16/01/2017 Lords Questions

Baroness Meacher. I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on

the order paper. My Lords, the short answer to the question is no. Like

previous governments we have always made clear that such legislation is

a matter for Parliament, not government. If the other House

considered a bill to legalise assisted dying, they rejected it by

330 votes to 118. My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. As he

has indicated, there has never been a government supported bill on this

issue. The Minister will be aware of Noel Conway, a terminally ill,

mentally incapacitated person who is taking his case to the High Court

and the Supreme Court. The current law denies him his fundamental human

right when his suffering becomes unbearable. Does the Minister agree

that the 82% of the population, and it is 6% of disabled people who

support Mr Conway and want a change in the law, so that when their turn

comes to face their own death, they can live the last months in peace,

safe in the knowledge that if they're suffering does become

unbearable, they can have professional help to end it? Will

the Minister seek the of his colleagues for an ethical bill along

these lines in future? My Lords, it remains the Government's view that

any change to the law in this area is an issue of individual conscience

and a matter for Parliament to decide, rather than one for

government policy. I am aware of the gaze of Noel Conway, as it is now in

court, it would not be appropriate from me to comment on the

circumstances of that case. -- the case. As my noble friend has said,

it has been rejected. Should it ever be considered again, I think it is

important that the medical profession be excluded from this.

The majority of doctors do not wish to be associated with taking life.

Their responsibility is to save life. While it is possible that

there are those who might volunteer to undertake such a task, it is

important that they should not be legislated for the majority of

doctors are then required to undertake this, should that be the

case. I note what the noble Lord has said, and of course I understand the

reasoning behind his observations. I can only reiterate that this

Government does not intend at this time to legislate in respect of this

matter. The Government may be aware that I had to watch both my wife, my

late wife and my father had died a lingering death, and can I suggest

that the Government need to accept responsibility for that matter, do

not doubt it and make a decision to give people the opportunity to make

this important decision about how they die? Again, I can understand

the noble Lord's interest and concern in respect of this matter,

but I would observe that Parliament has twice addressed this issue in

the recent past and has determined not to relax the provisions of

section two of the suicide act. My Lords... Is the Minister aware that

the campaign to legalise Assisted Suicide Bill assisted dying is not

supported by one single organisation for people with progressive

conditions, including motor neurone disease and the MS trust? The very

people who would be the main beneficiaries of assisted dying. And

the growing numbers of disabled people and their organisations are

campaigning against such a bill because they feel it is desperately

unsafe. I entirely understand the observations of the noble lady in

this context and indeed, the whole question of risk associated with

such legislation was a point addressed by the Supreme Court when

they appoint in 2014 in the cases of Nicholson and land when both the

President of the Supreme Court and also the noble Lord observed that

the data on risk was plainly short of establishing that there was no

risk as such -- of such legislation. It was observed that there were

further societies engaged in this area who clearly had reservations

about the development of any legislation on this matter.

The Minister will be aware that the CPS has looked at this policy in the

cases of assisted suicide in very 2010 and October 20 13. It is well

understood the reluctance to take this critical legislation. May I ask

the Minister in consultation with his colleagues and the CPS, would

they consider what requirements are necessary in relation to the CPS

policy on assisted dying? My Lords, the matter of CPS policy must be

left to the CPS to determine independently on Parliament, it is

not for the government to dictate what that policy should be. It is

regularly reviewed and I can say that, for example, in the period

from 2009 to 2016, the very large majority of cases referred to the

CPS were not proceeded with any context of prosecution. My Lords,

with the Minister agree that we have to be very wary of these surveys

that support the subject in hand? For instance, there was one survey

which stated that 96% of the British people wished a pain free death?

Does that leave us wondering what the 4% wanted?

LAUGHTER .

Well, it may be, my Lords, that the other 4% were not referring to

themselves. LAUGHTER

. But nevertheless, it is, of course,

important... It is of course important that any such service

should be carried out rigorously and by reference to did find terms

otherwise the results can be misleading. -- to be find terms. If

the government concerns that an overboard health service with a

large number of old people, there is considerable risk about the

attitudes of health giving staff within the NHS? I do not believe, my

Lords, that any challenges faced by our health staff in hospitals well

alter their view as to the issues of life and death, I do not believe

that for one moment. My Lords, the supreme court case that the noble

minister quoted a moment ago, 2014, amongst other things said that it

was strongly implied that the current law is incompatible with

human rights legislation and hinted very strongly that Parliament should

resolve this issue, otherwise the courts themselves will do so. If

there is an incompatibility between a blanket ban on assisted dying and

human rights legislation, should it not be resolved in Parliament,

rather than by judges? My Lords, in the case of Nicholson, the Supreme

Court determined by majority of 72 that there should be no of

incompatibility with the Convention on human rights. It did, of course,

observe that it should be a matter looked at by Parliament and sends

that judgment it has been looked at by Parliament on two distinct and

separate locations, Parliament has expressed its views on this matter.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the

order paper. My Lords, the government supports art and culture

for Arts Council England who are currently working with Walsall

Council and local cultural organisations on the new Art

gallery's future, helping culture to continue to flourish in Walsall. The

Arts Council met the local council in December and await the Gallery's

application to the national portfolio. The Arts Council has an

principle agreed up to ?12,000 match funding to explore potential new

fundraising and philanthropy opportunities in governance and

management models. My Lords, when is the government going to allow

councils enough money to do their job properly? Since the threat of

closure of our regional museums, it is the direct result of continued

cuts to government funding. With the Minister agree that if the new Art

Gallery in Walsall, a museum of international stature, was the

cause, it would be a terrible waste of a significant public investment,

not the story begins which in these times needs as much support as

possible? Well, of course, I agree it would be a terrible waste of the

considerable amount of public money that Arts Council England have put

into the new Art Gallery. As far as the... And that is why they are

working very hard to prevent exactly that to occur. What we would like to

do is to find new methods of joint partnership arrangements, not only

by the Arts Council, but that other local organisations to enable Art

galleries like the new Art Gallery to continue. Lords, given that the

new Art Gallery in Walsall was absolutely fundamental to the

regeneration of Walsall town centre, that it houses world-renowned

collections, that it was a good example of collaboration between the

local authority, the Art Gallery, the government and not forgetting

the European Union who put substantial money into it, and that

that collection there in that new Art Gallery, it would be an act of

cultural vandalism if it were not allowed to be encouraged and

survived? I completely agree that it is a very good thing that local art

organisations are absolutely key to the regeneration and ongoing

prosperity of the local organisation and just to put it into perspective,

the amount of money we are talking about in Walsall is a reduction in

funding, this is the proposal of ?163,000 a year in the next year,

Arts Council England are contributing five times as much as

that, over ?800,000. My Lords, can I add my plea to the other speaker,

and the thousands of people in the Walsall area in the West Midlands,

who, like me, have been inspired and delighted by this literally

state-of-the-art new Art Gallery, which is only 15 years old? I would

suggest this is not necessarily the moment to cast blame upon the local

council, who, in turn, are blaming the government cuts or central

government who are squeezing council budgets. But the people of Walsall

have so very little in the way of cultural facilities to inspire them.

So, could I ask the noble Lord, the minister, to please use his

creativity to help us to find a solution? They are working with the

Arts Council England to address these problems and get some kind of

partnership with other organisations but there are other examples of

local councils that are suffering cuts, as all local councils have

done. For example, Stoke on Trent, a place where several noble lords may

soon be visiting, the potteries Museum and Art Gallery was awarded

?300,000 to support local arts and cultural organisations led by Stoke

on Trent City Council to team up with councils, including cat

gathered at Stoke and the potteries' Art Gallery, that is an example of

where joint working together can make a difference. The birthplace of

Jerome Valcke, a very special man, was Walsall. Perhaps the government

can do better than the men in a boat than just looking at limited

paintings and collections. I have already said that the government is

putting in a considerable amount of money, and the last five years it

has spelt -- spent ?12 million in the area of Walsall. Could I ask my

noble friend to reflect that all over the country local authorities

are under great pressure and can something be done fairly

expeditiously to try and ensure that other galleries that are currently

under threat do not go under? Because if we deprive people of the

spiritual sustenance that galleries and museums bring, we are

impoverishing them. Well, I completely agree with my noble

friend and that is why this white paper was so keen in highlighting

the importance to local communities of the arts and the heritage sector.

But it is correct that when difficult decisions should be made,

they should be made by local people, not centrally by ministers. Could

the noble Lord, the minister, confirmed that if there is a problem

sufficient to cause the closure of this wonderful gallery that the Arts

Council will not be obliged to drop its matching funding and the

civilians poured in, that they will not claw back some of the covered

grant towards the building that it got recently? Well, the Arts Council

funding as a partnership and effort in the unlikely event, I hope that

is certainly the case, the closing, then obviously that it would be a

problem in giving that money to an art gallery which was not open. I do

not want to think about that, I think there is a very good incentive

with local partners, to keep this very good Art Gallery going, which

has some amazing and world-class art in it, and that should be

encouraged. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name

on the order paper. My Lords, while there are no current proposals to

increase the maximum penalties for animal welfare offences, the

government was busy court should the range of penalties available. We

will continue to keep the maximum penalties for animal welfare

offences under review. I thank the noble lord for that reply. But the

maximum sentence available for extreme and premeditated cruelty is

six months, we lag behind the rest of mainland Europe and Northern

Ireland has a maximum sentence of five years. Given the committee has

represented and promoted a sentence of five years, is it not time that

the sentence match the crime? I have considerable sympathy at some of

these examples of animal cruelty cases which are beyond belief,

frankly, and I am very pleased that the independence sentencing council

is ensuring that the most serious cases of animal cruelty could

receive longer sentences within the maximum six months imprisonment. The

council is currently considering the consultation responses and will

draft the definitive guideline with a dual publication later this year.

My Lords, whilst it is important we increase sanctions for animal

welfare offences, sanctions are nothing without enforcement. My

Lords, at the minute there is no statutory requirement for the local

authorities or the police to enforce animal welfare legislation. Could I

asked the noble lord, the minister, has the government any plans to

introduce such a statutory requirement? My Lords, there are no

current plans, but what I would like to see is that imprisonment is not

the only penalty and I think this is very important, they increased to an

unlimited fine committee service order, and order disqualifying

people from ownership of dogs and animals for life, so there are a

range of penalties, which I think are also very important if we are to

address this matter. Does the government intends to issue updated

guidance on the Animal Welfare Act to bear down more decisively on the

appalling practice of polly farming? -- poppy farming what my noble

friend has said about Care Not Killing farming is noted. The Animal

Welfare Act as one of the most advanced pieces of legislation in

the world, it was reviewed in 2010 and 2011 and I would, as my

honourable friend said any other place, consider and review anything

that does not address the situation. -- puppy farming. Last year I joined

a group of cross-party MPs which called for eight Baron on the ivory

sales to help stop the killing of elephants. There was a decline in

the numbers of 30% of elephant numbers over seven years. The

government has taken steps to ban new imports of ivory, it is clear

that only a total ban can prevent that cruel trade from continuing.

Will the noble lord, the minister, agreed to take back our plea for a

total ban on ivory imports to prevent elephants becoming an

endangered species, which I know would be of great regret. My Lords,

whether elephants, rhinos or any endangered animals, it is our

responsibility, power generation, to ensure they continue to have their

place in the natural world. Of course, this country has been one of

the leaders on the ivory matter and in fact, what we have said is that

there should be a ban on the sale of ivory up to 70 years, 1947, when

they were deemed to the antiques and it is very important that as part of

our arrangement. You have raised the issue of endangered species. Is he

concerned that talk about the level of sentencing in cases where people

are caught, prosecuted and killing endangered birds and have the

government considered switching the responsibility from possibly the

gamekeeper to the landowner? All these matters are subject

already to the law and there has not been a consideration about moving

any liability other than where it is now, which is that we think we have

a robust law in place. If there were any issues that needed to be

reviewed, we would do so. My Lords, has been any reputable body which

has said it is against the increase in the penalties, and if so, on what

grounds? My Lords, I think it would be fair to say that most animal

welfare organisations would like an increased but I think when I

reflected on this, Northern Ireland has been mentioned, in fact, what

the 66 infections between 2012 and 2016, only one offender received a

prison sentence of over six months, which was suspended. -- 66

convictions. An average custodial sentence of 3.3 months. We are

looking to see whether there are ways in which managed rates can have

enhanced guidelines. -- magistrates. Is it not true that many of those

who have been guilty of torturing or killing human beings have done

exactly the same to animals and that there is a linkage? I think cruelty,

were the our fellow human beings or cruelty to animals, is equally

reprehensible and I think there have been connections, which is why I

think that some of the other remedies other than imprisonment

have been very important, including in the community orders, things like

programmes to change behaviour, exclusion, curfew, drug treatment,

mental health treatment. There are a number of ways in which we can help.

Further to the question of my noble friend, I was involved in a case of

animal cruelty recently and was told that while Trading Standards have

the power to prosecute, they do not have the funds. I understand this

happens particularly with farm animals. The farmers are advised

rather than prosecuted. Or I can say is the animal welfare act 2006 is

clear in that anyone who has any concerns about animal cruelty cases

should report it to the local authority or the police. Would my

noble friend agree that where a list is drafted to put species such as

bats and newts onto the predicted basis, they should be kept under

review at least every seven years? One was such a review last

undertaken by Parliament? I will have to look into the precise

question but obviously I think it is good practice that all laws should

be kept under review. On the heart of the noble Lord Lord Dykes and

that his request, I beg leave to ask the question standing under his name

on the order paper. We do not need to be part of the EU Single Market.

To have strong petition for workers's arise. The Government will

not roll back the rights of workers in the workplace. It will be brought

into UK law. My Lords and on behalf of myself and the noble Lord Lord

Dykes, I thank the Minister for that reply. It follows also on from an

article by the Prime Minister on January the 8th of the Sunday

Telegraph. Would the Minister, indeed I think he has touched on

this, go one step further, and reassure the House and indeed the

TUC that all the directives contained and that are relevant to

be contained in the great repeal Bill? The Prime Minister has said

that under this Government we will see you workers' writes not eroded

and not just protected but even enhanced. The commitment of this

Government is clear, obviously the subsequent parliaments as we regain

sovereignty will be able to make decisions. It is a sad day when the

TUC no longer has faith in the Labour Party, the Liberal Party, and

this British Parliament to defend the rights of British workers. Is it

not the case that British workers enjoy rights far beyond the EU

requirements, for example in respect of maternity pay? There are many

examples where people who work in the UK have stronger rights than the

rates that are guaranteed in the EU, maternity is one case but rights of

statutory leave is another example. May I probe harder about how robust

these assurances will be? I do think that the Chancellor, having said at

the weekend that if there is a hard approach to the negotiations by the

EU, then the British Government will have to go down-market and undercut

on corporate tax are a new neighbours. -- EU. While not the

same thing happen under Labour's standards? For the Government be

forced under the logical Brexit into undercutting policies? I think it

would be a huge misjudgement or mistake for any British government

to think that eroding rights of workers and making work less engaged

and less productive in the UK would contribute to us being more

productive. We want to have a fully engaged, well-trained workforce. Is

-- as the Minister has confirmed, the Prime Minister has agreed that

all rights of workers enshrined in EU law will be transferred into UK

law, but then it was added, where practical. Could the Minister tell

us which rights of workers cannot be practically transferred into UK law?

I do not think... I think of any rights that would not fall into the

practical area. The Prime Minister went further, she is committed to

bringing decent, well paid skilled jobs to Britain, to many parts of

the country where they have been depleted over many years. The Single

Market, which imposes Brussels of a rig Ocean, and the 90% of our

economy which does not go into it. Does the Government know how many

jobs that has cost us over the years? I cannot answer that question

specifically. Clearly, being part of the Single Market has increased the

number of jobs in this country. But the Prime Minister is making a

speech tomorrow about global Britain, I think, and we are clear

that being part of the global economy that we believe fully in

free trade and that our country must be more competitive. This side. This

site. Should the trades union leaders not be very careful about

calling for the UK to remain in the Single Market when it brings with it

free movement of labour and some any of their members voted to leave

because they were alarmed by unlimited immigration? He does raise

an interesting point. A number of trade union leaders do recognise the

issue but unquestionably there are parts of the country where high

levels of immigration have undermined wage rates of local

people and I think we would agree that one of the benefits of having

control over our immigration policy is that we can have a policy which

is more directly suited to our own requirements. Bylaws, I find it

difficult to believe every word I have just heard. -- my lord. It

sounds great and I'm sure the parsnips are waiting to be buttered

but this is not a very convincing argument from the party that before

the TUC bill. Is this not really about the question of what it is we

will be negotiating for? The TUC had no problem in setting out what the

negotiating position should be. Why can the government not? I think the

Prime Minister in her speech tomorrow will set out the strategic

objectives of our negotiations and what we are trying to get out the

negotiating is, it would be foolish to speculate about what those are.

Given the reality of the global economy, surely the only effective

way of protecting employees' writes is through international agreements?

And to avoid international agreements is merely to undermine

the sovereignty of this country. There are many other aspects apart

from international agreements. If you look at the performance of the

UK economy, what does stand out above all else is that in many

industries, we... Our productivity levels are too low and I think

increasing productivity in this country, partly through better

training and skills but also more investment in our research base, is

the best way in which we can increase our trade overseas. My

Lords, would he accept that I get very confused at times, being a

simple-minded fellow... All these rights that people have been talking

about, is it not the case that for instance in the United States,

Volkswagen has pleaded guilty to criminal misconduct about emissions,

has paid a fine of nearly ?4 billion, and has offered consumers

more than ?12 billion in compensation, and yet in the EU,

with all of our rights for consumers and everyone else, so far, the

consumer has been offered absolutely nothing. Could he clear of my

confusion and tell me why? I fear that clearing up his confusion might

take me longer than I have. There is no doubt that consumers do have

strong rights in the US and that having a very strong competitive

market is probably the best way to ensure that companies like

Volkswagen behave properly.