Assisted Dying

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Nick Boles

Thursday 4th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

I do not think that I have ever had a more intelligent set of interventions, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for another one. There has been change, but I do not want to pretend that the change has gone far enough, which is why we are not proposing, at this point, to bring forward a new set of legal measures.

Perhaps the most significant change is in the opinion of the medical profession. We have seen a number of royal colleges move from having a formal position of opposing assisted dying to having a position of being neutral about it, which reflects the fact that they will always have some members who are very much opposed to it, but they now have an increasing number of physicians who are in favour of it.

We have seen not so much a change as a consolidation of public opinion on this issue. In the latest opinion poll, which, frankly, is not very different from any of the opinion polls over the past couple of years, more than 80% of the British public support an assisted dying law for people in the final six months of a terminal illness, and well over 50% of people who declare that they have an active faith take that view. So although Church leaders, apart from the very honourable exception of the former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, are opposed, their flocks are actually finding that they, too, believe that a change in the law is justified.

I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that, before any further proposals come forward, we should study closely the experience in the state of Victoria in Australia, for example. As he will be aware, New Zealand recently passed on Second Reading an assisted dying law, and there is the much longer standing experience of Oregon as well as Canada more recently. We should study all those and look at the precise legal and medical safeguards used to try to devise something that avoids many of the risks that have been raised by other hon. Members.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

I will give way very briefly, but then I must conclude.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). In the Netherlands, the number of physician-assisted deaths is 3.5%, which, in this country, would translate into 21,000 deaths a year. There are about 5,000 suicides a year in this country, of which about 400 are estimated to be people dying at their own hand because they have a terminal illness that they do not want to live with. How can one explain to anyone else the difference between that 300 or 400 and 21,000, which is four times the number of suicides that we have at the moment?

[Nick Boles]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because it allows me to point out that the Netherlands law is a completely different law, and I would vote against it if anyone proposed it in the House of Commons. It is a law to enable people to commit suicide more or less whenever they want. That may work for the Dutch—I have nothing but respect for the Dutch people—but I could not vote for it, and I do not believe that it would get more than 100 votes in this House.

What we are proposing is something that has existed in the state of Oregon in the United States for 20 years, and it has never crept anywhere near being the kind of law that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Yes, of course, there will be much more lax and liberal laws of assisted suicide in other jurisdictions. That is of no relevance at all to the question of whether, in the final six months of a terminal illness, a narrow assisted dying law, with legal and medical safeguards, can operate safely in the United Kingdom, as it does in Canada and in the state of Oregon. I am entirely confident that it can.

Zero-hours Contracts

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Nick Boles

Wednesday 27th May 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

It is a great honour to be speaking at the Dispatch Box on this, the first day of the new Parliament. I suspect that it will be the only time in my life when Her Majesty the Queen has the first word and I the last, although we can agree that her audience was somewhat larger and that she was a great deal better dressed.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on securing this debate on an important subject that thankfully, now that the election has passed, we can shed real light on. We can discover the facts and pursue the examples of bad practice that he outlined. He is right to say that zero-hours contracts are in and of themselves nothing new and that a relatively small proportion of the workforce are on such contracts. He also rightly referred to a recent study by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which found that 60% of zero-hours workers were satisfied with their contracts and 65% of them were happier with their work-life balance because of those contracts. He described a number of situations involving individuals who actually welcomed these contracts because of the flexibility they gave them and the ability they provided to respond to other responsibilities, goals or ambitions that they had in their lives.

However, that should never be an excuse for complacency or for a belief that this is good for everyone and that every employer who makes use of these contracts is doing so responsibly. My hon. Friend gave a number of important examples of abuse. I hope he is pleased to know that one of my first decisions as Minister responsible for employment law was to implement the provision in an Act passed in the previous Parliament by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), that banned exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. Exclusivity clauses did something simply outrageous. The point of a zero-hours contract is that it does not guarantee a specific number of hours of work in any period of time. To then require that the person makes themselves available constantly, waiting for a phone call, preventing them from going out and earning income from other work, is simply outrageous. It was happening, I am glad to say, with a relatively small number and small percentage of zero-hours contracts, but it was quite intolerable and we were right to ban it. I am very glad that we have implemented that ban. We will be making sure that that ban is not simply symbolic but is enforced.

I am happy to look at examples of other abuses. My hon. Friend described very eloquently the case of a young man—the son of one of his constituents—who was called into work, kept on standby and not paid. My hon. Friend speculated that this practice was already illegal. While I do not know the full details of the case, if it is as he described I can reassure him that he is absolutely right—it is already illegal. If his constituent would like to approach him, and he would like to pass on to me the specific details of that employer and that young man, I will be very happy to get HMRC and any other enforcement authority to come down like a ton of bricks on that kind of abuse. It is against the law, it is inhuman, and it must not go on.

My hon. Friend has asked for some further, very specific commitments. He is always cheerful and affable, but he never gives up as a Member of Parliament, as I know both to my cost and my pleasure in my previous role as planning Minister. If, in this Parliament, we see a revolution in the number of people who are able to secure a plot of land to build their own home, it will be very largely thanks to his doggedness on that issue. I have no doubt that he will continue to be as dogged on the issue raised in tonight’s debate.

On my hon. Friend’s first request, without absolutely committing to a working group—because I would want to know what its composition was—I can promise him that I will keep a very close eye on this. I assure him that I have already asked officials to look into other kinds of abuse of zero-hours contracts to explore whether there is something further that we can do to root out such exploitation of working people.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

As a practical solution, would it be possible at some stage, not necessarily tonight, for the Minister’s Department, or for him, to say where people should email or telephone if they have a possible abuse to report, so that there is a central place to collect this information, not necessarily for action on every case but at least to gather it together?

[Nick Boles]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, which was the subject of the third request from my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk. I was going to say that I do not know what the whistleblower arrangements are, but I will undertake to find out tomorrow and make sure that they are better publicised to citizens advice bureaux and to relevant charities that can make sure that people are able to report abuse.

My hon. Friend’s second request, which will give me great pleasure to fulfil, is to work closely with the Minister for Community and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). He is one of the most popular Members of Parliament and former Ministers, who I am delighted to say will now be on the Front Bench again. He is a deeply humane man, and I know that he will want to make sure that the people looking after the most vulnerable in our society are not exploited by their employers.

Leasehold Reform

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Nick Boles

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I feel much safer with you watching over us.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing this debate and on speaking with both passion and persistence on an issue that I know is of great importance to his constituents. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) for his contribution and his persistence in pursuing the matter, which some might view as arcane but is a very real source of worry and distress in many people’s lives.

I am responding to this debate in place of the Housing Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), as he is required to respond to an Opposition day debate on business rates. I may not be able to address all the issues, and if I try to do so, I might not address them as intelligently as he would have done, but I know that he is happy to write to hon. Members to follow up on any issues. Of course, he is also happy to hold the meeting mentioned by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, to which he has already committed.

Residential leasehold is indeed an important and growing housing sector. Many leaseholders, like my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West, are happy with their home, but we recognise that some leaseholders are not. The Housing Minister’s postbag makes that very clear.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse has raised a wide range of issues, and I will attempt to address as many as I can in the time available. I am glad to have been asked how the redress schemes will assist leaseholders and others. Since 2010, the Government have become increasingly aware of the issues in the residential leasehold sector, particularly to do with the quality of service. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 gives the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government the power to require all residential letting agents and property management agents in England to be members of a Government-approved redress scheme. We are making good progress on implementing those powers, and we expect to start approving such schemes early in the new year.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I have a brief technical point that I do not expect the Minister to answer today. In law, a leaseholder is a tenant, but leaseholders are not always counted as tenants, so will he try to check whether the schemes will cover leaseholders, as well as people normally referred to as tenants? Perhaps the Housing Minister can come back to us on that.

[Nick Boles]

My understanding is that it will, but we will certainly write to my hon. Friend to reassure him. I skipped over a sentence that seems to imply that it will be the case, but we will confirm that to all right hon. and hon. Members present.

I want briefly to address the right-to-manage legislation. I must admit that this is the first time I have ever heard about it, so I may not make as much sense as hon. Members deserve. The leasehold right-to-manage legislation is designed to be available to as many private sector leaseholders living in blocks of flats as possible. The right was designed for use on a block-by-block basis. Applying the legislation to estates is complex and might result in the right becoming less, rather than more, accessible. Right-to-manage ballots can be complex and potentially expensive, and the legislation sets out in detail the procedures that all involved must obviously follow and comply with. The provisions aim to protect the interests of all parties, including those of the leaseholders. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Housing Minister will be happy to discuss that further if appropriate.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse mentioned high charges to leaseholders for repairs, insurance and utilities. The law provides leaseholders with a range of important rights to do with service charges, including the right to be consulted, the ability to challenge the reasonableness of charges at independent tribunal and the right to obtain information.

The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) mentioned older and vulnerable leaseholders, who may find it onerous or stressful to attend a tribunal or to exercise their rights. Free initial legal advice is available from the Leasehold Advisory Service—LEASE—which is funded by my Department.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I want to add a tribute to Anthony Essien, the chief executive of LEASE. He and the Master of the Rolls, as the head of the Court of Appeal, would agree that judgments by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal and on appeal need to be trawled through, so that instances of when poor, ordinary people have been frustrated at great cost and worry can be collected. As the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said, the costs pile up and then come back as service charges. More work is needed.

[Nick Boles]

I hope that I will be able to address, at least in part, the question of the ability of property management companies to recover their legal costs from leaseholders, even in cases where the leaseholder is the successful party, by adding them on as service charges for the following year. Whether the landlord can recover his legal costs, and if so, in what way will depend on the terms of the individual lease. Even when a lease does allow the recovery of legal costs as a service charge, the courts and tribunals still have the power to prevent that from happening by issuing what is known as a section 20C—of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985—order, if they judge it appropriate. Of course, to get such an order does require someone to go through the court or tribunal. Each case will be determined on its merits, and independent legal advice should be obtained, but where leaseholders believe that they have grounds to do so, they should consider applying to the court or tribunal for such an order.

I want to address questions about the Office of Fair Trading. There have been several reviews, and I want to ensure that I get the information correct. I am advised that the OFT is carrying out an investigation into property management groups that use associated companies to supply security systems and other services, and I believe that it expects to report on that shortly. The OFT is also undertaking a separate market study of property management, but that is only in the initial stages, so I am unable to say exactly how long it will last or when it will report. I do know, however, that the OFT is seeking views on the scope of the study, which should be provided by January. I am absolutely certain that the Housing Minister will be able to provide more detail when he meets hon. Members.

At the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse asked what is perhaps the most important question, which is whether the Government are saying, “Nothing to see here, move along,” or whether they are recognising the problems and abuses and the fact that, while some steps have been taken, including those in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, other subjects may need examining. I reassure the hon. Gentleman and others that we do understand that there is abuse and that there are vulnerable people who are not best placed to defend themselves. We are open to conversations about ways to improve matters without massively over-complicating systems or adding hugely to the burden on either the taxpayer or leaseholders.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Does the Minister agree that, in addition, the professional standards bodies for surveyors, bankers, barristers and others should review whether the actions of some of their members should lead to reviews of whether professional standards are being met? If someone does something illegal, that is clearly wrong, but someone doing something that is against the public interest should not happen in a profession.

[Nick Boles]

It is certainly the case in other professions that people can be struck off, even if not found guilty of a criminal offence, for breaking the code of that profession. I am sure that every profession will want the public to have full confidence in its professional standards and in its maintenance and enforcement of them.

Question put and agreed to.