Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill

Debate between Jake Berry and David Nuttall

Friday 16th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jake Berry]

I have a lot of sympathy with the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), as it sits very closely with my own beliefs. I believe that there is a direct link between praying for things within one’s own religion and things happening in one’s life. I am a Christian and I am proud of it and, in a way, the Bill has given me the opportunity on occasion to bear witness to my own faith and the belief I have in the power of religion in our society.

Although I agree with the sentiments of the new clause, I do not think it should be supported, largely because the Bill is permissive in nature and has sought to encompass the wide group of faiths in our society today. Much of the criticism of the Bill has focused on the fact that people of different faiths or no faith at all would be or would feel discriminated against in the council chamber if prayers were to be held. I do not think that the Bill as drafted could be accused of that, and it was described in Committee, as the Minister has just said, as the gentlest of Bills.

It would be a mistake to single out any particular religion on the face of the Bill. We are a multi-faith society. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough spoke of the different faiths in our society and of how people of all faiths and of none enjoy living in a society that acknowledges and respects their faith, so it would be a mistake to remove from councils the freedom to decide their own business. The entire Bill has been about freedom and the freedom of local authorities to make individual decisions about how they conduct their business.

[Mr Nuttall]

Can we be clear? My hon. Friend refers to taking away the freedom of local authorities to decide these matters, but I do not think that anything in the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) takes away any freedom. If it were to be passed, it would merely require that they keep in mind the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

[Jake Berry]

I thank my hon. Friend and near neighbour in Bury North for raising that point. I understand it, but in a multi-faith society in which all faiths are respected and acknowledged and in which people of no faith are also respected and acknowledged it is important that we do not prefer in legislation one particular faith. He might disagree with that view, but I think that the Bill as drafted is acceptable to people of all faiths and of none and I fear that to start preferring one faith might create division in our council chambers where none needs to exist or should exist.

My hon. Friend mentioned Ms Woodhouse, who objected so strongly to council prayers. If the Bill is enacted, there is a way for her to make her objections heard: she can stand for the local council, get elected, argue in the council chamber that there should not be prayers and win the support of the majority of her colleagues. There will then be no obligation on them to have prayers. If she finds the issue so offensive, that course of action is open to Ms Woodhouse.

Antarctic Bill

Debate between Jake Berry and David Nuttall

Friday 18th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Nuttall]

I give way to my constituency neighbour from Rossendale and Darwen.

[Jake Berry]

Did my hon. Friend consider specifying a longer period than three years? Being a lawyer, like me, he will realise that if an environmental catastrophe was not caused by a third party, things could conceivably still be grinding through the courts after three years. Did he consider having perhaps a six-year period or a rolling cost-benefit analysis? It is not beyond conception that in three years no catastrophe would have happened—we certainly hope it would not—so did he consider other time periods?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I think the answer to that question is simply this: clearly, clause 5 would add to the size of the cost-benefit analysis, but it would not negate the need for such an analysis. Without clause 5, a whole chunk of the analysis would be swept away. As I made clear in my reply to my hon. Friend’s earlier intervention—again, I may be wrong, and he may be able to persuade me and the House that there are very good reasons for getting rid of clause 5—it seems to me that clause 5 goes to the heart of what the Bill is trying to achieve. While it remains part of the Bill—I hope it continues to do so—there will clearly be associated costs for those who have to sit down, carry out these measures and prepare the contingency plans. Sensible as I think that is, it is also sensible for the House to assess whether it is having an adverse effect on those who want to visit Antarctica and carry out their work there. We do not want the Bill to be counter-productive.

There is another matter for the House to reconsider—

[Jake Berry]

Before my hon. Friend moves on to that other matter, I would like to put a point to him. There has been some discussion about the necessity of clause 5, which is at the heart of protecting this pristine environment. Times move on. I remember my grandfather telling me how he used to have snowball fights with asbestos fibre and think it was a good thing to do. Given that times move on, would not the cost-benefit analysis provide us with the ability to revisit clause 5 to ensure that we have the strongest possible protection for this pristine environment, to look at the effect of modern technologies and to update the provisions where it was felt necessary?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is not just about whether the Bill is being too effective in the sense of putting people off visiting; it is also about whether it is effective enough in protecting the environment. Indeed, my hon. Friend has presciently looked at my next point. One measure in the Bill is the exclusion of fishing for profit. By virtue of clause 9(3)(a),

“the activity of fishing for profit”

is specifically excluded. A review would give us the opportunity to reconsider that matter and decide whether it is right to exclude it. Under clause 9(3)(b), the

“activities carried out…on a vessel or aircraft travelling to an immediate destination outside Antarctica”

are similarly excluded. I am sure there are very good reasons for these exclusions, but bearing in mind the tenor of the debate, I find it odd that they should continue to be in the Bill.

[Jake Berry]

My hon. Friend has identified a key issue. Fishing for profit does not, of course, cover all fishing activities: the Japanese whaling fleet, for instance, fishes for “scientific purposes”—if we believe that. I wonder whether a blanket exclusion of all fishing, whether for scientific purposes or for profit, would provide more protection. Perhaps when we return to the matter in three years’ time we could consider updating the provision if the position changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Berry]

My hon. Friend talks about the unintended consequences of the 1994 Act. That point highlights why we should discuss this amendment in some detail, in order to ensure that historic monuments are protected. Does he agree that if a cost-benefit analysis of the 1994 Act provisions had been conducted, we might have avoided the need for this amendment as we might have changed the legislation in good time, thus ensuring that we could preserve our historic monuments in the Antarctic?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point that supports both my new clause 1 in proposing that a cost-benefit analysis be conducted, and my point about having a review. Section 10 of the 1994 Act did not work as intended. We found that in practice it was counter-productive and had unintended consequences. The historic huts, which are enormously important in the history of our nation, could not be protected as intended.

Scott’s hut at Cape Evans was abandoned in 1917. However, there are, of course, consistently sub-zero temperatures there. We can get some idea of what that might be like by simply stepping outside this morning; it was, perhaps, appropriate that it was snowing when I walked into the House today. Because of those sub-zero temperatures, the hut’s contents are remarkably well-preserved even to this day. The hut remained untouched until 1956 when American explorers excavated it from the snow and ice. Although, sadly, some items were removed—perhaps as mementoes—most of the artefacts remain in place. At various times since the 1970s the United Kingdom and our friends in New Zealand have undertaken to restore the hut. Unfortunately, however, bacterial decay is still occurring and there are concerns that the fabric of the hut is being affected by fungal decay. Both Scott’s hut and Shackleton’s hut are included on the watch list of the 100 most endangered world monuments.

There is evidence that these huts need to be repaired. As I have said, they are not all in British Antarctica; they are spread over the entire Antarctic continent. Permits need to be granted, therefore. I am grateful that my amendments have been selected, and I hope I have persuaded the House to agree to them.