|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
21 Jan 2003 : Column 183continued
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this week, colleagues raised the matter of Government Departments transferring oral questions to other Departments, and Mr. Deputy Speaker ruled on your behalf. An oral question that I tabled to the Treasury, which was up for reply this Thursday, has been arbitrarily shifted by a parliamentary clerk to the Department of Health. The issue that I raise is different from the one on which the earlier ruling was given because my question refers to a question that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury answered in March 2001.
The matter raised in my question is fully within the footprint of the ministerial duties document because the Financial Secretary is in charge of the Office for National Statistics. When I tried before to table questions on the completion of death certificates, the Table Office told mecorrectly, I believethat it was a matter for Her Majesty's Treasury because it related to the ONS. As I do not want to delay the House, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look into the matter later. It seems to me that we are suffering from the arbitrary decision not of Ministers but of junior hacksclerksin Government Departments who do not know the history of the case or what precedents exist, and who do not read the remit of the ministerial duties.
Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration and anxiety, but irrespective of who in the Department instructs the transfer to be made, it is the responsibility of the Minister, and I do not have any control over that.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Foreign Secretary perhaps inadvertently turned his deaf ear to me when he answered my question and misrepresented what I said. I did not imply that a Government of this country supported the use of chemical weapons in Iraq, but that they supported Iraq while it was using them.
The Bill would require every public sector scheme to offer its members the choice of covering unmarried partners. Last year, 202 Members supported my early-day motion on the subject, including the current and previous Chairs of the Social Security and Work and Pensions Committees, a number of Liberal Democrat Members, the Trades Union Congress and the public sector trade unions. Even some modernising Conservative Members supported it. The Government have made quite a lot of progress since then. They have introduced a new scheme for civil service pensions that allows members' pensions to cover unmarried partners. In particular, they have made it clear that they intend to introduce a registration scheme for homosexual partners. I wholeheartedly welcome that. It is a brave and overdue move. Unfortunately, the registration scheme would not cover unmarried heterosexual partners, which is why I am introducing the Bill.
As the law stands, any police officer who is killed in action could leave behind a family without support. Any of our soldiers who are killed in Iraq could also leave behind partners who are unable to pay the mortgage or support themselves. The Government made an exception when that happened in Sierra Leone to the late partner of Anna Homsi, and I have no doubt that they would do so again if the same circumstances arose, but I want to ensure that that exception is turned into the rule. That is what the Bill would do. It would require scheme trustees to consult their members about providing survivor benefits for unmarried partners and to give them an option to pay extra to cover unmarried partners. The Bill would create a consistent policy across the public sector. As I said, only about a quarter of public sector schemes provide that benefit whereas, perhaps surprisingly, 90 per cent. of those in the private sector do. So the public sector is way behind the private sector in terms of discrimination.
The Government recognised that problem in the 1998 Green Paper. They made it clear that in principle they were in favour of recognising unmarried partners, but unfortunately only the civil service scheme has been
My Bill would not require any public sector spending. It would be possible for the individual schemes to comply with it by ensuring that the costs were borne entirely by their members. I have some sympathy with the trade unions when they argue that the costs should be shared between the Government and members. Of course, at the moment the Government are pocketing the savings from the rise in the number of cohabiting couples, which has tripled over the past 15 years, but the decision should be for individual public sector schemes.
The moral arguments for my scheme are sufficient to justify it. However, they are backed up by the cause of expediency. The Bill would help public sector recruitment. Private sector employers can offer coverage to unmarried partners, but those people are not covered in the public sector. That must surely be a disincentive for about 15 per cent. of the population who live in cohabiting relationships. It is clear that the Government are cutting off their nose to spite their face because we are not providing enough benefits to attract that category of people to the public sector.
The Bill would remove that disincentive. It would be in line with the recent decision by the House to give unmarried couples the right to adopt children, who under current law could end up being brought up without support. We recently voted for our pension scheme to recognise unmarried partners, yet millions in the public sector do not have the same rights. The Government have paid out when a partner has been killed in the line of duty, but they might not if the death occurred in peacetime. They accept the principle of the Bill. It would not cost anything; it would reflect the changes in our society; it would right a wrong; and it would help public sector recruitment.
Bill ordered to be brought in by James Purnell, Ms Meg Munn, Mr. Siôn Simon, David Wright, Mr. Tom Harris, Kevin Brennan, Mr. Chris Bryant, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Steve Webb, Mr. John Bercow and Ms Oona King.
James Purnell accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for persons in receipt of a public sector pension to be able to provide survivor benefits for unmarried, financially interdependent, partners; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed [Bill 44].
Dr. Jack Cunningham (Copeland): It is my duty and privilege to present the first report on House of Lords reform on behalf of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, which I have the honour to chair. I thank the Government for accepting one of our 24 recommendations that we should have the opportunity, both here and in another place, to debate the report fully before votes are taken on motions that may subsequently be tabled. I thank the members of the Committee, many of whom are here today, for their excellent contributions, and pay tribute to the Clerks and their staff for their excellent support.
As the House knows, the report confronts long-standing issues of huge importance and great controversy. The historical background is set out in appendix 1, which mentions a number of important landmarks in parliamentary change. In 1671, the Commons asserted its right to sole control over the levying of taxation. There are a number of other staging poststhe Glorious Revolution, the Parliament Acts and other well-known reforms. Those changes have often taken place in an atmosphere of great controversy, with frenetic exchanges from time to time of great wit. Joseph Chamberlain, said of the House of peers that