I put my signature to those new clauses because I want to promote equality. It is important to allow everyone—same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples—to enjoy a civil partnership or marriage as they choose. This is a question of equal love. It is not about asking for special treatment for gay couples or straight couples; it is about everyone enjoying the same rights regardless of their sexuality. It is worth noting that equal rights are already enjoyed in countries such as France, where many heterosexuals want and can get the legal security of a civil union if they do not want to get married. I do not understand why straight couples in Britain should not have that right, too. That is why, for several years,
20 May 2013 : Column 1002
I have been writing to the Government—for example, back in May 2011—and calling on them to support civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples. I have done so on a number of occasions, so this is not a new idea or one that has only just now come on to the agenda.
The Government have had time to consider the cost implications and should not now be using their failure to do so as an excuse for denying people equality, especially when the projections on the pension costs are so speculative—in the space of five days they have gone up from £3 billion to £4 billion. One gets the sense that they are being done on the back of a cigarette packet. If civil partnerships for mixed-sex couples really would generate £4 billion of cost liabilities and cause more than two years’ delay, let us see the evidence, but so far there has been none.
9.15 pm
Colleagues will be aware that there has been heavy briefing claiming that to support the new clauses would be tantamount to enabling the Bill to be scuppered by whomever. I do not know who is trying to scupper the Bill, but I do know that there has been heavy briefing to the effect that the Government would be happy for the new clauses to go ahead and therefore for the Bill to have less chance, perhaps, in the other place. My bottom line is that I do not want the chance presented by the Bill being scuppered. I do not want it delayed—I want it given a swift and safe passage—and if that means that I need to abstain on the new clauses, I will, but what an indictment it is of the political processes of this place, particularly of the Government, who are playing political games with an issue that matters hugely to my constituents and to many others up and down the country.
Surely, if the Government were really committed to equal marriage, they would not be implying that their support for the Bill was conditional. Ministers need to explain exactly why opening up civil partnerships would delay the implementation of gay marriage and why, for example, it is not possible to work on the basis set out in 2004, when some of the essential consequentials were put in place for civil partnerships. Of course, the issues for same-sex couples are different from those for opposite-sex couples, but I struggle to see how it could take two years or more, if the political will was there to sort it out.
Furthermore, the Bill does not allow employers and pension providers to award gay spouses and civil partners the equivalent survivor benefits payable to a partner in a mixed-sex marriage, hence my amendment on pensions and gay marriage couples, which we will be discussing tomorrow. That substantive inequality remains in the Bill, but could be considered at the same time as civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples.
There is no procedural reason why the new clauses on civil partnerships need wreck the chances of introducing legal same-sex marriage. As I say, I believe that the proposals are being used to play political games, but I do not think that my constituents want me to play such games; they want equality fair and square and they expect a Government who have stated their support for equal marriage to stay the course and to do so without creating new inequalities and in a way that provides for equal marriage and partnerships for everyone. This is about equality. Are we really saying that people are equal only if it does not cost us too much and if it is not too complicated? We need to meet those cost arguments
20 May 2013 : Column 1003
and other objections head on, rather than allowing them to undermine the basic rights to full equality for every couple.
In summary, we need to guarantee comprehensive equality for opposite sex and same-sex couples; to open up marriage and civil partnerships to all; to use the Bill to deliver the same pension arrangements for couples regardless of their sexuality or whether they are in a marriage or civil partnership; and to do all that without playing games with the lives of people up and down this country who care deeply about what is happening in the House and who are watching us tonight and cannot believe the kinds of games that it would appear are being played.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): I could begin my remarks by saying, “I don’t want to say, ‘I told you so’”, but that would not actually be true. I said on Second Reading that if we did not deal then with the equality issue, elaborated very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), we would have to do it all over again at a later date. Regrettably, that is the position in which we seem now to find ourselves.
Personally, I entirely endorse what my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West and for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie)—the latter also signed the new clauses—said about the intention of the new clauses. If we want to do the job properly, we need to differentiate religious and civil marriage. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) asked whether the word “marriage” and its associations might prevent people from taking up a civil commitment of legal union. Without dancing on the head of a pin, however, over the different legal obligations of a union between two people of whatever sex, it should not be beyond the wit of the House or the Government to introduce measures to achieve the equality objective in a way entirely congruent with the position put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West. However, I have to tell him that my judgment is that where we have got to on this—the work done in Committee and, frankly, the failure to take the opportunity to address the issue properly—means that it will not get done. I am influenced to a degree by the position taken by Stonewall and my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who, along with others, is extremely anxious to get this Bill on the statute book.
In the end, the conclusive position is that of Opposition Front Benchers. It is their decision that will dictate what actually happens. I would have come to a conclusion that agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West: that if we cannot do it properly, which is how he wanted to do it, then doing it in a second-best fashion and having two levels of union or marriage—civil partnerships or civil marriage, with religious marriage associated with it—would at least deliver equality. Understandably, the Opposition have—in my view properly and responsibly—made a judgment about whether the route offered by new clause 10 might threaten the timely passage of the Bill and thereby delay matters for those who are anxious to get on and take advantage of the opportunity to enter a same-sex marriage.
It is a messy compromise, but I will support the Opposition’s amendment, to ensure that we get on with
20 May 2013 : Column 1004
the review in as timely a fashion as possible and drop this five-year business from the Bill. I have to say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that the way in which we have managed this whole process has not reflected very well on any of us. Frankly, it does not reflect terribly well on Opposition Front Benchers that they have undertaken this manoeuvre right at the last moment. All this was predictable and was predicted, not least by me. The conclusion is that we will have the opportunity to have all this entertainment all over again at some future date, when we finally address the issue of equality and put a measure that promotes complete equality on the statute book. I regret that that is where the corpus of opinion appears to be now. If we could rescue things and introduce a proper measure of equality—which is what the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol North West and for Leeds North West would do—that is what I would wish for. I regret that we are in this position, but I am going to bow to the inevitable, accept second best and look forward to the opportunity to do this all over again at some future date.
Mr Tom Harris: I have a great deal of time for the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)—who may or may not have been about to leave the Chamber as I stood up. I would have been proud if the work he did as children’s Minister, particularly on adoption, had been done in the name of a Labour Government. I was disappointed to see him leave the Front Bench—although presumably not as disappointed as he was. He has started, in an excellent speech, to open my mind on this issue with his arguments—I am not yet convinced, but I am happy to support new clause 16 as amended.
When we legislated in this House 10 years ago, we stopped short of legalising same-sex marriage for the simple reason that it was considered a step too far. We did not legislate for civil partnerships because we had arrived at a perfect alternative institution to marriage. We stopped at that point. We deliberately and intentionally created something that was not as good as marriage, because politically we did not feel we could get it at that time. We did so for the best reasons possible and it was a huge step forward, not just for gay couples but for the whole nation. I am extremely proud to have voted for that legislation, but let us be honest about what civil partnerships were. They fell short of marriage—they were second best—because we could not get as far as marriage. That is why, a decade later, we are debating this reform. In a perfect world, it would have been delivered long before now. The case for allowing same-sex couples to marry is not that they have been denied it so far; it is that marriage is better than a civil partnership.
Mr Harris: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green).
Kate Green:
I do not think that many of the people who have entered into successful and happy civil partnerships would agree that those partnerships were in some way second best. In 2004, we might not have known where this journey would lead us, but nine years on we
20 May 2013 : Column 1005
can see that the civil partnership legislation has been extremely successful in its own right. It ought to be celebrated.
Mr Harris: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but let me ask her a question. Had we been able to legislate to allow same-sex marriage 10 years ago and had such a law been put on the statute book, would we be having this debate today? Would we be spending more than a few seconds debating whether to introduce civil partnerships for straight and gay couples? Of course the answer is no.
Like every other Member, I have received letters and e-mails warning me that legislating for same-sex marriage will, in some undefined way, undermine the institution of marriage. I take a very different view. I believe that the real threat to marriage will come from the continuation of civil partnerships and their extension to heterosexual couples. As things stand today, the legal security and recognition offered by marriage can be enjoyed only by straight couples. The legal security and recognition offered by civil partnerships can be enjoyed only by same-sex couples, although I hope that that is about to change. Needlessly telling all couples that they can now opt for a second-best arrangement that nevertheless offers all the same legal privileges and protections as marriage would surely undermine marriage far more than extending the qualification for marriage to same-sex couples. From the day the Bill becomes law, the choice offered to all couples will be the same as the choice that has up to now been offered to all straight couples: either get married or don’t—it is your choice.
Because we have indulged in this debate, we have failed to address anther issue. Many individuals—mostly, but not always, women with dependent children—need to be offered more security when they are living with a partner and perhaps depending on him financially. But if that partner is unwilling to commit to marriage, he will probably be equally reluctant to enter an alternative arrangement that offers the same level of legal and financial responsibilities. What those partners and families need is some kind of passive legal recognition, perhaps similar to what used to be known as common law marriage, a state that used to prevail in Scotland but which, since 2006, no longer does so. Moves to make civil partnerships available to all might, on the face of it, look like a progressive move, but they will do nothing to help those vulnerable women, and their children, who are in relationships with partners who simply refuse to bind themselves with legal red tape.
As for those who have already entered into a civil partnership and who do not wish to enter into the state of marriage as provided by this Bill, I have to say that it should not be beyond the wit of the Government or this House to frame legislation that would recognise each existing civil partnership until it was dissolved either legally or by the death of one partner, while preventing any more civil partnerships from being entered into. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham says that he wants full equality. I concede that making civil partnerships available to straight couples is one way of achieving that. Another way would be to make civil partnerships available to no one.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con):
I want to put on record that I support new clause 10, because the Bill is fundamentally about equality and, to some
20 May 2013 : Column 1006
extent, equality must mean symmetry. If we are going to make the dramatic and historic move to exercise equality across marriage, we must have symmetry. It is extraordinary that, despite the alarms that have been raised and the warnings that have been given about the failure to extend civil partnerships symmetrically to different-sex couples, three amendments have been tabled on this subject only at the eleventh hour. This does not seem to have been thought through before now. That is a disappointing state of affairs for a Bill that so loudly claims to have equality at the centre of everything it does.
If we are to be logically and intellectually consistent, I do not see how we can pass a Bill that extends equality in marriage without extending civil partnerships to different-sex couples. It is not as if such symmetry was a surprise or not much covered in the debate. When would the next opportunity be? We have already seen the amount of controversy created by rearranging marriage, which is so connected with the fundamental roots of our establishment and the relationship between the state and the Church. It is unlikely, I think, that many Governments will rush to introduce such legislation again.
9.30 pm
As well as supporting new clause 10, I support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), as I believe that we have missed a fundamental opportunity genuinely to modernise marriage in the world in which we live. Some may say that that is a very difficult, complex and controversial operation to undertake; I would agree. Some may say that it is not an operation that should be undertaken lightly; I would agree. If we are to undertake it, however, perhaps we should tackle one of the biggest anomalies we face, which is the role of the Church of England in how we see marriage in a multi-faith, often secular world.
What have we learned from this debate that has been so played out in the newspapers over the past months? It is that the concept of marriage is—we should hold our breath—controversial. People believe different things. Some fervently believe—and, they would say, with good reason—that marriage, by description, is a union between a man and a woman. Others with equal fervour—and, they would say, with equal reason—believe that it is a union between two individuals who are committed and love each other very much. As marriage is a social construct, it is difficult to say which one of those should reign supreme. Certainly, since this is in the realm of subjective individual attitudes towards people’s relationship with each other, I as a Conservative do not think that the state should be stepping into it and dictating with such vigour.
I therefore support civil partnerships for same-sex and different-sex couples and, if that does not come about, the removing of civil partnerships for same-sex and different-sex couples for the reason of symmetry. The state should take control of that which belongs to the state—the objective and our tax and legal affairs—and the genuine, subjective view of one person towards another and what their relationship signifies in the eyes of any higher authority that they choose to name should be in the realm of the subjective and the civic arena.
20 May 2013 : Column 1007
If we had before us a controversial and historic Bill for which we would be remembered, I and many people across the country could support it. Given the duty placed on this House to exert influence and create equality for its citizens, my grave reservation is that we have missed a very big opportunity. We risk putting an equality sticking plaster on a fundamentally anachronistic and rather flawed system. I will see how the House votes on the amendments this evening before deciding how to vote tomorrow, but I regret this great missed opportunity for those who believe in genuine and not just cosmetic equality.
Mark Durkan: Like the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), I signed new clause 10 in good faith and I stand by it in good faith. As someone who voted for the Bill’s Second Reading and who has defended my position on the Bill since, I am quite clear that if provisions are there to extend equality, then equality is what should be extended and provided for. The fact that some supporters of new clause 10 oppose the Bill will not intimidate me into not supporting it. Equally, the fact that the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris), who will be supporting new clause 16 as amended, wants to emerge from the review the abolition of civil partnerships for anyone will not intimidate me into not supporting the review if it is intended to look at some of the issues that arise.
It is perfectly possible for Members to vote for new clause 16, as amended, and for new clause 10 precisely because, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made very clear, the two could be reconciled if the Government committed with Opposition support to bringing forward an additional amendment with a qualified commencement date for new clause 10 that relates to the review provided by new clause 16. An entirely false tension has been created between them. Sensible good legislators can support both, and sensible good legislators should demand that both Front-Bench teams get their acts together properly and come out with a competent Bill that not only gives equality now for those who need it, but promises equality in the future for those who are clearly saying, “Why are we being left behind and left in limbo?”
Nick Herbert: I have no objection in principle to the extension of civil partnerships to heterosexual couples—far from it—but I am concerned about what is proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and the effect that it could have.
First, let us look more carefully at the policy intent that lies behind new clause 10. It has been claimed that some 3 million cohabiting couples have not married and that the new clause would give them an incentive to formalise their arrangements, but why do they not wish to formalise their arrangements at the moment? What evidence or assessment should lead us to believe that any proportion of those 3 million people would seek to enter into a commitment that is as exacting as a marriage commitment, with all that it entails?
The fact is that none of us, on either side of the House, can quantify the demand. We are struggling with the figures relating to the potential pension and taxation impact, for instance, because we do not know the extent of that demand. If we are honest about it, we
20 May 2013 : Column 1008
must acknowledge that no group or lobby is telling Members of Parliament that this is what they want. Indeed, very few people are doing so. That stands in stark contrast to those who have been urging for some time—
Tim Loughton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Nick Herbert: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I make some progress.
As it does not appear that there is a constituency that is in favour of the change, we do not know how many people would enter into such a commitment. The findings of a poll that was conducted by YouGov at the weekend suggested that the uptake would be relatively low. Given the number of cohabiting couples, we must start to consider what are the proper policy solutions.
In 2007, the Law Commission produced a set of proposals that would have imposed duties on cohabiting couples when it came to separation and their responsibilities for children. My hon. Friend—who I know has a fine record, having been a children’s Minister—did not mention that. According to the Law Commission,
“cohabitants have not made the distinctive legal and public commitment that marriage entails.”
The truth is that the arrangement into which they enter is completely different from the arrangement that we would create in respect of civil partnership. I think that more work needs to be done to assess the real level of demand and determine what are the right cohabiting policy solutions.
The second issue that I wish to raise was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) as the need to ensure symmetry. Let me point out that no symmetry will be created even if the Bill is passed, as I very much hope that it will be. If passed, it will be a huge step forward in allowing marriage for same-sex couples, but no symmetry will be created, because the principal Churches will not allow marriage for same-sex couples. The Church of England will not be allowed to do it, and the Catholic Church will choose not to do it. It is a false argument to suggest that a symmetry will be created, or that the Bill will create an asymmetry that it will be possible to correct by extending civil partnerships to a completely unquantified and unknown group of people.
Ian Paisley: Is it not the case that in a mad rush to put same-sex marriage on the statute book, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to ditch and discard everyone else’s rights irrespective of the cost?
Nick Herbert: I have already said that I have no objection to the principle, but there is no evidence that there is a demand for the measure.
That brings me to the third point that I wish to make. We now have the prospect of achieving an incredibly important step forward for same-sex couples by introducing marriage for them, and I am very anxious about the possibility that that will be put at risk—I do not put it any more strongly than that—if we add to the Bill an uncertain and unquantified element for which there does not appear to be a genuine demand. I believe the other place may then add greater difficulty into the Bill than would otherwise be the case. It will have two issues to deal with, rather than one. I therefore urge all of
20 May 2013 : Column 1009
good faith who support marriage for same-sex couples to be very cautious before supporting the amendment in question. Indeed, I urge them to oppose it, and to do the straightforward thing of agreeing to the review. I support the Opposition amendment to ensure that the review is immediate. Given the complexity of these issues, that is an eminently sensible way forward.
Tim Loughton: My right hon. Friend clearly said we do not know the cost of the proposals in the amendments. Will he therefore put on record that it was entirely irresponsible and misleading for the Government to brief that the cost could be £3 billion, £4 billion or, as they said today, between £4 billion and £8 billion, and that that may have falsely swayed the argument?
Nick Herbert: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour—indeed, my constituent —for whom I have a lot of time, he cannot have it both ways. He suggested that the proposal would be a way of dealing with the £44 billion cost of family breakdown. If the impact is small and very few heterosexual people want to take up civil partnerships, it will have little impact on the cost of family breakdown. The answer is that he does not know, the Government do not know and the Opposition do not know, because the work has not been done.
I fully accept that some Members genuinely wish to support the amendment because they believe it would somehow provide an extension of equality, and that they would therefore do so for the best of intentions, but let us be clear: some Members are supporting this amendment for precisely the opposite reason. I do not include my hon. Friend in that. Some Members are breathing the word “equality” for the first time. It sticks in the craw of many of us to be lectured suddenly now about equality by Members who have been opposing this Bill and equality and every single measure that has come forward to promote equality in the first place, including civil partnerships.
Some of the Members who have put their name to this amendment and who intend to vote for it, proclaiming the need to ensure equality and symmetry, voted against the civil partnerships legislation in 2004. One of those Members described that civil partnerships legislation as a buggers’ muddle and thought that was a funny thing to say at the time. Suddenly, within less than a decade, almost no Member of this House will say that they did not support the civil partnerships legislation, and suddenly some of the Members who did not support it stand up now and say, “Oh, it’s terribly important on equality grounds that this category of civil partnerships”—which they did everything they possibly could to oppose—“is extended to heterosexual couples.” It is a faux attachment to equality and it should not be taken at face value.
I do not take anything away from those who genuinely think that it would be a sensible status to create. I am with them, but we must not imperil this Bill by allowing others to play their political games. I assure Members on both sides of the House that those in the other place are waiting for the opportunity to declare that this Bill will need more time and they will have to look at it in much greater detail, and then suddenly we will find that it will not be returned to us, or that it will be returned to us in a form we do not like.
20 May 2013 : Column 1010
I urge those who wish to see a very important and genuine step forward for equality to recognise the sense of the compromise that the Government and the official Opposition have agreed, which is to review this matter immediately in order to assess whether there is a genuine need for such a change. Let us make sure we genuinely take forward this step for equality now, and that we are not seduced by false arguments.
Dr Huppert: It is a great honour and a privilege—and also a challenge—to follow the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who is very passionate about this issue and who has championed the cause of same-sex marriage with great authority.
People will want to arrange their relationships in a number of different ways. Some will want to have marriages; some will want to have civil partnerships; some will simply want to cohabit. The state should enable all those things to happen. The right hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the Law Commission report and the Bill proposed in the other place by Lord Lester, and I hope we will see progress on that. I am delighted that my party acknowledges those different options. Three years ago, in a conference motion entitled “Equal Marriage in the United Kingdom”, we said that the Government should:
“Open both marriage and civil partnerships to both same-sex and mixed-sex couples.”
9.45 pm
We know that there are people who would like to have mixed-sex civil partnerships. We know that there was a consultation, although that was denied earlier, that expressed a clear view. It has been argued that not many people would want such partnerships, but I do not see that as a problem. Equality matters. Even if only a few people are being discriminated against, we should all want to stop any such discrimination.
Arguments have also been made about costs and, as a matter of principle, I do not think that costs should be a bar to equalities legislation. It would, I suspect, be a lot cheaper to deny women the vote or to restrict voting even further to wealthy men above a certain age, but I do not think that anybody in the House would argue that to save money at election time we should reduce the number of people who could vote.
I am also concerned about the idea of cost as a matter of policy, and I tried to raise that issue earlier with the Secretary of State. It would save the country money in pensions if we actively discouraged people from getting married or having relationships, but I do not think that that is the right way to go. If people would like to have those relationships, the fact that they will get some pension rights should not stop us allowing them.
I believe passionately in equal civil marriage, but I also agree with the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs that we must not give up hope on same-sex marriage to try to get that. That would be the wrong choice. That is why I welcome the review and the fact that it will now be an urgent, prompt review rather than one that sits in the long grass for five years. It is not just a question of when we start it, however, but of when we finish it. That must also be prompt. It is not the starting time that will make a difference to people who want such a provision, but the finishing time.
20 May 2013 : Column 1011
We also need a commitment to act when the review concludes. I hoped to intervene on the Secretary of State earlier to hear that there would be a commitment to legislation, if such a recommendation is the outcome of the review and consultation. That is what we are all expecting and, whether it happens in this Bill or in a future Bill, we want to see it.
I want to see progress towards equality, equal marriage and equal civil partnerships. We have a decision to make as a House about how best to get there. It is a question of balance and there are those who, for the best of reasons, will want to support new clause 10 so that we can plough ahead. I understand that reasoning and it is a close call, but I think that they are risking a lot. They are risking the failure of the rest of the Bill’s provisions on same-sex marriage and I hope that they will not do that. That might not be the intention of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), but it might be the consequence, and I am alarmed at that prospect and by the decisions that the Prime Minister might face if that happened. There is a tough balance to be struck in how we make the most progress we can on equalities, but I think that we must support the review and not new clause 10.
Maria Miller: Clearly, we have had a vigorous debate today. Let me wind up before we move to a vote.
It is clear that adding the whole new concept of the extension of civil partnerships threatens delaying and even potentially derailing the Bill. New clause 16 offers a considered way forward, ensuring that the questions that hon. Members on both sides of the House have rightly asked can be answered. There has been a great deal of talk about fairness, and the fairness that this Bill enables is that same-sex couples can marry for the first time. We should not be trying to rectify other issues before we rectify that.
We must make it clear, as those on both Front Benches have done already, that an immediate review is possible to assess the need for the extension of civil partnerships. I am absolutely happy to accept the manuscript amendment tabled by the Opposition and to make it clear that we will facilitate a speedy review. It is clear from today’s debate, however, that there are policy and cost implications and we should ensure that we know them before we move forward. I will not allow the extension of civil partnerships to heterosexual couples to delay the Bill, and I think that all three main parties agree on that.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) rightly said, in her considered contribution—I welcomed the tone that she took—that to date there had been “cursory” consultation in this area. I welcome her desire for further elucidation of the issues that we have talked about, and her desire for the Bill’s passage not to be delayed. New clause 16, and amendment (a) to it, will give us a considered way forward. I also welcome the fact that she will not support new clauses 10 and 11, and I hope that those proposing those new clauses will consider not pressing them as a result.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) gave an interesting and passionate display of argumentation. He will see that there is a clear undertaking around new clause 16, and that a review will take place while the Bill is in the
20 May 2013 : Column 1012
Lords, which will provide a prompt response, in terms of a consultation; perhaps that will give him the reassurance that he is looking for.
Tim Loughton: We have a dilemma here, because if my right hon. Friend goes ahead with new clause 16 on the basis that the review could take until 2019, we must vote against it. She has just said that an immediate review is possible. Will she clearly tell Government Members whether she agrees with the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who has made it clear that she thinks a review can have taken place come Report in the Lords, and that its findings could be added to the Bill before it has gone through both Houses? If that is the case, I would be delighted to support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and drop my new clauses, but she needs to make it clear whether she thinks that is practically doable.
Maria Miller: What I can be absolutely clear about is that I am committed to undertaking an urgent review, and that the review will come through promptly, and in the way that my hon. Friend would expect. The Bill is due in the House of Lords in two weeks. It would not be feasible—no Member of the House would expect it—for me to undertake a proper consultation in that time frame, but I undertake further to discuss the timetable for the review with my hon. Friend, and it will absolutely go forward in a prompt fashion. That is what he would expect us to say.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) made an impassioned speech. He properly talked about the importance of getting the right solutions for cohabiting couples, and the extension of civil partnerships may or may not be that right solution. We need to do the right policy work to ensure that we take these decisions for the right reasons, and in the right way.
The right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) put his finger on it when he said that the gross unfairness is the fact that same-sex couples cannot get married. That is what the House needs to focus on today. By voting for new clause 16 and amendment (a) to it, we can get to a position in which we can deal with the issue of extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples without it getting in the way of making sure that the unfairness that he rightly identifies is dealt with swiftly. He talked eloquently about the inequities in pension provision. If that was a simple issue to rectify, presumably his Government would have addressed the issue back in 2004.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) talked about same-sex marriage being a step too far in 2004. I was not a Member of the House at that point, but I understand the sentiment behind his comments. I can say to the House today that this is not a step too far. It is not something that we should shy away from. We have to be clear in our commitment to focusing on extending marriage to same-sex couples, and should not be distracted by trying to incorporate into the Bill, at this point in time, issues that would create further delay and debate in the other place.
Sir Gerald Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend provide the House with her assessment of the fundamental difference between a civil partnership and same-sex marriage, save the marriage bit?
20 May 2013 : Column 1013
Maria Miller: That issue has been raised at every stage of the debate—on Second Reading and in Committee. My hon. Friend will know by now that there are some technical differences in the way the Bill will work, but the biggest difference of all is that we are for the first time enabling same-sex couples to have access to something that heterosexual couples have taken for granted for many decades and hundreds of years and that society values intrinsically. We have to ask ourselves why we should deny people the ability to take part in something that so many of us know is a rich and important part of our lives.
Ian Paisley: Can the Secretary of State confirm to the House the special arrangements that she has put in place for Northern Ireland—that if a same-sex couple get married under new laws here and move to Northern Ireland, in law it will be regarded as only a civil partnership?
Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. These are matters that have been decided in Northern Ireland and I respect entirely the decisions that have been taken. I will continue to work with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly to make sure that the will of that part of the United Kingdom is dealt with in the appropriate way. What he rightly describes is the situation for civil partnerships that take place in other parts of the world already. The Northern Ireland Assembly recognises, as we would expect it to, a civil partnership that took place, for example, in Canada or Spain. We are simply asking for marriages of same-sex couples to be recognised in the way that civil partnerships from other countries are recognised. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree with that.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Will the Secretary of State give way?
Maria Miller: Perhaps my hon. Friend would forgive me if I draw my remarks to a close, as the House has had a great deal of discussion on the matter today and I am not sure he was available for the earlier discussions on this group of amendments.
I say to colleagues across the House that we must show our commitment to the ability of same-sex couples to be married. We have to show that we are not diverted but that we will make sure that we consider in full the opportunities of extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples. We can achieve that if colleagues vote through new clause 16, as I said, but we need to make sure that we are prioritising now the need for the choice for same-sex couples to be able to get married, not further choice among heterosexual couples. That is an important measure that the Government can put forward today and it has support from those on the Labour Front Bench and on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.
Many of the issues that we have discussed today were discussed when the Bill was before the House back in 2004. When the issue of extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples came before the House, the then Minister, Jacqui Smith, ruled it out, saying:
“That is not a matter for the Bill”—[Official Report, 12 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 179.]
That is the stance that we are taking today. The then Minister in the House of Lords, Baroness Scotland, said:
20 May 2013 : Column 1014
“This Bill does not undermine or weaken the importance of marriage and we do not propose to open civil partnership to opposite-sex couples.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2004; Vol. 660, c. 388.]
Mr Blunt: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the review that takes place will include the proposition put forward so ably by our hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland)?
Maria Miller: I think that my hon. Friend has heard me say already that what we are very clear about and focused on is ensuring that the passage of the Bill is not impeded and that we will look carefully and in detail at the way civil partnerships could be taken forward in future but we have to do that in the right way. The House would expect us to come forward with a considered recommendation that has been fully consulted on, and that is what we intend to do.
I think that we have had a full and frank debate, and I thank all Members who have taken the time to contribute. I think that the manner of the debate has been in the best fashion of this House. We have listened to each other and considered the arguments. We will ensure that the Bill, as it goes forward for its second day on Report tomorrow, can be considered in the proper manner.
10 pm
Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
The House divided:
Ayes 391, Noes 57.
Division No. 9]
[
10 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Afriyie, Adam
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Danny
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Anderson, Mr David
Andrew, Stuart
Ashworth, Jonathan
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Baker, Norman
Baldry, Sir Tony
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barclay, Stephen
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Barwell, Gavin
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Benn, rh Hilary
Benyon, Richard
Berger, Luciana
Berry, Jake
Betts, Mr Clive
Bingham, Andrew
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blackwood, Nicola
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brake, rh Tom
Brazier, Mr Julian
Brennan, Kevin
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burnham, rh Andy
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Cable, rh Vince
Cameron, rh Mr David
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Caton, Martin
Champion, Sarah
Chapman, Jenny
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clegg, rh Mr Nick
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Crausby, Mr David
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Davey, rh Mr Edward
David, Wayne
Davidson, Mr Ian
Davies, Geraint
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobson, rh Frank
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doughty, Stephen
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Duddridge, James
Dugher, Michael
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Evans, Graham
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Farrelly, Paul
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, rh Mr Frank
Field, Mark
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Goggins, rh Paul
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodman, Helen
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gove, rh Michael
Grant, Mrs Helen
Grayling, rh Chris
Greatrex, Tom
Green, rh Damian
Green, Kate
Greening, rh Justine
Greenwood, Lilian
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffith, Nia
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gwynne, Andrew
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hague, rh Mr William
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hands, Greg
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harper, Mr Mark
Harris, Rebecca
Harris, Mr Tom
Harvey, Sir Nick
Healey, rh John
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Hendry, Charles
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Herbert, rh Nick
Hilling, Julie
Hinds, Damian
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunt, Tristram
Huppert, Dr Julian
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
James, Margot
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Graham
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Dame Tessa
Kawczynski, Daniel
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Kennedy, rh Mr Charles
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lancaster, Mark
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Lavery, Ian
Laws, rh Mr David
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Leigh, Mr Edward
Leslie, Chris
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewell-Buck, Emma
Lewis, Brandon
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lloyd, Stephen
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
Lord, Jonathan
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Caroline
Luff, Peter
Lumley, Karen
Macleod, Mary
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr Gordon
Maude, rh Mr Francis
May, rh Mrs Theresa
McCabe, Steve
McCarthy, Kerry
McCartney, Jason
McClymont, Gregg
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonald, Andy
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McKinnell, Catherine
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Menzies, Mark
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, rh Maria
Milton, Anne
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morden, Jessica
Morgan, Nicky
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mosley, Stephen
Munn, Meg
Munt, Tessa
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
O'Donnell, Fiona
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Onwurah, Chi
Opperman, Guy
Osborne, rh Mr George
Osborne, Sandra
Ottaway, Richard
Owen, Albert
Pearce, Teresa
Penning, Mike
Percy, Andrew
Perkins, Toby
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Phillipson, Bridget
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Pound, Stephen
Randall, rh Mr John
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Reevell, Simon
Reid, Mr Alan
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robertson, rh Hugh
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Rudd, Amber
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sawford, Andy
Seabeck, Alison
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Julian
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Smith, Sir Robert
Soubry, Anna
Stephenson, Andrew
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Stunell, rh Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Swales, Ian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Thornton, Mike
Thurso, John
Tomlinson, Justin
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Stephen
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Uppal, Paul
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vaz, Valerie
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Robin
Walley, Joan
Watkinson, Dame Angela
Watson, Mr Tom
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, Steve
White, Chris
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wood, Mike
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Ayes:
Karen Bradley
and
Sir Bob Russell
NOES
Aldous, Peter
Bone, Mr Peter
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Mr Robert
Campbell, Mr Gregory
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Cooper, Rosie
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Elphicke, Charlie
Evans, Jonathan
Gale, Sir Roger
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Gray, Mr James
Hermon, Lady
Jackson, Mr Stewart
Johnson, Gareth
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kelly, Chris
Latham, Pauline
Lee, Dr Phillip
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Loughton, Tim
Main, Mrs Anne
McCartney, Karl
McCrea, Dr William
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McVey, Esther
Mills, Nigel
Morris, David
Nuttall, Mr David
Offord, Dr Matthew
Paisley, Ian
Pawsey, Mark
Pincher, Christopher
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Shannon, Jim
Shelbrooke, Alec
Simpson, David
Smith, Henry
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Vickers, Martin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Wheeler, Heather
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Williamson, Gavin
Tellers for the Noes:
Mr Rob Wilson
and
Charlotte Leslie
Question accordingly agreed to.
20 May 2013 : Column 1015
20 May 2013 : Column 1016
20 May 2013 : Column 1017
New clause 16 read a Second time.
The Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
Amendment made to new clause 16: (a), leave out from ‘practicable’ to end of Clause, and insert
‘and include a full public consultation’.—(Kate Green.)
New clause 16, as amended, added to the Bill.
20 May 2013 : Column 1018
Part 1 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004
‘(1) Part 1 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1, subsection (1), leave out “of the same sex”.’. —(Tim Loughton.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House divided:
Ayes 70, Noes 375.
Division No. 10]
[
10.16 pm
AYES
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Baker, Steve
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Benton, Mr Joe
Bingham, Andrew
Brady, Mr Graham
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Cooper, Rosie
Crausby, Mr David
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Dobbin, Jim
Durkan, Mark
Evans, Jonathan
Field, rh Mr Frank
Gale, Sir Roger
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Gray, Mr James
Hendry, Charles
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Hughes, rh Simon
Jackson, Mr Stewart
Johnson, Gareth
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kelly, Chris
Latham, Pauline
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Dr Phillip
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Loughton, Tim
Lumley, Karen
Main, Mrs Anne
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Karl
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McVey, Esther
Mills, Nigel
Morris, David
Mulholland, Greg
Murphy, rh Paul
Nuttall, Mr David
O'Brien, Mr Stephen
Offord, Dr Matthew
Pincher, Christopher
Qureshi, Yasmin
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Rosindell, Andrew
Shelbrooke, Alec
Smith, Henry
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Stewart, Bob
Vickers, Martin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Wheeler, Heather
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williamson, Gavin
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mr Rob Wilson
and
Charlotte Leslie
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Danny
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Anderson, Mr David
Andrew, Stuart
Ashworth, Jonathan
Bacon, Mr Richard
Bain, Mr William
Baker, Norman
Baldry, Sir Tony
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barclay, Stephen
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Barwell, Gavin
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Benyon, Richard
Berger, Luciana
Berry, Jake
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brake, rh Tom
Brazier, Mr Julian
Brennan, Kevin
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, Fiona
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burnham, rh Andy
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Cable, rh Vince
Cameron, rh Mr David
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Gregory
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Caton, Martin
Champion, Sarah
Chapman, Jenny
Clark, rh Greg
Clegg, rh Mr Nick
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Davey, rh Mr Edward
David, Wayne
Davidson, Mr Ian
Davies, Geraint
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobson, rh Frank
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doughty, Stephen
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Dromey, Jack
Duddridge, James
Dugher, Michael
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Evans, Graham
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Farrelly, Paul
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, Lynne
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fovargue, Yvonne
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Fuller, Richard
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gauke, Mr David
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodman, Helen
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gove, rh Michael
Grant, Mrs Helen
Grayling, rh Chris
Greatrex, Tom
Green, rh Damian
Green, Kate
Greening, rh Justine
Greenwood, Lilian
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffith, Nia
Gummer, Ben
Gwynne, Andrew
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hague, rh Mr William
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hands, Greg
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harper, Mr Mark
Harris, Rebecca
Harris, Mr Tom
Harvey, Sir Nick
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Hendrick, Mark
Herbert, rh Nick
Hermon, Lady
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hinds, Damian
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Howell, John
Hunt, Tristram
Huppert, Dr Julian
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
James, Margot
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Graham
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Dame Tessa
Kawczynski, Daniel
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Kennedy, rh Mr Charles
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lancaster, Mark
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Lavery, Ian
Laws, rh Mr David
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lee, Jessica
Leigh, Mr Edward
Leslie, Chris
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewell-Buck, Emma
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Dr Julian
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lloyd, Stephen
Lord, Jonathan
Luff, Peter
Macleod, Mary
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr Gordon
Maude, rh Mr Francis
May, rh Mrs Theresa
McCabe, Steve
McCarthy, Kerry
McCartney, Jason
McClymont, Gregg
McCrea, Dr William
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonald, Andy
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Menzies, Mark
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, rh Maria
Milton, Anne
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morden, Jessica
Morgan, Nicky
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mosley, Stephen
Munn, Meg
Munt, Tessa
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
O'Donnell, Fiona
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Onwurah, Chi
Opperman, Guy
Osborne, rh Mr George
Osborne, Sandra
Ottaway, Richard
Paice, rh Sir James
Paisley, Ian
Pearce, Teresa
Penning, Mike
Percy, Andrew
Perkins, Toby
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Phillipson, Bridget
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Pound, Stephen
Randall, rh Mr John
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Reevell, Simon
Reid, Mr Alan
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, rh Hugh
Robertson, John
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Rudd, Amber
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sawford, Andy
Seabeck, Alison
Selous, Andrew
Shannon, Jim
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Simpson, David
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Julian
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Smith, Sir Robert
Soubry, Anna
Stephenson, Andrew
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Stunell, rh Andrew
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Swales, Ian
Swinson, Jo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornton, Mike
Tomlinson, Justin
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Mr Andrew
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Stephen
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Uppal, Paul
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vaz, Valerie
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Robin
Walley, Joan
Watkinson, Dame Angela
Watson, Mr Tom
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, Steve
White, Chris
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wood, Mike
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Mr Desmond Swayne
and
Karen Bradley
Question accordingly negatived.
20 May 2013 : Column 1019
20 May 2013 : Column 1020
20 May 2013 : Column 1021
Short title and commencement
Amendment made: 53, page 14, line 17, leave out ‘comes’ and insert
‘and section (Review of civil partnership) come’.—(Maria Miller.)
Bill to be further considered tomorrow.
20 May 2013 : Column 1022
Business without Debate
foreign affairs
That Mr Bob Ainsworth be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Sandra Osborne be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Petition
Bedroom Tax
10.32 pm
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): I am pleased to be able to present the petition on behalf of residents of Scunthorpe on the impact of the bedroom tax, particularly in the light of headlines over the weekend reporting the huge leap in demand for emergency hardship handouts for tenants as a result of this pernicious policy.
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the spare room subsidy or ‘bedroom tax’ is an unjust and immoral tax on the most vulnerable in society.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to abolish this tax.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
20 May 2013 : Column 1023
Marine Management Organisation (Data Accuracy)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nicky Morgan.)
10.33 pm
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab): The establishment of the Marine Management Organisation was deemed at the time to be a sensible approach, although the decision to move to the north-east was one I argued against. The loss of expertise within the organisation was never going to be easy to rebuild overnight, and the use of consultants is expensive and never quite provides the degree of continuity an organisation needs—it loses its embedded knowledge. Good catch data management and information are at the heart of fisheries management, stock assessment, targeted enforcement strategy and the sustainable use of our marine environment. Our national fleet, and the communities and livelihoods they support, depend on them.
When I was contacted by a scalloper in my constituency, Terri Portmann, about her problems making sense of the figures available via the MMO, DEFRA and the EU, it became clear that there was a mismatch that in turn was causing serious problems for those in the industry. For 18 months, we have been trying to understand what the problems are and where they lie so that the industry, hand in hand with officials, can try to make the system work better for everyone. Ms Portmann has, through her own diligence, been pursuing clarification, and I have asked a series of parliamentary questions. Others have also been pressing the Minister on this matter.
Unfortunately, I have encountered a worrying pattern of obfuscation and inaccuracy. The MMO and DEFRA have both offered assurances that everything is fine, but when we have asked for evidence of this, every—and I mean every—request for information made either through a freedom of information request or environmental information regulations has met with time extensions and the need to request internal reviews. There has been constant delay. Every internal review has required that a complaint be made to the Information Commissioner’s Office and, importantly, every complaint so far—more are still pending final outcomes—has been upheld, as a result of which the result the MMO has been ordered to provide information it had previously withheld or to admit that there is no such evidence. I must repeat that final point: no such evidence.
The ICO’s decisions have demonstrated that in every case when requests have been made to substantiate claims made by officials about statistics and management, either there has been no evidence to support the MMO’s position or quite the opposite—there has been evidence only to the contrary. The chief executive officer of the MMO, James Cross, wrote to Ms Portmann in August last year after a meeting at which concerns were raised about the statistics. He wrote:
“As mentioned at the meeting, the systems operated within the MMO, and by the other UK Fisheries Administrations, to collect and process data from fishermen are subject to ongoing external EU inspections on various aspects of their operation. Commission staff, inspectors from the European Fisheries Control Agency, and the EC Court of Auditors have all visited to check on the UK’s compliance with obligations; issues are from time to time raised but these are then rectified as quickly as possible.”
20 May 2013 : Column 1024
All seems fine, but he continues:
“EU scrutiny regarding data reporting systems has included working through from the initial ‘raw’ data on activity right through to the detail reported to the Commission to ensure completeness and accuracy in the capture, processing and final reporting of data. These inspections and the checks built into the systems, in addition to MMO’s own checks and balances, give the team high confidence in the robustness of the system”.
“Great”, we thought, “No need to worry”, but when we asked for sight of all these reports demonstrating the robustness of the statistics, the CEO’s officials eventually had to respond and admit that he was wrong and that no audits of processes and raw data handling had been carried out by any of these organisations. It is of grave concern that the senior official at a non-departmental public body is willing to try to hoodwink stakeholders and does not even know himself whether statistics are fit for purpose. Despite the fact that Ms Portman has written to him and the chair of his board, neither has responded to the assertions made by him.
It may be helpful to outline another specific instance. For some years, the UK has overfished and not reported to the Commission the correct western waters scallop effort figures for some years. From local fisheries officers to the chief executive of the MMO; from directors of departments within the MMO to the chairman of the board; from DEFRA officials through to the Minister himself—all have received assurances that the Commission was fully aware of this and accepted it because of the early “close out” of statistics in the subsequent year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I thank the hon. Lady for giving way on this important issue. She mentioned fisheries, which are an important issue for me as well. In Northern Ireland, fishermen and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s fisheries division have carried out data-gathering exercises in the Irish sea showing that the numbers of white fish and cod fish have increased greatly. Does that not underline her point that the data collection seems right, but that its imposition, and how it might improve the fisheries division, is not carried through?
Alison Seabeck: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He emphasises a point I will make later, which is that because of our concerns about the scallop data, those fishing other species are rightly concerned that the data on which their activity is based are also inaccurate.
Even the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee received assurances from the MMO and DEFRA, through the National Audit Office, that the EC was aware and had sanctioned the statistics. However, documents that the MMO was recently forced to disclose by the Information Commissioner’s office show this to be simply untrue. E-mails from the MMO’s statistical unit to DEFRA officials at the time we started questioning the unreported overfishing state that the EC was not aware of the 2009 overfishing, for example—specifically, that the EC had not been told—and admit that only a 95% uptake was reported, when in reality there was an overfish of 10. Because of overfishing of effort or quota, the UK runs the risk of being fined—as I am sure the Minister is well aware—and facing infraction proceedings.
Although I have been able to identify 2009 as the first year in which that occurred, it appears to have happened in 2010, 2011 and 2012 . We have heard time and again
20 May 2013 : Column 1025
from officials that this is all due to the EC imposing short timescales for monthly and end-of-year close-out. That ought to be a nonsensical claim, as western waters vessels are fitted with e-logs. Landing declarations are made in real time and sales notes are required to be submitted within a week of landing, so how can the UK not meet the monthly close-out targets due by the 15th of the following month or the year-end target of six weeks for the end of year? Indeed, why is the UK still some months behind in some cases? The MMO controls and enforces e-logs and sales notes. There has been no substantial action against vessels or processors in the submitting of data. Despite that, MMO staff have grown in number since 2010, from 190 to 320, so what on earth are all those people doing? Clearly they are not involved in meeting the UK legal requirements for data submission.
DEFRA must also bear a heavy responsibility for the western waters scallop debacle. Documents released by DEFRA show that officials were aware of the effort problem for some years. Indeed, internal DEFRA memos show that the person who eventually took over the western waters job in 2010 questioned why nothing had happened. By then, towards the end of 2010, DEFRA still did not act or, importantly, speak to the industry properly. Through May and June 2011, officials had some meetings and discussions with selected members of the industry, but did not advertise, publicise or engage with this fragmented industry of vessels and processors—the people who did not belong to national associations. By late August 2011, DEFRA had decided a closure was likely. In early September it finally started to make that publicly known and closed the fishery in October. Even the internal e-mails from that period show that, behind the scenes, DEFRA was withholding its full intentions from the industry and even discussing the necessity of further consultation, if only for the appearance of consultation and to avoid criticism later—at least that would be my view.
The easy answer was a realignment of effort. After my meeting with the Minister last May, Ms Portmann wrote to the EC, which suggested that this was a good idea. There was a further meeting with officials, who, it was felt, were not in favour of even trying to get an uplift. As more recently released documents show, that option was being positively considered, yet somewhere along the line they simply changed their minds. Will the Minister say what the basis for that was?
Scallops might be a specific area where the MMO and DEFRA are failing at marine management. However, because of the questionable data trails—this touches on the point made earlier—and the clear attempts to prevent me and other interested parties from gaining access to all the information, we decided to dig elsewhere to see whether the problem was specific to scallops. What we discovered was more of the same—other sections of the industry may want to question the data following this debate. I am sure it is in the interest of both industry and organisations such as the Marine Conservation Society to ensure that we fully understand what is happening, rather than rely on what at times seems little more than guesswork.
We questioned the MMO’s annual report for 2011-12, which was laid before this House. So far, for all the targets listed as “met” that we have questioned—we have asked for sight of evidence that they were indeed
20 May 2013 : Column 1026
met—we have encountered the usual freedom-of-information handling by the MMO and, as a result, MMO complaints. There is no evidence that these targets were all met. In fact, the MMO has been forced to release evidence confirming that they were not all met. The Information Commissioner’s findings question a number of the MMO’s assertions.
There are other targets for which we are still waiting for a response, some months after they have been asked about, and we are also looking for further evidence linked particularly to the business plan that the MMO has produced for 2013-16. We really do not want the MMO to get caught out again. We want the figures that are given to us and placed before Parliament to be factually correct.
Further requests relating to other basic and core functions such as ensuring that licences and variations are issued in accordance with the relevant laws have met with evidence that they are in fact not, and that there is not even guidance in place for staff to follow to ensure compliance. If we add into this pot staff conferences at four-star hotels, a hospitality bill that appears not to meet the suggested standard pricing, and total bills for the hotel alone that were in excess of £80,000, we can see why people in the industry who are struggling are getting angry. I would suggest that in austere times some of those costs should be looked at again.
I find it deeply disturbing that an organisation of which we should be genuinely proud has a culture of promoting secrecy and obfuscation from the top down when challenged by those most affected by its decisions. It is an organisation that goes to great lengths to hide its failings. It is only through the persistence of my constituent, who is in the Gallery tonight, and others in the industry that we have managed to get the necessary information to surface. The Information Commissioner’s Office has also played a key part in this.
I put it to the Minister that the time has come for a full and detailed investigation into the nature of these figures, not least because companies such as that of my constituent are going out of business. Ms Portmann has lost her business, and that is in part due to the fact that there are inaccurate data available, and that people in the industry are not clear about the nature of the effort that they can get or the activity that they can undertake. The Minister really should take this seriously and not continue simply to accept the papers that are put in front of him by officials. This needs to be properly investigated.
10.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon): I shall start by addressing the last point that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) raised—that a very serious allegation. To say that the work of my Department or a part of the DEFRA family has resulted in the failure of a business is one of the most serious accusations that she could possibly make, and it is one that I would refute. I would refute it because the industry is increasing its turnover, as I shall discuss in a moment. I regret that anybody should find themselves in the circumstances that the hon. Lady has described in talking about that business but, to use my words carefully, if such a serious allegation were made outside this House, I would have to seek advice on it.
20 May 2013 : Column 1027
I am not standing here trying to sound as though I am the voice of another organisation or spouting words that I have just been given. I have looked closely into this issue, and as the hon. Lady rightly said I have met her and her constituent. I do not know whether another individual has tied up more time and resources in my Department and the Marine Management Organisation than Ms Portmann, but I can assure the House that that is my impression from discussing this with officials. I recognise the hon. Lady’s commitment and dedication to the country’s fishing industry. She has been a good voice for her constituents on many of these issues. In turn, I am committed to preserving fishing opportunities for this generation and the next through the reform of the common fisheries policy, and to protecting the fish stocks in our seas.
This matter needs to be set in context. We are undergoing a quiet revolution in how we manage our seas, not only through the reform of the common fisheries policy. Part of the uplift in the numbers that the hon. Lady has described is due to the introduction of marine planning, which will have a dramatic effect on her constituency and on many of the businesses that function from it and off it, out at sea.
We are also changing and leading the way in which we deliver marine conservation in Europe. There is great cause for pride in that, but it has huge resource implications for my Department and the MMO. We have created new organisations to regulate and police our seas, not least the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and, yes, the Marine Management Organisation. As the hon. Lady knows, the MMO was formed three years ago, and it is the principal marine fisheries enforcement body in England and acts as the UK authority to co-ordinate and control activities across all four fishing administrations.
I have seen at first hand and take a great interest in how the MMO works. It works with industry and other parts of the Government to achieve pragmatic fisheries management and management of the marine environment. The MMO, like any other regulator, relies on its ability to collate and analyse data so that it can make sound management decisions. It carries out statutory obligations for the UK, which include reporting data to the European Commission on quota uptake and fishing effort. This is a significant task. By working closely with UK fishing administrations, the MMO has dealt with data covering approximately 230,000 vessel landings a year. I say with great respect to the hon. Lady—it is sincere in this case, which it is not always when that line is delivered from this Dispatch Box—that she is receiving information on this issue from one source, whereas I receive it from a lot of other organisations, including businesses within this sector, and I get a very different story.
These landings range from small boats that go out for only a few hours a day to vessels that may be 20 times bigger and are at sea for weeks at a time. Last year, the MMO had to deal with significant challenges to the over-15-metre scallop fishery, one of the UK’s most valuable fishing assets, under the western waters regime. Scalloping is highly profitable for the UK fishing fleet and accounts for about 9% of the total tonnage and value of fish landed by the UK fleet. Much of this activity, as the hon. Lady is well aware, takes place in ICES—International Council for the Exploration
20 May 2013 : Column 1028
of the Sea—area VII, an expanse of sea that extends westwards from the channel around the Irish sea and an area where effort is restricted under the western waters regime.
The profitable nature of this fishery has been increasingly attractive to vessels from all parts of the UK. However, for over-15-metre vessels, the UK has exceeded the limits on fishing effort—that is, days at sea—set under the western waters regime. Such overfishing risks effort penalties, which would be a severe blow to one of the most successful, productive and highest-earning fisheries found in our waters. As a result, a management regime for the area VII fishery has been agreed with the scallop industry and the four UK fisheries administrations who are working together to ensure that activity remains within our effort limits.
On my examination of this matter, I would say that DEFRA staff and MMO staff have worked really hard to keep this fishery open in recent years by helping to find swaps and in being successful in doing so. Yes, the hon. Lady is right that it required us to close the fishery for one period, but it has been a Herculean task to keep it open in the face of the effort limitations that this area has faced.
An industry advisory group has been established, involving catchers and processors of scallops from around the country. Those are key players in this problem. That provides industry with a lead role in taking responsibility for the management of the fishery. The MMO is an important source of information. It provides advice on levels of uptake in the fishery to inform management discussions.
At the same time as the management regime was being established, over-15-metre UK vessels were moving from paper-based reporting to the electronic logbook system, as the hon. Lady rightly stated. Vessel operators have needed to install new on-board equipment and to revise the way in which they record their fishing activity. All the fisheries administrations have had to make corresponding changes in their systems for handling data to deal with the new sources of information. That has been a major change for UK fishermen, given that the paper-based logbook has been largely unchanged for the past 30 years.
Generally fishermen still provide the same information, but the way in which they provide it has changed completely. In respect of data management for the western waters scallop fishery, the MMO has responded to the challenges by working closely with the scalloping sector and other administrations to develop new analytical systems for collected data.
Alison Seabeck: I appreciate that this is a complex issue and that change is always difficult, but does the Minister not share my view that in many respects the MMO has not helped itself by persistently insisting that everything must be done through a freedom of information request, or that we apply to the Information Commissioner? Will he please at least accept that when a member of the industry asks for information, it should not be treated as if it were top secret?
Richard Benyon:
The hon. Lady is right. There are no state secrets here. There is no market-sensitive information, or at any rate very little. I think the hon. Lady would admit, however, that the plethora of FOI requests from
20 May 2013 : Column 1029
her constituent has reached confetti proportions. When they are responded to—as they are—there is a follow-up, and another and another. If that information were vital to the results of information being passed to the European Commission, I would understand.
However, it is true that sometimes it has been found that the MMO has not given exactly the right detail. I am not complacent, and I want everyone in my Department to provide information of a high standard at all times, but let me suggest respectfully that the way in which information has been applied for has rather given the impression that the perfect is the enemy of the good.
The new data processes make use of a key benefit from the electronic logbooks, allowing near real-time monitoring of scalloping effort, and allowing each administration to monitor individual near real-time vessel activity as part of the enforcement of days-at-sea limits. Engagement with the industry has been a priority, and we have sought for it to take responsibility for the management of the fishery. Over the last 18 months, administrations have worked closely with the scallop industry consultation group. A management system has been agreed which sets quarterly days-at-sea limits for vessels affected by the regime. Industry compliance has been strong, and improved significantly throughout 2012 and into 2013.
The use of the monitoring system, supported by a close working relationship between MMO coastal staff and vessel operators, helped to produce circumstances in which no English vessels exceeded their days-at-sea limits for the first quarter of 2013. In 2012, that working relationship allowed the fishery to stay open throughout the year, and virtually all effort available to the UK was used. As I have said, that involved a Herculean effort on the part of a great many people.
Despite effort restrictions, the scalloping sector remains profitable. That is very important. Last year, sales of UK scallop landings reached almost £70 million, an increase from £64 million in 2011 and from £55 million in 2010. Furthermore, last year the over-15-metre fleet fishing in ICES area VII landed more than 27,000 tonnes, worth £29 million, which was a substantial increase on the 14,000 tonnes, worth £17 million, which were landed in 2008. We want this profitable industry to continue to be the success that those figures have proved it to be.
The MMO works collaboratively with the industry and the UK Administrations, setting days-at-sea limits and organising industry-sourced international effort swaps to provide additional effort to the industry. This collaborative approach has helped ensure that the UK
20 May 2013 : Column 1030
scalloping sector has enough effort to remain economically active and profitable all year round. Generally, its efforts have been well received by the industry.
I am aware of the concerns raised by the scalloping sector about time lags and the frustrations these can cause, and the hon. Lady also rightly raised them. Data lags are caused by the need to validate data and conduct quality checks required under European legislation before data are reported to the Commission. The Commission acknowledges these time lags are an inherent part of the control systems that all member states are required to operate. They are caused by the nature and extent of the validation processes that need to take place. Logbook data need to be checked with satellite vehicle monitoring systems data and with other notes. That cannot be done overnight.
However, the House should note that these reports are not used to make management decisions, or to monitor the fishery. As of 2013 and the introduction of electronic logbooks, these decisions are based on real-time data systems that have been developed since the introduction of e-logbooks, which virtually eliminate the impact of data lag for management purposes. I hope that reassures the hon. Lady about the way this issue is moving.
I recognise the immense challenges faced by fishermen and those working in the fishing industry. The hon. Lady raised a point about the accuracy of corporate reporting. As I said earlier, the MMO is three years old. It continues to evolve, striving for better services and, driven by Ministers, to make sure it is as efficient as possible. Transparency and accountability are key to its decisions.
The MMO’s openness to feedback and willingness to address issues are admirable, although we clearly have a problem, and perceptions to all intents and purposes are reality, so I want to address the point she raised. I know that a query was raised against an annexe to the last annual report and accounts which presented an end-of-year status on whether targets were met or were not met. Following feedback, the MMO has recognised the potential for misinterpretation of the information. The MMO will provide a clarification in the next annual report, to be published this summer. In future, it will report with additional granularity against performance measures and key steps delivered during the year.
I can give the hon. Lady, and other Members, every assurance that I will work with them to make sure that concerns are addressed. I have asked DEFRA and MMO officials to pursue compliance through consultation and mutual co-operation.