later they were required

to be kept on parchment because it

3:17:593:18:04

was more durable and held in a

secure parish chest. Copies were

3:18:043:18:07

made regularly and sent to the

Bishop and the roses act 1812

3:18:073:18:14

standardised the information on

preprinted forms which included only

3:18:143:18:17

the father's name and occupation. So

civil registration Carew on this

3:18:173:18:24

experience in the case of marriages,

copies from local events are sent to

3:18:243:18:29

superintendent registrars and then

the registrar general who holds the

3:18:293:18:33

central repository. Mistakes are not

commonplace but they do happen and

3:18:333:18:37

indeed serious family historians,

when faced with a discrepancy, will

3:18:373:18:41

go back to the local, original, in

case an ever had crept in. Each time

3:18:413:18:48

an entry is manually copied there is

more scope for error and under the

3:18:483:18:52

current arrangements these are very,

very complex to correct. The system,

3:18:523:18:57

basically, serves us well but in

various ways it simply hasn't kept

3:18:573:19:02

pace either with social change or

expectation or with technological

3:19:023:19:07

development, and I think the bill

today deals very well with two

3:19:073:19:13

examples of that, namely

digitisation and the recognition

3:19:133:19:15

that the role of women has changed

somewhat since 1837.

3:19:153:19:30

Back in 2002, the Government

published a white paper called civil

3:19:363:19:38

registration, vital change. It

proposed widespread reform mostly by

3:19:383:19:40

accusing regulatory reform orders

but very little progress has ever

3:19:403:19:42

been made with these vital changes,

despite extensive public

3:19:423:19:44

consultations. A few changes have

been made under the 20 16th at in

3:19:443:19:46

which a pilot scheme now allows

historic copies of certificates to

3:19:463:19:49

be provided by PDF, which is useful

for family historians, and the

3:19:493:19:54

Digital economy at 2017 will allow

for electronic verification between

3:19:543:19:58

public authorities and the GRO. But

that is pretty much it. So I really

3:19:583:20:03

support the proposals contained in

this bill. Every noble Lord has

3:20:033:20:09

emphasised this year almost lunacy

of excluding mothers from the

3:20:093:20:12

marriage certificate, so I really

don't think I need to do anything

3:20:123:20:15

other than wholeheartedly agree with

that. Noble Lords may have gathered

3:20:153:20:21

that I am something of an enthusiast

for this topic, and this comes from

3:20:213:20:24

my interest shared with Lady Donaghy

in family history, and as such I

3:20:243:20:30

tend to take rather a long view of

these things. One of the most vexing

3:20:303:20:35

questions for serious researchers is

the standard of proof to which you

3:20:353:20:39

work. Adding more detail I think the

addition of the mother's name to the

3:20:393:20:44

marriage certificate is a really

important piece of detail and this

3:20:443:20:47

will be a great piece of extra

validation for future generations of

3:20:473:20:52

family historians. But I think it

goes further than that, because when

3:20:523:20:56

you get serious about family

research it is not the perennial

3:20:563:21:00

question of how far back you can go,

what you are really interested in

3:21:003:21:04

is, how did your ancestors lived,

what did they do? So the details on

3:21:043:21:08

civil records are an important part

of

3:21:083:21:21

understanding that, so future

generations will know that much more

3:21:223:21:24

about their female ancestors, and

that is important because genealogy

3:21:243:21:26

always defaults to the male line

simply because the surname remains

3:21:263:21:28

constant. The writing out of the

mother on marriage records adds to

3:21:283:21:31

the dilution of the female line

despite the fact that it alone is

3:21:313:21:34

the only line that comes with

biological certainty. Government has

3:21:343:21:38

been moving to digital systems for

some time, civil registration should

3:21:383:21:43

not be an exception. This bill deals

with marriage records so if passed

3:21:433:21:48

the Government should consider how

to progress with birth and death

3:21:483:21:51

records, but for now I think we

should be welcoming the beginning of

3:21:513:21:54

a digital parish chest. This bill

will allow the updating of the

3:21:543:22:00

marriage entry and also on positive

quality aspects that we have talked

3:22:003:22:04

about, and we should be mindful that

beyond the provision of mothers'

3:22:043:22:08

names, this bill gives the chance to

future proof civil registration so

3:22:083:22:12

that later Parliamentary decisions

on, for example, recognition of

3:22:123:22:17

those with two female or two male

parents or no legally recognised

3:22:173:22:22

father that these can be dealt with.

But what this is not is a bill about

3:22:223:22:28

marriage itself, and whilst both I

and my party fully support humanist

3:22:283:22:32

marriages, this bill is not about

that, and I would really urge Lady

3:22:323:22:40

Bakewell, Lord Desai, Baroness

Meacher, to be very careful about

3:22:403:22:42

opening this up to a broader sphere,

because as we have just heard, she

3:22:423:22:49

might want to bring in something

about sharia marriages and there is

3:22:493:22:53

a danger the bill becomes unworkable

and that we will lose it. That would

3:22:533:22:58

be a pity because debates here and

in another place have demonstrated

3:22:583:23:01

widespread support and I think we

should give it a speedy passage.

3:23:013:23:07

My Lords, I would like to thank the

right reverend the Bishop of St

3:23:073:23:12

Albans for bringing this bill before

us today and thank him very much for

3:23:123:23:15

our meeting earlier this week which

I found very helpful. My Lords, this

3:23:153:23:21

bill is much welcomed, welcomed all

round the house today, and many

3:23:213:23:28

regard it as a matter of equality,

and it will update the current

3:23:283:23:34

system for registering marriages

which has not changed since 1837 and

3:23:343:23:39

certainly bring it into the

21st-century. Moving from the

3:23:393:23:44

paper-based system to the electronic

-based system is common sense and

3:23:443:23:48

should make it much more secure as

well as ensuring all marriages will

3:23:483:23:53

be electronically registered. And it

is expected that this system could

3:23:533:23:59

save money in the long term. It is

estimated around £31 million in the

3:23:593:24:04

first year. I would like to see

clarification which others have

3:24:043:24:09

mentioned on clause 1 subsection 4

which they said if a person fails to

3:24:093:24:17

deliver the signed marriage schedule

all signed marriage document, the

3:24:173:24:21

regulations may provide that a

person who fails to comply with such

3:24:213:24:25

a requirement would A, committed an

offence, B, is liable to summary

3:24:253:24:33

conviction, to a fine not exceeding

level three on the standard scale,

3:24:333:24:38

which is currently set at £1000. I

know that Lady Donohue raised this,

3:24:383:24:46

as did the noble Baroness. In the

bill it says it is an offence and in

3:24:463:24:54

the explanatory notes it says it is

a criminal offence, and I am no

3:24:543:24:58

legal expert on this but hopefully

we can have some explanation on

3:24:583:25:03

that. But I understand it is based

on the Scottish model from 1977 and

3:25:033:25:08

it has never been used and that

people, if they do slip up, and not

3:25:083:25:15

send the certificate back in time,

would have a reminder, and no other

3:25:153:25:19

action would be taken. My Lords,

many will be aware of the campaign

3:25:193:25:23

to at the mother's name to the

marriage certificate, and like other

3:25:233:25:28

noble Lords I think this move is

long overdue. Successive governments

3:25:283:25:34

have failed to address the

fundamental inequality of the

3:25:343:25:39

marriage registration certificate in

England and Wales with the name and

3:25:393:25:42

occupation of the father of the

bride and groom included but the

3:25:423:25:50

motherss not. David Cameron promised

to act on this at the relation

3:25:503:25:53

Alliance summit in 2014 and he said

the system did not reflect modern

3:25:533:25:58

Britain and that it should be

updated, that was four years ago. In

3:25:583:26:07

January 2015, the then immigration

and security Minister James Roby shy

3:26:073:26:11

MP said the Government would

continue to develop options that

3:26:113:26:16

would allow mothers' names to be on

the marriage certificate as soon as

3:26:163:26:21

practical. Again, that was three

years ago, so he also said, in

3:26:213:26:31

answer to a Parliamentary question,

in 2015, that the Home Office would

3:26:313:26:37

work with all interested parties to

confirm the most efficient and

3:26:373:26:41

effective way to enable mothers'

names to be recorded on marriage

3:26:413:26:46

certificates and to achieve this

additional funding and changes to

3:26:463:26:53

legislation, IT systems, and the

administration process would

3:26:533:26:56

probably be needed. He also said the

Government would confirm a timetable

3:26:563:26:59

for the new system to be introduced

in due course, so I wonder, could

3:26:593:27:04

the Minister say whether this work

has been carried out, as that

3:27:043:27:07

commitment was made three years ago?

My Lords, if we look at the contrast

3:27:073:27:15

in civil partnerships which came

into law in 2014, the mothers'

3:27:153:27:19

details are included on the

registration certificate and in

3:27:193:27:23

Scotland and Northern Ireland it is

already including the mothers'

3:27:233:27:26

details. I am surprised by this,

Scotland has included mothers' names

3:27:263:27:34

since 1855 when there were no such

things as computers, it was all done

3:27:343:27:39

by paper and pen, so I think if we

could have done it in 1855, it would

3:27:393:27:45

be quite easy to do it much earlier

than we are talking about today.

3:27:453:27:53

In 2040, many people will be aware

of the campaign that garnered 70,000

3:27:533:28:09

signatures which said it should not

be seen as a business transaction

3:28:093:28:13

between the father of the bride and

the father of the grooms. My Lords,

3:28:133:28:23

my noble friend mentioned, and

others I believe have mentioned it,

3:28:233:28:30

that we should have both parents

names on the marriage certificates,

3:28:303:28:41

and with civil partnerships and

same-sex marriage. No doubt children

3:28:413:28:44

of those partnerships will one day

get married. My Lords, I believe

3:28:443:28:53

this Bill is a welcome step forward.

What better measure could the

3:28:533:28:59

government take to mark the centre

an array of women getting the vote

3:28:593:29:05

than to ensure this becomes an Act

of Parliament is a tribute to all

3:29:053:29:10

those and are still campaigning for

equality for women.

May I

3:29:103:29:21

congratulate the Bishop of St Albans

for bringing forward and outlining

3:29:213:29:24

the purposes of what is quite a

narrowly defined Bill to date, which

3:29:243:29:30

reforms the way in which marriage

are registered in the future and

3:29:303:29:35

enabled the updating of the marriage

entry to allow for the inclusion of

3:29:353:29:39

mothers' names. It is a very

important issue and one which the

3:29:393:29:43

government fully supports. I'm

grateful to the right reverend

3:29:433:29:49

prelate for bringing forward this

Bill to address this important issue

3:29:493:29:53

and to remove the inequality which

currently exists in marriage

3:29:533:29:56

entries. As the right reverend

prelate and other noble Lords have

3:29:563:30:02

said, the then Prime Minister gave a

commitment in 2014 that the content

3:30:023:30:07

of the marriage entry would be

updated to include the details of

3:30:073:30:11

both parents of the couple. The

marriage entry clearly doesn't

3:30:113:30:15

reflect modern Britain and it's high

time it was updated. Statistics show

3:30:153:30:23

there are currently around 2 million

single parents in the country and

3:30:233:30:26

around 90% of those women. As it

stands, if any of these children

3:30:263:30:33

were to get married, they would only

be able to include their father's

3:30:333:30:44

details in the marriage entry and

their mother's details would not be

3:30:443:30:48

included, even though they brought

them up as a single parent. As the

3:30:483:30:52

right reverend prelate explained,

moving to a schedule system is the

3:30:523:30:56

most cost-effective way to bring

about this change. A schedule system

3:30:563:31:01

is already in place in Scotland, and

this has been the case since 1855.

3:31:013:31:11

In Northern Ireland, it is the same

system which is already used in

3:31:113:31:15

England and Wales. Will

partnerships. -- in England and

3:31:153:31:23

Wales the civil partnerships. It

would not make sense to replace the

3:31:233:31:28

84,000 bound marriage registers

currently in use in register offices

3:31:283:31:32

and approximately 30,000 churches

under the religious buildings. If

3:31:323:31:39

any amendments were required in the

future they would need to be

3:31:393:31:43

replaced again. It wouldn't be

cost-effective to update the

3:31:433:31:46

marriage entry in this way. Just to

reprint the marriage registers alone

3:31:463:31:51

would cost £1.9 million. With the

costs associated with free calling

3:31:513:31:59

all the comment registers and

despatching new registers, this

3:31:593:32:01

would bring the total cost to around

£3 million plus. There would also be

3:32:013:32:15

changes required to the IT system

and ensure the appropriate training

3:32:153:32:18

and guidance is provided to

registration officers and all the

3:32:183:32:23

religious bodies affected by the

changes. The changes proposed in

3:32:233:32:27

this Bill would mean that marriage

entries would be held in a single

3:32:273:32:33

electronic register rather than in

thousands of books making the system

3:32:333:32:37

more secure, more efficient and far

simpler to administer and amend if

3:32:373:32:43

necessary in the future. As a

result, there would no longer be any

3:32:433:32:47

need for bound marriage registers

and certificate stock to be held in

3:32:473:32:51

churches or other religious

buildings and my noble friend asked

3:32:513:32:57

about the number of burglaries in

the last 12 months. There are a

3:32:573:33:02

number of burglaries each year from

religious premises, the move to a

3:33:023:33:06

schedule system would remove the

risk of registers and blank

3:33:063:33:10

certificates being stolen in order

to create an identity to use for

3:33:103:33:14

fraudulent purposes from the

marriage records. Provisional

3:33:143:33:19

figures show there were eight

burglaries of marriage registers

3:33:193:33:24

from church buildings in the last 12

months. Moving to a schedule system

3:33:243:33:30

would be the biggest reform of how

marriages are registered since 1837

3:33:303:33:34

and it moves away from the outdated

legislation in place. My Lords, as

3:33:343:33:40

I'm sure you'll all agree, when

considering how the marriage entry

3:33:403:33:45

is updated we will need to ensure

the needs of all the different

3:33:453:33:49

family circumstances in society

today are taken into account. My

3:33:493:33:53

noble friend and a number of noble

Lords wanted more clarification

3:33:533:34:01

about the powers conferred by

regulations in clause 1.4. This

3:34:013:34:07

House recently expressed its concern

in a debate on a government Bill

3:34:073:34:12

about new criminal offences being

created by regulations and statutory

3:34:123:34:17

instruments. The Registration of

Marriage Bill contains powers

3:34:173:34:23

enabling the Secretary of State

amend the marriage act of 1949 and

3:34:233:34:27

other enactments in order to bring

marriage registration in line with

3:34:273:34:32

the process for civil partnerships

in England and Wales. As well as

3:34:323:34:40

marriages and civil partnerships in

Scotland and Northern Ireland.

3:34:403:34:45

Clause 1.4 empowers the Secretary of

State amend the marriage act of 1949

3:34:453:34:48

to create a specific criminal

offence. This offence is modelled on

3:34:483:34:54

an existing offence in the marriages

Scotland act 1977 and will be

3:34:543:35:02

committed, if a party to a marriage

fails to comply with a notice

3:35:023:35:06

requiring him or her to deliver a

signed marriage schedule or document

3:35:063:35:12

to enable the registration of the

marriage. The offence would be

3:35:123:35:16

punishable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level three and

3:35:163:35:20

the standard scale, which is

currently £1000. It should be noted

3:35:203:35:29

that for all civil marriages and

religious marriages in which a

3:35:293:35:32

registrar attends the signed

schedule will be retained by the

3:35:323:35:39

registrar at the marriage ceremony

and taken back to the registry

3:35:393:35:42

office for entry into the marriage

register. This accounts for around

3:35:423:35:47

75% of all marriages. Therefore it

is not envisaged that the offence

3:35:473:35:51

will be used extensively. No issues

have been identified in other

3:35:513:35:59

jurisdictions with signed schedule

is being returned. In fact

3:35:593:36:03

traditionally it is the best man or

the family member who takes

3:36:033:36:08

responsibility for ensuring that the

marriages registered. Although a new

3:36:083:36:14

offences created it is also proposed

to remove or reduce the scope of

3:36:143:36:19

other registration offences in the

marriage act 1949. At present an

3:36:193:36:24

offence for any person to refuse or

two omit to register any marriage as

3:36:243:36:32

required under the Act. This offence

at present is potentially committed

3:36:323:36:38

by a number of people responsible

for registering marriages including

3:36:383:36:43

registrars, members of the clergy,

authorised persons and specified

3:36:433:36:47

persons in the Jewish and Quaker

religions. Under the Bill only

3:36:473:36:52

registrars would be responsible for

registering marriages, so this

3:36:523:36:56

offence will have a far narrower

field of application. In addition,

3:36:563:37:01

those currently responsible for

registering marriages are required

3:37:013:37:06

under section 57 of the 1949 act to

make and deliver a certified copy of

3:37:063:37:12

entries made in the marriage

register book or a certificate that

3:37:123:37:16

no entries have been made since the

date of the last certified copy. It

3:37:163:37:27

is an offence under section 76.2 for

a person required to make the

3:37:273:37:32

quarterly returns to refuse or fail

to deliver any such copy or

3:37:323:37:37

certificate to a superintendent

registrar. Under the Bill the

3:37:373:37:41

requirement to make quarterly

returns and the associated offence

3:37:413:37:45

will become redundant and can be

removed. My Lords, although the Bill

3:37:453:37:49

introduces the new offence at clause

1.4 it is not considered the

3:37:493:37:55

introduction of this proposed new

offence or the reduction or removal

3:37:553:37:58

of existing offences will have any

appreciable impact on the justice

3:37:583:38:03

system. The Ministry of Justice has

been consulted in relation to this

3:38:033:38:07

proposed offence and has not raised

concerns to date. The noble lady

3:38:073:38:16

Meacher and other noble Lords

including the noble lady Lady

3:38:163:38:23

Bakewell have asked about humanist

marriage. I need to be very clear

3:38:233:38:26

that the scope of this Bill is not

about the solemnisation of

3:38:263:38:32

marriages.

The actual registration,

which the government has shown no

3:38:323:38:40

opposition to, it merely asks the

consultation. The consultation

3:38:403:38:44

approves, it refers to the Law

Commission, the Law Commission

3:38:443:38:47

approves. It's not an issue on which

the government is offering any

3:38:473:38:51

opposition, it is simply a matter of

implementation according to their

3:38:513:38:56

judgment.

If I could continue to

explain here, the Bill only includes

3:38:563:39:03

provisions to introduce a schedule

system and change how marriages are

3:39:033:39:09

registered, to facilitate the change

to the marriage entry to include

3:39:093:39:13

both parents. That is the scope of

the Bill. It's very narrowly about

3:39:133:39:20

marriage registration and not about

solemnisation, and it's not intended

3:39:203:39:26

at all to include wider marriage

reform.

As the Minister will be

3:39:263:39:36

aware, every single person who is

spoken in this debate has supported

3:39:363:39:40

the measure being introduced by the

right reverend prelate. Would she at

3:39:403:39:47

least be prepared to consider and

just as importantly the right

3:39:473:39:50

reverend prelate in future

discussions that the inclusion of

3:39:503:39:56

humanist marriage doesn't damage

this Bill but actually enhances the

3:39:563:40:00

Bill.

I think the point that I'm

making is that to amend the existing

3:40:003:40:09

law on marriage to make provision

for legally valid humanist

3:40:093:40:12

ceremonies would involve a huge

range of issues. I think the

3:40:123:40:15

important thing...

The fact is it's

already in law. That humanist

3:40:153:40:26

marriages should be recognised

legally. All it needs is a Minister

3:40:263:40:30

of order. It actually doesn't need

to be in this Bill. What would be

3:40:303:40:39

wonderful would be an assurance from

the Minister that the Minister will

3:40:393:40:43

take forwards the need with some

urgency for a ministerial order and

3:40:433:40:51

actually have it done, and then of

course it does not actually need any

3:40:513:40:58

legislative change.

Is actually

quite helpful what she says because

3:40:583:41:05

I'm very happy to discuss this

matter further. The point I'm making

3:41:053:41:09

today is that this is a very

narrowly drawn Bill, and two in

3:41:093:41:15

anyway expand upon it would actually

risk the Bill in its passage through

3:41:153:41:20

your Lordships house. I am pleading

with noble Lords to stick to the

3:41:203:41:28

content of what this Bill stirs.

Certainly we can have discussions

3:41:283:41:35

about humanist marriages outside the

chamber but that's the play I'm

3:41:353:41:37

making. I'm not denigrating what the

noble lord said. The minute we start

3:41:373:41:47

amending bills like this the more we

are in danger they do not secure

3:41:473:41:50

their way through. The noble lady

asked to see draft regulations

3:41:503:41:58

before committee and that is our

aim, to make a draft of the

3:41:583:42:03

affirmative regulations available

before the Committee Stage of this

3:42:033:42:06

Bill. The noble lady also asked to

clarify the definition of parent.

3:42:063:42:18

The regulations will prescribe who

can be included under the headings

3:42:183:42:21

for both parents of the couple in

the marriage entry and this will

3:42:213:42:26

enable us to keep pace with societal

developments as well as family

3:42:263:42:33

composition changes. The noble lady

Bakewell asked is there any

3:42:333:42:37

intention to reform marriage law.

This Bill simply modernises marriage

3:42:373:42:45

registration and facilitates change

to the register entry to allow the

3:42:453:42:49

inclusion of both parents' names.

The Bill isn't intended to include

3:42:493:42:53

wider marriage

3:42:533:42:54

Lady Morris Bolton asked a valid

question, what is putting the entry

3:43:023:43:07

if you don't know who your parents,

particularly your father, might be

3:43:073:43:10

at the moment? Although there will

be proficient in both parents to be

3:43:103:43:15

included in the marriage entry,

there is the option to leave this

3:43:153:43:19

blank as is, I understand, the case

now. My noble friend Lady C, asked

3:43:193:43:26

about pursuing nurses that the cost

of the marriage certificate will not

3:43:263:43:32

be raised as she is concerned it

will discourage people from marrying

3:43:323:43:36

because of the additional cost and

processes. Fees for marriage

3:43:363:43:40

certificates are set at a cost

recovery basis using HM Treasury

3:43:403:43:44

guidance and reviewed annually. The

bill would not directly lead to an

3:43:443:43:50

increase in costs. The noble lady

lady fluff it was so perfectly

3:43:503:43:57

content with the bill but she just

thought she might talk about sharia

3:43:573:44:01

marriages! But I think she knows

that the scope of the bill is

3:44:013:44:08

narrowly about marriage

registration.

Can I just say one

3:44:083:44:13

word? I don't expect it to be in

this bill, I have no intention of

3:44:133:44:18

putting it in this bill, but I

wanted to draw attention to this

3:44:183:44:22

fact, and I would be very grateful

if you would allow me to come and

3:44:223:44:26

talk to you.

My Lords, anyone can

come and talk to me about any issue

3:44:263:44:33

pertaining to the Home Office, I

will give that assurance on the

3:44:333:44:35

floor of the house. I know how

honourable but noble lady's

3:44:353:44:40

intentions are. My nobility as for

assurances on security, which is a

3:44:403:44:46

higher priority. Proposed changes

will increase the security of

3:44:463:44:52

marriage records, which is very

important, and currently the

3:44:523:44:55

requirement for open marriage

register books and the blank

3:44:553:44:59

certificates held in churches and

other religious buildings can be a

3:44:593:45:02

target of death as we have heard.

The solution in this bill should

3:45:023:45:07

minimise that public protection risk

as marriage registers are currently

3:45:073:45:13

held in some 30,000 different

religious buildings. The

3:45:133:45:16

certificates themselves will still

be printed on paper with secure

3:45:163:45:19

features in the same way as now. The

noble lady Lady Gale asked if a

3:45:193:45:29

timetable for changes could be

confirmed. Subject to the successful

3:45:293:45:35

passage of the bill, implementation

will involve clearly among other

3:45:353:45:39

things and affirmative regulations

being made and system changes and

3:45:393:45:46

training and guidance for local

registration service and for those

3:45:463:45:48

who solemnise marriages. We would

aim to implement reforms as soon as

3:45:483:45:54

possible following Royal Assent. My

Lords, I think it has been an

3:45:543:46:00

excellent debate this morning and I

know the noble Lord recognise the

3:46:003:46:03

importance of taking these changes

forward, which modernises the

3:46:033:46:08

process of registering marriages.

I

would like to thank the noble Lords

3:46:083:46:13

for the very helpful debate and

particularly I am keen and grateful

3:46:133:46:18

to hear a wide range of concerns

from various different parts of the

3:46:183:46:22

house. We have had such a

comprehensive response on many of

3:46:223:46:27

the technical answers to questions

that I don't think I need to add to

3:46:273:46:30

them. I just want to say one or two

briefings, if I may. I recognise

3:46:303:46:36

there is a concern about a humanist

marriages, I do want to stress that

3:46:363:46:43

having taken advice, I have been

told again and again and again if we

3:46:433:46:47

are going to get this very simple

but really key win, the more it gets

3:46:473:46:53

amended, the less likely it is to

get through. I have been approached

3:46:533:46:57

with many requests that we put all

sorts of things in this and the

3:46:573:47:00

Abeid I keep getting from a very

experienced members of your

3:47:003:47:05

lordship's house is to keep it

absolutely simple. I am also

3:47:053:47:09

slightly puzzled, perhaps we could

talk about it afterwards with the

3:47:093:47:14

noble lady Baroness Meacher who have

conceded that it does not need to be

3:47:143:47:17

in this bill as I understood what

she was saying a few moments ago.

3:47:173:47:23

This, I believe, my Lords, is an

opportunity for us, as I said at the

3:47:233:47:27

beginning, to correct a clear and

historic injustice. I found myself

3:47:273:47:32

as I was referring earlier in touch

with all sorts of people I don't

3:47:323:47:35

necessarily get in touch with very

often, we have had articles in The

3:47:353:47:40

Stylist, Good Housekeeping, an

online platform for young women

3:47:403:47:47

called Border Poll, which I had

never heard before, all getting

3:47:473:47:51

involved and saying, please get this

change through -- and online

3:47:513:47:56

platform called The Pool. This will

get through if we work together, and

3:47:563:48:10

when the recommendations are

published we will look through those

3:48:103:48:13

details. With thanks to noble

colleagues, I ask the house to give

3:48:133:48:16

the bill a second reading.

The

question is the bill be read a

3:48:163:48:21

second time funny as many are of the

opinion the content, the contrary

3:48:213:48:26

not content.

The contents habit.

I

beg to move this bill be committed

3:48:263:48:30

to a committee of the whole house.

The question is that this bill be

3:48:303:48:36

committed to a committee of the

whole house. As many as are of that

3:48:363:48:40

opinion say content, the contrary

not content. The contents habit.

3:48:403:48:46

Second reading of the open skies

agreement membership bill, Baroness

3:48:463:48:48

ransom.

My Lords, I beg to move this bill be

3:48:483:48:55

read a second time.

I want to start by thanking noble

3:48:553:49:10

Lords who have agreed to take part

in this debate today and I embark on

3:49:103:49:16

the second reading of this bill in

the absence of Government commitment

3:49:163:49:21

to emphasise the importance of the

united kingdom's retention of the

3:49:213:49:25

Open Skies Agreement following EU

Withdrawal Bill. Open skies is one

3:49:253:49:30

of a suite of aviation related

issues which the Government needs to

3:49:303:49:35

urgently address. Others include the

European aviation safety agency,

3:49:353:49:41

also the need for free movement of

skilled staff into an out of

3:49:413:49:47

mainland Europe, and UK border

arrangements with potential delays

3:49:473:49:50

for both passengers and goods. Since

1994, any EU airline has been free

3:49:503:49:58

to fly between any two points in

Europe, fuelling the rise of

3:49:583:50:04

low-cost airlines and drastically

reducing prices along existing

3:50:043:50:07

groups. And the UK has been at the

forefront of these changes, creating

3:50:073:50:15

an integrated aviation market with

Europe. It is important to emphasise

3:50:153:50:20

that much of the UK's market access

beyond the EU is also dependent upon

3:50:203:50:28

our EU membership. For instant, our

open skies agreement with the USA is

3:50:283:50:33

simply by virtue of being an EU

member. Finding 2007, the EU- US

3:50:333:50:41

transport agreement allows flights

from any EU country to any part of

3:50:413:50:50

the USA. It introduced closer

regulatory cooperation and provide

3:50:503:50:55

equal market access for any EU

carrier. In 2011, Norway and Iceland

3:50:553:51:02

taxied to the agreement as well. And

it was the US airlines, my Lords,

3:51:023:51:10

who first alerted me to the

international concern that the UK

3:51:103:51:13

might end up in a position where our

planes can't fly. The USA is our

3:51:133:51:21

biggest trading partner outside the

EU. But the EU and hence the UK also

3:51:213:51:28

has similar agreements with the

number of other countries, including

3:51:283:51:34

Canada, Israel, Jordan, Georgia,

Moldova and Morocco. Presently the

3:51:343:51:40

UK has the third-largest aviation

network in the world, carrying 144

3:51:403:51:46

million passengers and 1 million

tonnes of cargo in 2015 alone. And

3:51:463:51:54

it is worth £52 billion annually to

our national income. Aviation is an

3:51:543:52:01

enabler of economic growth and

creator of jobs. People use airlines

3:52:013:52:07

to get somewhere, to do something,

to transport goods. Without daily

3:52:073:52:13

flights, the economy would stall and

the whole system freeze. And

3:52:133:52:20

commercial airlines have

revolutionised the way in which we

3:52:203:52:22

travel and how we view the rest of

the world, so this is not just a

3:52:223:52:26

case of seeing the world as a market

but as a community. When we

3:52:263:52:32

emphasise the importance of aviation

to business, we need to remember the

3:52:323:52:35

significance of travel for leisure

and to reunite families. Even at

3:52:353:52:41

Heathrow, our premier business hub,

60% of flight after leisure, family

3:52:413:52:45

and friends travel. Open Skies

Agreements between countries

3:52:453:52:52

eliminate the use of Government

restrictions of commercial air

3:52:523:52:58

carriers' services such as controls

of capacity and pricing, giving

3:52:583:53:03

carriers the ability to provide

convenient and affordable air

3:53:033:53:08

services. They give airlines the

right to fly across world. Prior to

3:53:083:53:15

this, my Lords, each country in

force over its territorial

3:53:153:53:19

boundaries, with air, land and sea

defences. An aircraft could be

3:53:193:53:25

apprehended or even shot down if it

was not to seek prior consent to fly

3:53:253:53:30

over an area. I am not anticipating

a return to that situation, but it

3:53:303:53:38

emphasises the importance of these

arrangements and indeed how far we

3:53:383:53:41

have come. Brexit threatens to throw

the industry's intricate

3:53:413:53:49

arrangements of roots and ownership

structures into chaos. The Open

3:53:493:53:54

Skies Agreement referred to in this

bill comprises two components. The

3:53:543:54:02

first, the intra- European

arrangement between ourselves and

3:54:023:54:05

other member states. Secondly, the

agreement between the EU and US.

3:54:053:54:12

Almost all flights in and out of the

UK are governed under one of these

3:54:123:54:17

agreements. If the Government truly

wished for Britain to be open for

3:54:173:54:22

business, then the industry needs

now to be assured that they will not

3:54:223:54:29

be disadvantaged by the impact of

Brexit. The low-cost short-haul

3:54:293:54:35

sector of the aviation industry,

including airlines Ryanair and

3:54:353:54:40

EasyJet, has repeatedly called upon

the Government for these assurances.

3:54:403:54:46

Current agreements have been the

catalyst for the successes of budget

3:54:463:54:50

airlines over the last 20 years.

EasyJet, for instance, holds an

3:54:503:54:56

operating licence in the UK but

relies on intra- European flights

3:54:563:55:01

for over 40% of its revenues and

continues to ambitiously expand its

3:55:013:55:09

network of routes connecting Europe.

Twice in July last year the Prime

3:55:093:55:16

Minister and her Transport Secretary

stated in Parliament that they had

3:55:163:55:22

held discussions with their US

counterparts on the issue of open

3:55:223:55:27

skies, but still no assurances were

forthcoming. And in this case there

3:55:273:55:34

is no fallback position, no safety

net, no World Trade Organisation

3:55:343:55:39

rules. And this issue will not go

away, because aviation agreements

3:55:393:55:45

stand outside EU rules on

membership. On the contrary, this is

3:55:453:55:52

the issue of greatest urgency,

because so much of our economy rests

3:55:523:55:58

on the shoulders of the aviation

industry. If you cannot fly, you

3:55:583:56:04

cannot trade, so it has to be fixed

first. If work is taking place on

3:56:043:56:11

this just a few hundred meters away

in Whitehall, then I would ask the

3:56:113:56:17

Minister, why not set our minds at

ease? This week the Secretary of

3:56:173:56:22

State gave a speech to airline

operators. I know that the noble

3:56:223:56:26

lady was there, as indeed I was, and

he said discussions on replacing

3:56:263:56:35

these arrangements have begun and

are progressing well. We will be

3:56:353:56:41

meeting US officials for a further

round of talks in the coming weeks.

3:56:413:56:46

So I hope that the noble lady of the

Minister will share with us today

3:56:463:56:51

some more detail on this, and place

on record exactly what the

3:56:513:56:57

Government's intentions are, and I

would also welcome information on

3:56:573:57:02

progress and talks with other third

countries such as Canada. A recent

3:57:023:57:06

EU Commission document sets out the

options for the future. It looks

3:57:063:57:14

both at the transition phase and

that the long-term situation, and

3:57:143:57:20

provides options for Deal or no

Deal, and in technical terms it

3:57:203:57:25

spells out a picture of the limited

rights and muffled voice we will

3:57:253:57:31

have on issues such as market access

and safety if the current

3:57:313:57:36

arrangements do not continue.

3:57:363:57:42

Evidence to the EU subcommittee even

suggested that we might have to fall

3:57:423:57:46

back on the elderly Bermuda two

agreement in the event of a no deal.

3:57:463:57:54

If the UK is to successfully go it

alone, then we must seek to retain

3:57:543:57:59

the aviation rights which we were

awarded as a member of the EU. The

3:57:593:58:06

clock is ticking, my lords. Tickets

for package holidays are already

3:58:063:58:09

being sold for spring 2019, on the

assumption that a deal will be in

3:58:093:58:17

place. Airlines sell tickets a year

ahead, tour operators up to 18

3:58:173:58:23

months ahead. They need the public

reassurance only the government can

3:58:233:58:28

provide because the nearer we get to

March 2019, the more their customers

3:58:283:58:34

will want certainty about the

product they are buying. If an

3:58:343:58:38

agreement isn't reached, even

transitory there would be huge

3:58:383:58:48

economic disruption. These

agreements are fundamental to the

3:58:483:58:51

travel of millions of passengers and

the movement of billions of pounds

3:58:513:58:54

of freight, whilst keeping the cost

of air travel affordable for

3:58:543:59:00

ordinary people. My intention is as

succinct as the Bill itself, to gain

3:59:003:59:06

a clear commitment from the

government that the UK's membership

3:59:063:59:10

of the Open Skies Agreement will be

maintained, or that a new agreement

3:59:103:59:16

upon the same terms will be reached

prior to Brexit. Not just with the

3:59:163:59:23

US but with the remaining EU states

and with other third countries with

3:59:233:59:27

which we already have agreements,

ensuring the future prosperity of

3:59:273:59:33

the aviation industry and of the

country. My Lords, I beg to move.

Is

3:59:333:59:43

this Bill now to be read a second

time?

It's a great pleasure to

3:59:433:59:48

follow the baroness. We worked

together with the Minister on the

3:59:483:59:53

space industry Bill recently and I'm

very pleased to return to aviation

3:59:533:59:58

matters. Some years ago, I visited

Atlanta in the United States. At the

3:59:584:00:08

time Atlanta was booming and I saw

one of the chief architects of

4:00:084:00:16

Atlanta Falcons macros excess at

City Hall. I said to him, what has

4:00:164:00:24

promoted this tremendous resurgence

of Atlanta? He said it helps to have

4:00:244:00:31

the world headquarters of Coca-Cola

here. But he said the real big

4:00:314:00:36

decision they took was to campaign

for and succeed in getting at

4:00:364:00:43

Atlanta made one of the United

States' hub airports. Then he said

4:00:434:00:47

something which has always stuck in

my mind. He said airports are a bit

4:00:474:00:54

like the railhead in the old West.

Wherever the railway came to an end,

4:00:544:01:00

a town grew up, and economic

activity took place. He said that's

4:01:004:01:06

what airports do today. They are

engines of economic growth.

4:01:064:01:12

Therefore the future of our airports

and the traffic that they can carry

4:01:124:01:18

is extremely important. What I want

to put in context is this debate. 60

4:01:184:01:29

years ago the late great Peter

Sellers mocked the then Prime

4:01:294:01:32

Minister Harold Macmillan with a

speech that completely consisted of

4:01:324:01:39

meaningless cliches. The most famous

of these was "This is not the time

4:01:394:01:45

for vague promises of better things

to come". And then proceeded to give

4:01:454:01:49

vague promises of better things to

come. Today that's not an amusing

4:01:494:01:54

piece of satire but the standard

response from ministers. Perhaps the

4:01:544:02:00

Minister will forgive me if I take

for an example the replied the noble

4:02:004:02:06

Baroness gave to a question about

how we intended to ensure equivalent

4:02:064:02:14

aviation standards with the EU. She

said "The government is considering

4:02:144:02:23

carefully all the potential

implications arising from the UK

4:02:234:02:27

exit from the EU, including the

implications for continued or

4:02:274:02:32

discontinued participation in the

European aviation safety agency. It

4:02:324:02:36

is the government's intention to

maintain consistently high standards

4:02:364:02:40

of aviation safety once we have left

the EU. As part of the existing

4:02:404:02:46

negotiations the government will

discuss with the EU how best to

4:02:464:02:52

continue co-operation in the field

of aviation safety and standards".

4:02:524:02:57

Vague promises of better things to

come. On Monday the CBI

4:02:574:03:03

director-general Caroline Fairbairn

called for a greater sense of

4:03:034:03:06

urgency in the Brexit talks to give

clarity to companies that would

4:03:064:03:10

otherwise need to trigger

alternative brands including moving

4:03:104:03:13

jobs and investment offshore.

Earlier this week I attended a

4:03:134:03:19

future technology Showcase promoted

by Rolls worries where similar pleas

4:03:194:03:24

for certainty were made -- promoted

by Rolls-Royce. Earlier this week

4:03:244:03:29

the CEO of JP Morgan warned the lack

of certainty and directions

4:03:294:03:32

threatened jobs in financial

services and similar warnings have

4:03:324:03:37

come from the creative industries

sector. We are too near the

4:03:374:03:41

precipice for vague promises of

better things to come being harassed

4:03:414:03:44

bonds to these cries of distress

from almost every sector of industry

4:03:444:03:48

-- being her response to these cries

of distress. We know why the

4:03:484:03:53

government continues with the

meaningless mantra of Brexit means

4:03:534:03:57

Brexit. If the Prime Minister ever

tries to put fresh on the bone of

4:03:574:04:03

the Brexit strategy, the choke chain

she is held is quickly yanked. Talks

4:04:034:04:13

of a leadership bid are reactivated.

In any kind of rational world the

4:04:134:04:17

government would rush to embrace

this Bill as a means of getting

4:04:174:04:21

ahead of the curve by giving

certainty to this very important

4:04:214:04:26

sector. The excellent House of Lords

library briefing for the Bill says

4:04:264:04:34

in 2015 the aviation sector

contributed £55 billion to the UK's

4:04:344:04:39

gross domestic product and that it

supports nearly a million jobs. When

4:04:394:04:43

I was a lad I worked in the

Blackpool Tower Circus. I won't tell

4:04:434:04:48

you what my job was there!

LAUGHTER

But the government Brexit

4:04:484:04:56

negotiations look more and more like

one of those acts are used to see at

4:04:564:05:00

the circus where a performer would

spin more and more plates on the end

4:05:004:05:04

of a stick. Keeping the plates

spinning at the best of times is

4:05:044:05:10

difficult, but it becomes almost

impossible when there are parts of

4:05:104:05:16

the Conservative Party and parts of

the Cabinet are all quite happy to

4:05:164:05:19

see the plates come crashing to the

floor. A successful aviation policy

4:05:194:05:25

is crucial to Britain's economic

future. My noble friend has made a

4:05:254:05:30

practical suggestion in this Bill

which shows a way forward for this

4:05:304:05:34

important sector. If we can keep

these plates spinning it will be to

4:05:344:05:39

the benefit of us all.

I have no

idea he came straight from the

4:05:394:05:53

circus! Let me join in the

congratulations for the opportunity

4:05:534:05:58

to discuss these matters and discuss

aviation in your Lordships' House.

4:05:584:06:05

This provides us with an opportunity

to do so. Easy to forget that 40 odd

4:06:054:06:14

years ago the aviation world was

very different from that which we

4:06:144:06:17

have today. All over the world,

state owned airlines operated

4:06:174:06:26

infrequently and that high prices.

Indeed, sky-high affairs, frequent

4:06:264:06:31

services and travel was to adapt to

a current slogan, in those days for

4:06:314:06:38

the few and not the many. So far as

flying was concerned. It took the

4:06:384:06:46

Carter administration to pass an

airline deregulation act in the USA

4:06:464:06:53

which the rest of the world took

their cue from. I remember

4:06:534:06:56

travelling to New York in 1980

courtesy of a TV company, we were

4:06:564:07:06

filming the Carter Reagan election

battle. I sat next to an elderly

4:07:064:07:13

lady from Scotland who didn't know

much about aviation policy but knew

4:07:134:07:17

that Freddie Laker was a man who had

enabled her to fly to see her

4:07:174:07:22

relatives across continents.

Although we accept in 2018 that such

4:07:224:07:28

a thing is a regular occurrence, for

her it was something new and

4:07:284:07:34

something dramatic. There have of

course been agreements between our

4:07:344:07:38

two nations, the UK and the US,

aviation agreements over the years.

4:07:384:07:43

The two Bermuda agreements. The Open

Skies Agreement has brought many

4:07:434:07:53

benefits but it is tilted towards

the United States itself. While the

4:07:534:08:01

agreement allows any EU airline and

any US airline to fly from any point

4:08:014:08:07

in the EU and any point in the US,

only US airlines can operate into EU

4:08:074:08:22

flights. But European airlines are

not allowed into United States

4:08:224:08:28

right. In the land of the free, yet

the aware that foreign companies are

4:08:284:08:37

not allowed to purchase a

controlling stake in any United

4:08:374:08:41

States airline. As an aside I think

that's an eminently sensible policy.

4:08:414:08:47

The fact this country has seen over

the years so many of its strategic

4:08:474:08:50

industries falling into foreign

hands and into the hands of people

4:08:504:08:56

who have no great allegiance to the

UK might be a retrograde step. The

4:08:564:09:01

US also of course has some control

over its civil airlines through its

4:09:014:09:10

civil reserve air fleet. I'm always

amused when I hear Americans

4:09:104:09:14

complaining about subsidies to

companies like Airbus for example

4:09:144:09:17

when one reflects that much of the

US aviation strategy over the years

4:09:174:09:21

has been assisted financially and in

other ways by the United States

4:09:214:09:27

policy. Despite the Open Skies

Agreement it would be possible for

4:09:274:09:33

any foreign airline to carry

military and government personnel in

4:09:334:09:35

any numbers around the world because

of the fly America act. As the noble

4:09:354:09:48

Baroness reminds us, this is not

just about Open Skies koh and the

4:09:484:09:52

US, it's about the European Union

and the UK itself. I picked up a

4:09:524:10:01

newspaper cutting that I found the

other day. I'm not in the habit of

4:10:014:10:06

holding a newspaper cutting but it's

from 1983 and it's the day before

4:10:064:10:10

the general election in 1983 which I

had some personal interest in at the

4:10:104:10:15

time. In the classified section,

there were some advertisements for

4:10:154:10:21

holidays abroad. A company called

Meridian were advertising what they

4:10:214:10:28

called a phone and fly June specials

from Birmingham Airport. In 1983 it

4:10:284:10:35

was possible to fly to Tenerife once

a week for £118 plus taxes. If my

4:10:354:10:42

arithmetic is correct that amounts

to sue hundred and £78 40 today plus

4:10:424:10:53

taxes -- £278 today plus taxes. One

can fly to Tenerife from Birmingham

4:10:534:10:59

£68. You can a deal for £42. There

was also an advertisement for Malaga

4:10:594:11:11

at £88 back in those days. 12

flights a week currently between

4:11:114:11:16

Birmingham and Malaga. Entirely due

in my view to the membership of the

4:11:164:11:23

UK and subsequent agreements to do

that. Ministers in either house are

4:11:234:11:40

normally sent to answer debates like

this on the understanding they say

4:11:404:11:46

as little as possible and offend us

few people as possible. The

4:11:464:11:50

coalition were no different. I hope

this philosophy we seem to have

4:11:504:11:57

about Brexit, it will be all right

on the night, the Minister

4:11:574:12:02

recognises that is a little worn out

and if the aviation world is to be

4:12:024:12:09

reassured about the future after

Brexit, I'm afraid the Minister will

4:12:094:12:12

have to say a bit more than the

Department for Transport said

4:12:124:12:15

already. I hope the noble Baroness

will take it as far as possible and

4:12:154:12:24

the government accepts its

provisions.

4:12:244:12:29

Mayites congratulate my noble friend

on securing a second reading of her

4:12:294:12:33

bill, which I am very pleased to

support. The substance of this bill

4:12:334:12:37

is seeking to remedy what appears to

me to be symptomatic of the

4:12:374:12:41

Government's chaotic approach to

Brexit. I have to admit I'm not sure

4:12:414:12:46

what the origins of that chaos are,

could it be the Government does not

4:12:464:12:49

know what it is doing, could it be

they are keeping their progress on

4:12:494:12:54

this and other issues from us, or is

it simply that they are crossing

4:12:544:12:57

their fingers and hoping for the

best? Someone described extracting

4:12:574:13:02

the UK from the European Union as

trying to remove eggs from a cake.

4:13:024:13:05

As my noble friend has said, open

skies is a generic term to cover the

4:13:054:13:10

agreements between the UK and US

that allows flights between any EU

4:13:104:13:16

and US airport by any EU or US

carrier, it is a term used to cover

4:13:164:13:21

a suite of agreements between EU and

third-party countries and between

4:13:214:13:25

member countries within the EU. Not

only do these agreements cover

4:13:254:13:30

authority to fly between airports

but other aspects such as

4:13:304:13:35

environmental and safety issues,

such as airport security, to ensure

4:13:354:13:38

that air travel is safe. I am only

just beginning to understand the

4:13:384:13:45

nature and complexity of open skies

and the complexity of negotiating

4:13:454:13:50

replacement agreements. No doubt the

Government will say it is in the

4:13:504:13:53

interest of all countries that the

freedom of airlines to fly into out

4:13:534:13:57

of the UK is maintained but legally

these cannot be done and indeed

4:13:574:14:01

passenger safety could be

jeopardised if such legally binding

4:14:014:14:04

agreements are not maintained or

replaced. As with other important

4:14:044:14:11

issues such as cooperation on

tackling serious and organised crime

4:14:114:14:15

and terrorism, there is no do

nothing alternative, as my noble

4:14:154:14:20

friend has said. Flights between the

UK and all those countries including

4:14:204:14:26

our two most important trading

partners, all EU countries and the

4:14:264:14:31

USA, as well as third-party

countries where the USA is dependent

4:14:314:14:35

on EU open skies agreements, will

have to be grounded if replacement

4:14:354:14:39

agreements are not in place if we

were unfortunate enough to leave the

4:14:394:14:44

EU. As my noble friend Lord McNally

has suggested, this is an important

4:14:444:14:49

bill in highlighting a general

problem with exiting the EU. The

4:14:494:14:53

Government appears to be taking a

complacent attitude based on the

4:14:534:14:56

premise that replacement agreement

-- replacements agreements for the

4:14:564:15:03

existing arrangements which resulted

from the EU membership can easily be

4:15:034:15:06

replicated. Well, they cannot. If

agreement between third parties and

4:15:064:15:12

the EU that we are relying on, new

agreements will have to be made with

4:15:124:15:17

each of those third-party countries.

Currently, airlines are forced

4:15:174:15:21

sometimes kicking and screaming to

compensate passengers whose flights

4:15:214:15:24

are delayed or cancelled because we

are a member of the EU. The noble --

4:15:244:15:30

can the noble Baroness say something

about what the the Government will

4:15:304:15:36

legislate to protect passengers once

we have left the EU? My noble friend

4:15:364:15:40

has also mentioned border issues

following Brexit. Noble Lords will

4:15:404:15:47

buy this time be bored with me

raising, as I have done on numerous

4:15:474:15:51

occasions in this chamber, the

issues at the UK border,

4:15:514:15:55

particularly at Heathrow airport.

With queues at terminal four for

4:15:554:16:00

non-EEA passengers peaking at 2.5

hours in January, when I ask what

4:16:004:16:06

contingency plans, not what the

answer is but what contingency

4:16:064:16:09

planning the Government have done

about EU nationals joining those

4:16:094:16:13

queues after Brexit, there is no

response. Perhaps the noble Baroness

4:16:134:16:18

the Minister can enlighten us today?

There could be legal issues as well.

4:16:184:16:24

I'm not an expert on this particular

issue, unlike my noble friend, but

4:16:244:16:28

in relation to the sharing of

information and intelligence, for

4:16:284:16:32

example, there are no examples of

sharing vital intelligence data with

4:16:324:16:36

non-EU countries who are not part of

the European Economic Area or part

4:16:364:16:41

of the Schengen agreement. So I

might argue that the issues around

4:16:414:16:47

tackling crime and terrorism also

face a cliff edge with no safety

4:16:474:16:51

net, albeit that I might be mixing

my metaphors! Can the noble Baroness

4:16:514:16:56

the Minister advise the house

whether the Government has

4:16:564:16:59

identified any such legal obstacles

to re-negotiate Open Skies

4:16:594:17:04

Agreements? Of course with airport

security, environmental conditions

4:17:044:17:08

being part of the current open skies

agreements, there is a need for

4:17:084:17:13

there to be an arbitration system in

case there is a dispute between

4:17:134:17:16

countries if they are believed to be

failing to be compliant with

4:17:164:17:19

conditions. One possible solution

would be to retain membership of the

4:17:194:17:25

European Common aviation area which

spans the EU as well as some non-EU

4:17:254:17:31

countries and provide unrestricted

access. However, this would be

4:17:314:17:34

subject to the European Court of

Justice, something Theresa May has

4:17:344:17:38

recklessly ruled out post Brexit.

Can the noble Baroness the Minister

4:17:384:17:44

tell the house whether the European

Court of Justice will play a role in

4:17:444:17:48

adjudicating in such cases of

dispute involving the replacement

4:17:484:17:52

for existing EU Open Skies

agreements, and, if not, what body

4:17:524:17:56

would need to be set up, and what

could be the additional costs to the

4:17:564:18:04

UK as a consequence? Of course, the

noble Baroness the Minister, like

4:18:044:18:08

many of her colleagues, may feel all

these issues are a matter for

4:18:084:18:14

negotiation and that the

negotiations are not at a stage

4:18:144:18:16

where these questions can be after,

yet Ryanair's chief Executive

4:18:164:18:21

Officer Michael O'Leary said this

summer that flights for 2019 would

4:18:214:18:26

be cancelled for months after the UK

leads the EU unless an agreement can

4:18:264:18:30

be reached within a year. And the

chair of the airport operators

4:18:304:18:36

Association recently told its annual

conference that the deadline for the

4:18:364:18:41

aviation industry is just four

months away. My Lords, that is why

4:18:414:18:48

this bill is necessary and that is

why I supported.

This has inevitably

4:18:484:18:56

been a short debate but as my noble

friend, who deserves commendation

4:18:564:18:59

for bringing this, for securing this

topic in the ballot and bringing

4:18:594:19:06

this to our attention, is a

massively important issue for the

4:19:064:19:11

future of our country. As with many

members of this House, I am a

4:19:114:19:17

regular flyer and to some extent

should declare an interest, I

4:19:174:19:21

benefit, as others do, from there

being a safe, secure and reliable

4:19:214:19:25

aviation sector in this country. But

as my noble friend indicated, this

4:19:254:19:29

is not happening by accident, and

therefore it is absolutely right

4:19:294:19:36

that we focus on this vital issue.

In fact, I will be leaving this

4:19:364:19:42

debate straight to Heathrow airport

to go home, and, as a regular flyer

4:19:424:19:48

from that airport, today I will be

on a plane which is one of 3000

4:19:484:19:54

departures from a UK airport, but I

will be in the minority because it

4:19:544:19:58

will be a domestic flight and, as my

noble friend indicated, 60% of those

4:19:584:20:04

flights will be taking off and

landing in Europe. So our

4:20:044:20:10

relationship with our nearest

neighbours within this, aviation

4:20:104:20:16

market and our industry is of vital

importance. And as my noble friend

4:20:164:20:21

Lord paddock indicated, our

relationships connected with

4:20:214:20:25

immigration, intelligence, data are

all interlinked. If I was travelling

4:20:254:20:34

40 years ago, before I was born, as

a member of this has come back home

4:20:344:20:38

to Edinburgh, the situation would be

radically different. You can visit

4:20:384:20:42

the Air Museum at East Fortune

outside Edinburgh, you can see the

4:20:424:20:46

British Airways stand-by plane that

was always marmite in case the

4:20:464:20:49

shuttle flight was full and a

traveller could have a rip-off

4:20:494:20:58

ticket for the Edinburgh London

shuttle flight, no ID needed, no

4:20:584:21:03

booking necessary, you show up with

good tear of slip and if the flight

4:21:034:21:06

was full they put on the next flight

for the shuttle route. It is

4:21:064:21:10

inconceivable that we would go back

to historical regulations are my

4:21:104:21:13

noble friend is right, we need to be

part of the future and that is why

4:21:134:21:18

enhanced clarity is necessary. I

have lived all of my life as a

4:21:184:21:25

British subject and now as the

European Union citizen, and the

4:21:254:21:29

growth of air travel is part of a

generational trend. When I was born

4:21:294:21:34

in 1974 there were 4 million air

passengers that year in the world.

4:21:344:21:38

In 2016 there were 3.7 billion. That

is why a complex lattice of

4:21:384:21:45

international commitments and

regulations is in place, and it is

4:21:454:21:48

necessary that the United Kingdom is

not only part of those going forward

4:21:484:21:54

after Brexit but continues to play a

role in shaping them, because far

4:21:544:21:58

from Britain having been held back

from our membership of the EU, and

4:21:584:22:04

organisations such as the European

aviation standards agency, the

4:22:044:22:11

United Kingdom has benefited from it

and in many aspects has shaped these

4:22:114:22:20

regulations. For example, in the

debate so far, we have heard about

4:22:204:22:25

European safety agency and in this

-- this in many respects sums up the

4:22:254:22:33

dilemma the Government has placed

itself in and is impacting on the

4:22:334:22:35

country because this is a community

agency with its own legal

4:22:354:22:39

personality and governed by European

public law. Membership of the

4:22:394:22:45

European aviation safety agency is

not consistent with Government

4:22:454:22:49

policy, it is against the red line

that the Prime Minister has set, but

4:22:494:22:54

we hear repeatedly that the

transport Secretary says to our

4:22:544:22:57

aviation industry that the UK will

continue to be under the aegis of

4:22:574:23:06

the European aviation safety

authority. If not, we have heard

4:23:064:23:11

from the aviation safety agency

chief executive about the

4:23:114:23:14

consequences. He said it was his

intention or hope that we remain an

4:23:144:23:17

active member of the EASA because it

would be a massive regulatory burden

4:23:174:23:23

if we were separate from it. He

highlighted the fact that the UK and

4:23:234:23:28

France already comprise two thirds

of all aviation regulations, it is

4:23:284:23:32

how such a leadership role we

currently have, 90% of outsourced

4:23:324:23:36

activity of the agency is from

France and the UK, and that

4:23:364:23:41

relationship is fundamental to our

ongoing negotiations on trade. It is

4:23:414:23:46

inconceivable that any modern trade

agreement will not have a key

4:23:464:23:49

component about aviation regulation,

safety and environmental, and

4:23:494:23:55

therefore if the Government has set

this red line of which, when I asked

4:23:554:24:00

a question to the noble lady the

minister's colleague Baroness

4:24:004:24:04

Fairhead last week, she said it

would be consistent with the red

4:24:044:24:09

line that the Prime Minister has

said, we are putting ourselves in

4:24:094:24:12

the position where we are setting

back the United Kingdom. If we take

4:24:124:24:16

an alternative route, such as

Switzerland's relationship with the

4:24:164:24:20

single European skies, they have

accepted EU aviation law and

4:24:204:24:27

jurisdiction but Swiss airlines are

granted only seven of the nine

4:24:274:24:30

possible freedoms of the air. Are we

seeking all of the nine freedoms and

4:24:304:24:36

being separate completely from the

ECJ jurisdiction? I would like to

4:24:364:24:41

hear from the Minister how that is

possible. My noble friend is

4:24:414:24:45

absolutely correct, to conclude on

the point, in seeking clarification.

4:24:454:24:48

We are not seeking to have the book

that our negotiation team are having

4:24:484:24:55

but we are hoping to have the same

respect in this parliament that the

4:24:554:24:59

European Parliament has when it

comes to ongoing negotiations. When

4:24:594:25:03

the commission has said its mandate

by the Council of ministers that

4:25:034:25:06

will be public, we seek the same, we

want clarity on the single European

4:25:064:25:10

skies, clarity on the single

European, on the market for

4:25:104:25:15

aviation, clarity on the EASA, and

we need it now, and I think that

4:25:154:25:19

would be the respectable position of

our Parliament and would mean that

4:25:194:25:23

our industry and passengers have the

confidence that they need in this

4:25:234:25:29

crucial industry for British

economy.

May I also thank the noble

4:25:294:25:36

lady Baroness Granderson for this

imaginative way of focusing the

4:25:364:25:40

Government's attention on this vital

and urgent issue. Quite simply, if

4:25:404:25:45

we don't get this right, British

carriers may not be able to fly

4:25:454:25:50

domestically within the EU. As the

EU's ad hoc working party on Article

4:25:504:25:57

50's internal discussion paper of

the 16th of January said, as a third

4:25:574:26:01

country the UK ceases to be part of

fully liberalised EU aviation

4:26:014:26:07

market. It is clear that in

Brussels, work is well apace on

4:26:074:26:11

this. An area of great urgency,

since there is no fallback WTO

4:26:114:26:20

position, as we heard from the

honourable lady, so a decision is

4:26:204:26:24

critical. The airlines need to know

within weeks whether they can

4:26:244:26:31

continue current routes in 15

months' time. Schedules and slots

4:26:314:26:35

are decided early, with ticket

prices, ticket sales and therefore

4:26:354:26:39

the prices are packaged tours

following soon after. I am aware

4:26:394:26:45

that talks are ongoing and will

resume on Tuesday between the UK and

4:26:454:26:50

US new bilateral service

arrangements for after our exit or

4:26:504:26:56

following a transition. Whilst we

know both sides want to protect

4:26:564:27:00

current market access between these

two countries, we do need

4:27:004:27:03

reassurance from the Government that

this will not come at the expense of

4:27:034:27:08

our continued close relationship or

membership of the EU's single

4:27:084:27:12

aviation market from which UK

airlines and passengers have

4:27:124:27:17

benefited in the way that we have

heard today, along with the related

4:27:174:27:21

agreements between the EU and third

countries beyond the US which again

4:27:214:27:26

have benefited our travellers. Our

participation in the single aviation

4:27:264:27:32

market allowed the UK to develop the

largest aviation network in Europe

4:27:324:27:37

and the third largest in the world,

providing significant economic

4:27:374:27:42

benefits through inbound and

outbound tourism, our trading links,

4:27:424:27:47

investment in the infrastructure of

airports and access to them, whilst

4:27:474:27:52

providing British citizens with a

wide variety of destinations.

4:27:524:27:58

My Lords, having mentioned the

advantages to British citizens, may

4:27:584:28:01

I raise an issue of the importance

of consumer rights if we fall out of

4:28:014:28:08

the single aviation market. It's

about whether the EU's 206 one 2004

4:28:084:28:16

flight delay legislation will

continue to apply once we leave the

4:28:164:28:19

EU. For example, with an EU airline

flight from a third country into the

4:28:194:28:24

UK or a UK airline from a third

country to an EU 27 member state,

4:28:244:28:31

what protection will there be for

consumers in any delay? As this

4:28:314:28:39

issue obviously cannot be covered by

the EU Withdrawal Bill as it depends

4:28:394:28:44

on reciprocity and as we no longer

be a member state for the purpose of

4:28:444:28:50

the current regulation, will be

highly dependent on the government

4:28:504:28:55

negotiating this compensation

package, presumably in the

4:28:554:28:59

withdrawal deal or more likely in a

subsequent agreement. Alternatively,

4:28:594:29:04

and perhaps preferably, our

association or membership of the

4:29:044:29:11

single aviation market could perhaps

include retention of EU 261 flight

4:29:114:29:17

delay regulation. So perhaps the

noble lady the Minister could

4:29:174:29:21

respond either in writing or today

if she is able to as to whether the

4:29:214:29:30

government is already pursuing such

a possibility. My Lords, looking

4:29:304:29:34

more broadly at the value of this

industry to our economy, according

4:29:344:29:37

to travel trade association Abta

outbound tourism directly sustains

4:29:374:29:45

more than 200,000 UK jobs and

supports another 170,000 indirectly.

4:29:454:29:52

While outbound tourism brings

significant financial benefit to the

4:29:524:29:55

destination countries in Europe, it

also benefits the Exchequer, with UK

4:29:554:30:01

travellers spending about £300 on

goods and services in preparation

4:30:014:30:06

for those foreign holidays before

they've even taken off. Such

4:30:064:30:11

outbound tourism is worth about £12

billion a year. Meanwhile, the

4:30:114:30:18

aviation industry is worth £52

billion to our national income and

4:30:184:30:24

it contributes £8 billion in tax

year. It supports about 960,000

4:30:244:30:31

jobs, a third of a million in the

sector is self and perhaps another

4:30:314:30:34

third of a million indirectly.

Furthermore, the UK cargo airlines

4:30:344:30:41

handle millions of shipments every

month, predominantly high-value and

4:30:414:30:47

time sensitive parcels across the

globe. These services play a crucial

4:30:474:30:52

role in maintaining UK businesses'

global competitiveness and

4:30:524:30:57

connectivity with the EU and other

international partners. Any

4:30:574:31:01

disruption to the UK's connectivity

would harm the growth of UK

4:31:014:31:05

businesses globally. My Lords, given

that UK tourism is worth about 37

4:31:054:31:13

billion euros a year to the EU 27,

and that the aviation transport

4:31:134:31:20

links are vital to the continued

success and growth of the UK economy

4:31:204:31:23

but also that of our UK

counterparts, we hope the government

4:31:234:31:29

will be able to negotiate our

continued participation in the

4:31:294:31:33

single aviation market. Indeed,

what's needed is us being very

4:31:334:31:41

modestly a part, although the

overnight squabbles between the

4:31:414:31:47

Chancellor and Number 10 at the

behest of Jacob Rees-Mogg gives

4:31:474:31:53

little confidence that this

government is up to the task of

4:31:534:31:56

negotiating the price of a

second-hand car let alone the future

4:31:564:31:59

of our economy. Today's papers are

full of the row, Iain Duncan Smith

4:31:594:32:07

saying he's pleased the Chancellor

is being contradicted by number ten.

4:32:074:32:12

Pleased that our Chancellor has been

contradicted by the Prime Minister.

4:32:124:32:19

Another Conservative MP said the

Chancellor was spot on and the Prime

4:32:194:32:23

Minister should be supporting him,

not giving in an umbra presents to

4:32:234:32:28

ideological driven minority. That

from a Conservative, not even from

4:32:284:32:34

this side. Seriously, the coverage,

attention and energy that goes into

4:32:344:32:42

this waste the chance to make a

clear statement to the EU and more

4:32:424:32:46

widely as to how Britain sees its

teacher after Brexit and what sort

4:32:464:32:50

of deal it once with the EU 27. The

noble lady the Minister will be well

4:32:504:32:56

aware of what the airlines UK need

after Brexit. Most urgently, a

4:32:564:33:03

transition phase based on current

rules and regulation, open access

4:33:034:33:07

and full participation of the

European aviation safety agency. The

4:33:074:33:15

EU 27 could exclude us from the

agency because that membership is

4:33:154:33:20

contingent upon accepting

jurisdiction of the ECJ. Without it,

4:33:204:33:26

there would be increased

certification costs for airlines,

4:33:264:33:30

manufacturers and maintenance

companies, while the CAA could have

4:33:304:33:33

to take responsibility for ensuring

all these adhered to safety rules,

4:33:334:33:41

raising questions about its capacity

as we've just heard. Given this

4:33:414:33:47

urgency, it's vital that aviation is

dealt with separately and in advance

4:33:474:33:52

of the main negotiations with the

EU, and priority is to safeguarding

4:33:524:34:00

bit EU, US and international market

access for our aviation industry. If

4:34:004:34:05

it means the government quietly

rubbing out a red line and accepting

4:34:054:34:12

some ECJ role in aviation, then so

be it. Isn't the economy rather more

4:34:124:34:17

important than red meat demanded of

the Conservative hard Eurosceptics?

4:34:174:34:24

My Lords, the aviation industry will

need many things that go well beyond

4:34:244:34:28

this Bill. Particularly being able

to employ staff from across Europe,

4:34:284:34:33

having no further restrictions on

borders as we've heard. We will

4:34:334:34:36

press these issues and on other

occasions and in other bills, but

4:34:364:34:42

there are important to the ministers

transport portfolio means I would

4:34:424:34:47

welcome some reassurance from her

that her department 's

4:34:474:34:52

representations to the Home Office

and other departments are making

4:34:524:34:55

clear the importance of such issues.

Aviation is unique within Brexit

4:34:554:35:03

negotiations. There's no WTO

fallback. There is an urgency

4:35:034:35:08

replicated in few other sectors.

It's an industry on which almost

4:35:084:35:12

every other sector depends. It is of

importance to tourism and it is of

4:35:124:35:16

mutual benefit to the UK and to the

EU 27. It's vital we reach a

4:35:164:35:23

comprehensive air transport

agreement with the EU which

4:35:234:35:26

maintains the current level of

market access and traffic rights. I

4:35:264:35:30

look forward to hearing the

Minister's reassurance on all these

4:35:304:35:35

points raised today. My Lords, I add

my thanks to the noble lady on

4:35:354:35:45

raising the important issue of our

future as services relationship with

4:35:454:35:49

the USA and I am most grateful to

all noble Lords who have

4:35:494:35:52

participated in this debate. I agree

that it's a pleasure to discuss

4:35:524:35:58

aviation, a sector that is a great

UK success story. We have a lot just

4:35:584:36:03

aviation network in Europe and the

third-largest globally. Our airlines

4:36:034:36:06

carry 144 million passengers and

over 1 million tonnes of cargo

4:36:064:36:12

annually and as the label lady says

contributes some £52 billion

4:36:124:36:16

annually to GDP. It supports almost

1 million jobs in our country, and

4:36:164:36:24

is a key facilitators for exports.

It's a reflection of our great

4:36:244:36:32

economy that we have such an

extensive global network of their

4:36:324:36:36

services and will determined these

will continue after Brexit. This

4:36:364:36:39

Bill highlights the desirability of

our continued relationship with the

4:36:394:36:45

US and yes, as services between the

UK and the US are of great

4:36:454:36:49

importance to our economy. Some 20

million passengers a year fly

4:36:494:36:52

between the two countries and that

is second only in the number of

4:36:524:36:59

passengers to Spain which is our

most popular overseas destination.

4:36:594:37:03

Regular services to and from the US

are available and more than 60

4:37:034:37:08

different airport pairings and needs

schedules start on a regular basis.

4:37:084:37:14

The air services between the US and

UK support trade between the two

4:37:144:37:19

countries. This dynamic market is a

global example of benefits of

4:37:194:37:26

choice. We do want this to continue

after we left the EU. As the noble

4:37:264:37:34

lady has pointed out, the current

governing arrangements is the EU US

4:37:344:37:40

transport agreement often referred

to as the Open Skies Agreement. This

4:37:404:37:47

agreement lifted many restrictions

that featured in earlier bilateral

4:37:474:37:50

agreements and has removed all

restrictions on direct flights. It

4:37:504:37:57

allows for UK airlines to market

services on US partner airline

4:37:574:38:00

networks using their own flight

codes and it's a multilateral

4:38:004:38:04

agreement between the EU and its

member states on the one hand and

4:38:044:38:07

the United States on the other, with

Iceland and Norway having joined the

4:38:074:38:13

agreement in 2010. This liberal

market access and the competitive

4:38:134:38:17

environment benefit passengers in

terms of choice, connectivity and

4:38:174:38:20

value for money. Passengers can fly

directly to over 20 US airports from

4:38:204:38:26

a variety of points and can convert

two connector virtually any place in

4:38:264:38:30

the US. A study last year reported

savings of £200 per passenger

4:38:304:38:36

compared to get prices before the

agreement. Our aim is to preserve

4:38:364:38:41

this after we leave the EU, ensuring

the aviation industry and passengers

4:38:414:38:45

continue to benefit. My Lords, in

preparation to exit the EU we have

4:38:454:38:50

listened closely to the aviation

industry on both sides of the

4:38:504:38:53

Atlantic and they have been clear in

explaining the need for early

4:38:534:38:59

certainty. As has been pointed out,

airlines sell tickets up to one year

4:38:594:39:03

in advance and decisions on the

deployment of capital and other

4:39:034:39:08

decisions need to be taken well in

advance. We have two overarching

4:39:084:39:13

aims for the future are agreements.

The first is to transition the

4:39:134:39:17

liberal market access arrangements

currently available under the EU US

4:39:174:39:21

agreement. The second is to provide

the industry with the certainty

4:39:214:39:26

about this as soon as we possibly

can. Having set up the position I'll

4:39:264:39:30

turn to the terms of the noble

lady's Bill. The Bill requires

4:39:304:39:35

ministers to have regard to the

desirability of continuing to

4:39:354:39:39

participate in the air transport

agreement. As I have mentioned,

4:39:394:39:44

Iceland and Norway have both joined

Estates in their own right and I

4:39:444:39:51

believe that the aim is for the UK

to do this in the same way. We do

4:39:514:39:59

recognise the aviation industry

needs early reassurance about the

4:39:594:40:02

terms under which the UK and US air

services will operate. Do nothing is

4:40:024:40:10

not an option. When we leave the EU,

the EU US agreement will no longer

4:40:104:40:14

be operable for us and will need to

be amended to enable our continuing

4:40:144:40:19

participation. This would require

the unanimous agreement of all

4:40:194:40:22

parties to it, that is the European

Union, each of the 27 member states,

4:40:224:40:27

Iceland, Norway and the US. Such

unanimous agreement would of course

4:40:274:40:32

take time. The government believes

the quickest, simplest and clearest

4:40:324:40:36

way to provide the early certainty

needed by the aviation sector is by

4:40:364:40:42

concluding a new bilateral

arrangement with the US that will

4:40:424:40:44

apply as soon as the Open Skies

Agreement ceases to apply to the UK.

4:40:444:40:52

The Department for Transport

officials have already undertaken

4:40:524:40:56

three rounds of informal discussions

with their US counterparts on future

4:40:564:41:00

arrangements and a further round

will take place with the US in the

4:41:004:41:03

coming weeks. There is broad

consensus on the outcomes. Both

4:41:034:41:09

sides understand preservation of

current liberal market access

4:41:094:41:12

arrangement should be the starting

point and the industry needs to be

4:41:124:41:16

confident about what it can cannot

do in good time. These discussions

4:41:164:41:19

are going well and I hope this goes

some way to ensuring those concerned

4:41:194:41:27

about the relationship. I'd like to

highlight the government doesn't

4:41:274:41:30

rule out participating in the Air

Transport Agreement at some part in

4:41:304:41:33

the future. The UK could apply to

become a party to the agreement if

4:41:334:41:37

it offered the optimum solution for

the circumstances of the time.

4:41:374:41:43

However, the consent of all other

parties would be required and that

4:41:434:41:46

would take time. The government

believes the best option to provide

4:41:464:41:49

early certainty is for a new

bilateral agreement with the United

4:41:494:41:54

States. Turning to some questions

raised, the noble lady raised the

4:41:544:42:00

issue of third countries and where

market access is currently

4:42:004:42:05

determined by EU negotiated

arrangements we are working with

4:42:054:42:08

those countries, including Canada,

to ensure the new arrangements will

4:42:084:42:12

be in place well before we leave the

EU. I hope to provide further

4:42:124:42:15

updates on these soon. We already

have bilateral air services

4:42:154:42:20

agreements with 111 countries and

these will continue.

4:42:204:42:27

Lord state highlighted details of

the EU US deal. We don't propose to

4:42:274:42:32

open these in discussions with the

rest of the moment, for example

4:42:324:42:36

cabotage within the US will not be

up for discussion, our aim is to

4:42:364:42:41

replicate the arrangements as they

stand as soon as possible to provide

4:42:414:42:44

certainty to industry and I quite

agree with the noble Lord that we

4:42:444:42:47

cannot simply say it will be all

right on the night.

I am thankful

4:42:474:42:57

for the partial clarity that the UK

will seek a bilateral relationship

4:42:574:43:01

with the United States and later the

European Union. May I ask the

4:43:014:43:04

Minister when she thinks that is

required to be ratified by the

4:43:044:43:10

parliament in order to offer

security for the industry that she

4:43:104:43:13

says is desperately needed? Can she

offer clarity with the United States

4:43:134:43:17

on the bilateral agreement the

Government now seeks to intend

4:43:174:43:20

whether part of that agreement will

be safety regulated by the European

4:43:204:43:25

Aviation Safety Agency?

On EASA, I

will come to it but it will not be

4:43:254:43:32

included in the bilateral agreement

discussed with the US, that'll be a

4:43:324:43:38

separate conversation with the

European Union. On the timing for

4:43:384:43:41

ratification of that, I'm afraid I

will have to get back to the noble

4:43:414:43:45

board on that but the aim is this

will be in place well before we

4:43:454:43:47

leave the European Union to provide

certainty. The noble Lord Lord

4:43:474:43:53

paddock and the noble lady asked

about customer protection and the UK

4:43:534:43:58

has always been a leader when it

comes to providing protection for

4:43:584:44:01

holiday-makers and we want that to

continue to be the case whether

4:44:014:44:04

inside or outside of the European

Union. The consumer protections

4:44:044:44:07

based in the EU will be retained

through the European Union

4:44:074:44:11

withdrawal bill so that British

consumers can rely on the same

4:44:114:44:14

rights they have now after leaving

the EU so the absolute aim is to

4:44:144:44:17

provide consistency with what they

currently have. On EASA, which the

4:44:174:44:27

noble Lord raised, we are working

closely with industry on this and we

4:44:274:44:30

are aware of their views and what is

needed for the sector and again we

4:44:304:44:35

want a speedy agreement on this. We

represented those views clearly in

4:44:354:44:40

our conversation with the EU and

will keep the sector updated as

4:44:404:44:44

negotiations progress, and there is

precedent for non-EU states to be

4:44:444:44:47

part of EASA, Switzerland and Norway

for example, and we continue to

4:44:474:44:51

examine the possibility and

suitability of such an arrangement.

4:44:514:44:59

The Government has been clear the UK

will no longer be subject to CJ U

4:44:594:45:09

after it leaves... That is not quite

the case, EU citizens will have some

4:45:094:45:14

access to the ECJ for eight years.

Perhaps she could accept that it has

4:45:144:45:23

not been completely ruled out as

much as it had before?

In the case

4:45:234:45:29

of EASA and the CJ U there is an

example when non-EU countries are

4:45:294:45:36

able to participate in EASA without

the direct jurisdiction of the ECG

4:45:364:45:41

and it is a cooperative arrangement

and that is what we are looking to

4:45:414:45:46

replicate -- of the ECJ. On the

paper mentioned by the noble lady

4:45:464:45:50

and others, I have seen the

presentation and it looks like an

4:45:504:45:56

opening position drafted with their

own interpretation of the UK

4:45:564:45:59

position and it is clearly designed

to be thought-provoking and ensure

4:45:594:46:03

member states focus on aviation

issues. The paper sets out a number

4:46:034:46:07

of options but also makes clear that

in the unlikely event of a new deal

4:46:074:46:12

there will be contingency measures

to ensure traffic rights and safety.

4:46:124:46:15

As many noble Lords have

acknowledged, we have no WTO

4:46:154:46:21

fallback in aviation so it is

encouraging aviation is one of only

4:46:214:46:24

two sector is being considered by

the commission in such close detail

4:46:244:46:28

and we are pleased aviation is

considered by the EU to be such a

4:46:284:46:32

priority as we feel it is and we

look forward to conversation is

4:46:324:46:34

progressing. I agree with many

points raised by noble Lords this

4:46:344:46:40

afternoon we all want to continue

with open access to our skies after

4:46:404:46:47

we leave the European Union and we

all agree why this is important. I

4:46:474:46:52

hope I have provided assurance, that

is what we are working towards,

4:46:524:46:55

though I would think that Lord

McNally would categorise it as

4:46:554:47:00

promises of things to come, and I

promise I will keep things updated

4:47:004:47:07

as negotiations progress and I am in

no way offended at the noble Lord

4:47:074:47:11

reading back my own words to me but

I am very interested to know what

4:47:114:47:15

his job was in my circuit! The noble

lady has helped highlight the

4:47:154:47:19

importance of the UK US air services

relationship and the vitality of the

4:47:194:47:23

current market. This relationship

and vitality is something we intend

4:47:234:47:26

to preserve and build on. However

the Government believes the bill is

4:47:264:47:30

not necessary. It requires us to do

something we are already doing, to

4:47:304:47:35

have regard to the desirability of

continuing to participate in the EU

4:47:354:47:39

US air transport agreement. We do

not believe we need another law on

4:47:394:47:46

the statute book in this respect.

I

thank all noble thought to have

4:47:464:47:51

spoken in this debate. Lord McNally

evoked Peter Sellers. I certainly

4:47:514:47:59

cannot apply what I am about to say

to everyone who has spoken here

4:47:594:48:03

today but I remember Peter Sellers

and I remember that, along with

4:48:034:48:08

those days prior to the open skies

agreement, we had restricted

4:48:084:48:21

ownership and a very limited concept

of international travel. Difficult

4:48:214:48:25

to imagine nowadays if you didn't

live through them, and the noble

4:48:254:48:29

Lord Snape emphasised with his

quotation on the price of travel to

4:48:294:48:37

Tenerife exactly how prices have

benefited consumers in between. We

4:48:374:48:43

now take a simple cheap

straightforward system of

4:48:434:48:48

international flights for granted,

and it has transformed not just our

4:48:484:48:53

holidays but the way in which we

live. The noble Lord Paddock talked

4:48:534:48:59

about the Government's chaotic

approach, and I have to say every

4:48:594:49:04

time I feel myself being reassured

by soothing words from the

4:49:044:49:09

Government, up pops the Foreign

Secretary all one of his allies, one

4:49:094:49:15

of his friends, close acquaintances

of the Foreign Secretary, to remind

4:49:154:49:21

us that the Government does not

agree with itself where we are going

4:49:214:49:26

on this issue, let alone agree with

the EU or those of us in opposition

4:49:264:49:32

parties. So, despite good

intentions, aviation could easily be

4:49:324:49:41

the victim of a problem at the last

minute. My noble friend charted the

4:49:414:49:47

phenomenal growth of the aviation

market and pointed out that

4:49:474:49:56

membership is against the

Government's own red line, and I

4:49:564:50:03

would say that, with the outline

that the Minister has given us of

4:50:034:50:07

the Government's intentions on EASA,

we will go from, at the very best, a

4:50:074:50:16

leading role to a walk on part, and

that is regrettable. . The noble

4:50:164:50:27

Baroness emphasised the urgency of

the problem very effectively, and

4:50:274:50:33

there is of course a huge issue of

consumer rights and the issue of the

4:50:334:50:41

legislation from the EU on delays

which gives consumers right that

4:50:414:50:45

people take for granted now. The

noble lady the Minister answered

4:50:454:50:53

with some detail, which I will read

with great care, and she is always

4:50:534:50:59

very helpful within the scope of

what she is allowed to say in terms

4:50:594:51:05

of the Government's position on

these negotiations. But I would say

4:51:054:51:10

to the noble lady the Minister,

representatives of the industry

4:51:104:51:15

first talks to me about the issue of

urgency in late 2016. I raised it

4:51:154:51:23

first here at that time, and the

urgency has become very urgent,

4:51:234:51:27

Minister. And we do appreciate the

importance of continued agreements

4:51:274:51:37

and the Government's efforts to

devise ways around this, but the

4:51:374:51:46

Minister herself has emphasised how

long it would take all how difficult

4:51:464:51:48

it would be to get agreement across

27 countries and other partners, and

4:51:484:51:56

I would say that that says a lot

about the complexity of the

4:51:564:52:03

Government's situation and how

easily things could fall apart. And

4:52:034:52:08

I would just simply, very briefly,

commented that the commission's

4:52:084:52:14

paper is actually very technical, it

is not a rhetorical paper, it is a

4:52:144:52:18

technical paper. So these deals that

I have referred to in this piece of

4:52:184:52:26

legislation are particularly

beneficial, by the way, to areas

4:52:264:52:30

outside London. If we were forced to

fall back on the Bermuda agreements

4:52:304:52:37

1946 and 1977, which is another

world in aviation terms, we would

4:52:374:52:43

have two Acts set a restricted

number of airlines and flights into

4:52:434:52:47

London only. There are probably ways

around this issue but I still am not

4:52:474:52:54

convinced that the Government has

the key to finding the ways around

4:52:544:53:00

this issue, and the Government faces

so many pressing issues on this

4:53:004:53:08

whole Brexit process that there is a

real danger that one of the eggs

4:53:084:53:13

will be dropped, and I don't want it

to be aviation. It is a hugely

4:53:134:53:20

important industry for us, it is a

hugely important industry across

4:53:204:53:28

Britain, and we should aim to be

part of the European Common aviation

4:53:284:53:35

area, whatever happens, we need to

remain as close as possible to the

4:53:354:53:42

situation we are currently in. I

would say to noble Lords, whatever

4:53:424:53:47

caused people to vote for Brexit,

they certainly didn't vote for more

4:53:474:53:50

expensive flights or more

restrictive rules on travel, so it

4:53:504:53:56

is essential the Government takes

the lead and develops a sense of

4:53:564:54:01

true urgency. I ask the house to

give this bill a second reading.

The

4:54:014:54:07

question is the bill be read a

second time. As many of that opinion

4:54:074:54:11

say content. Contrary not content.

The contents have it.

I beg to move

4:54:114:54:17

that this bill be committed to a

committee of the whole house.

The

4:54:174:54:21

question is that this bill be

committed to a committee of the

4:54:214:54:24

whole house. As many of that opinion

say content. The contrary not

4:54:244:54:30

content. The contents have it.

My Lords, I beg to move the house do

4:54:304:54:37

now adjourned.

That's the house do

now adjourned.

4:54:374:54:49

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS