Firearms Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Friday 24th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Mullan]

Again, my hon. Friend makes an important point. I welcome the opportunity to clarify that, as he says, the police will have to make new and different decisions in enforcing this legislation. I am pleased to say that a new training and quality assurance package for police firearm licensing teams is being developed, which will contribute to their being able to make those decisions in a reliable and effective way.

It might be helpful if I briefly explained what the components of ammunition are, and how they go together to make a round of ammunition. The components are the gunpowder, used to propel a projectile from a firearm; the primer, which is an explosive compound that ignites the gunpowder, projectile or bullet; and the cartridge case. There are already controls on primers in the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. Section 35 of that Act makes it an offence to sell or purchase primers unless the purchaser is authorised to possess them—for example, by being a registered firearms dealer, or by holding a firearm certificate authorising them to possess ammunition for a firearm.

Controls on the possession of gunpowder are set out in the Explosives Regulations 2014, which state that with certain exceptions, anyone wanting to acquire or keep explosives must hold an explosives certificate issued by the police. The projectiles or bullets and the cartridge case are constructed of inert material, and are not controlled. Frankly, given the nature of those two components and the quantities in which they are made, it would be difficult to control their possession, and there is no wish to do so.

The present situation can make the prosecution of certain cases by the police difficult. Where there is intent to produce ammunition unlawfully, the police may be unable to progress with certain criminal cases if the materials found are not controlled. In view of those concerns, the firearms safety consultation sought views on whether controls on component parts of ammunition remained sufficient, or whether they should be strengthened by making it an offence to possess component parts with intent to assemble unauthorised quantities of ammunition. As I say, intent is vital. A majority of respondents—62% —agreed or strongly agreed that possession of component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacturer unauthorised quantities of complete rounds of ammunition should be made an offence.

Assembly of ammunition requires use of the various component parts, including the restricted and unrestricted components. The new offence will better enable the police to prosecute criminals who are manufacturing ammunition, including in cases in which only some of the component parts are present, provided that intent is shown. It will be a significant step forward in helping the police to tackle gun crime.

This is a small but important Bill. Events such as those in Keyham in August 2021, on Skye in August 2022 and more recently at Epsom College are clear reminders that we cannot afford to be complacent about the risks that firearms present. The Bill will address two identified vulnerabilities in this country’s firearms controls, and it is right that we take action to address them. I very much appreciate the support that it has so far received; I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West feels the same. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Powers of Attorney Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Anna Firth]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has made that point, because I was about to come on to the two other issues with digitisation and why it is so good that we are keeping the paper channel for the time being. One issue is the 8 million-odd people who are not online at all, and the other issue is scams. Even my mother often calls me to run through something that someone has rung her up about or put on the computer. She needs that extra person to say, “That is complete nonsense.” She is lucky that she has family around her to do that, but there are plenty of people in their 80s who do not. I agree with my hon. Friend’s point.

Much has been said—almost everything that could be said—in support of this important Bill, which leaves me to say only, once again, that I am delighted to support it and to see support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is an important change to the legislation that will make a genuine improvement to the lives of my constituents in Southend West and will provide them, I hope, with the peace of mind that they need to ensure that their wishes, values and views will be represented, even when they can no longer make decisions for themselves.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson.

Assisted Dying

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Before I call Tonia Antoniazzi to move the motion, I need to make a short statement about sub judice. I have been advised that there are ongoing cases relating to the subject of today’s debate, which, for the sub judice resolution, have not been waived. All Members must refrain from making reference to any active court cases. The Chair, whether it is me or my successor in the Chair, will call you immediately to order should you seek to raise any individual case. I have to make that point very strongly and clearly.

After the opening speech, it is already apparent that we shall have to confine speeches very rigidly indeed. As a courtesy to all colleagues, given that there will inevitably be some interventions, we had better start from the premise that we will limit all speeches to five minutes only. I am sorry about that, but I wish to accommodate as many people as possible for what is clearly a very important debate. I call Tonia Antoniazzi.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. May I invite any Members who are standing and who have not taken a seat to come and take one if they wish to do so? We do not stand on ceremony on occasions like this; you may well want to sit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. We have heard a lot about quality of life, but who are we to judge what a quality life really is? Is someone who is profoundly disabled without quality? Is someone with profound learning difficulties without quality? Why do we assume that the only lives worth living are those that are perfect or of high quality in the eyes of others?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I fear that we shall never hear the answer to my right hon. Friend. We have to stick to the five-minute limit, and you get injury time only on the first occasion that you give way, I am afraid. That is a message for all Members.

Laboratory Animals: Animal Welfare Act

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I had not intended to speak in this debate; I came to listen. In the light of some of the comments, however, I basically want to ask a question and to put down a caveat.

In the early 1980s, the splendid Bill Annett, who was the driving force behind the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, prevailed on me to become the founding chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for FRAME. It was supported by Professor Michael Balls, an eminent professor at Nottingham University, whose work in the validation of alternatives is probably second to none. Michael went on to become the director of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods.

The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 was taken through the House by, from memory, my right hon. Friend David Mellor, who paid a considerable personal price for his work on that piece of legislation. The Act, when it hit the statute book, was regarded as a benchmark for animals legislation. Well, rather a few years have gone by since then, Mr Pritchard. We thought we were on a roll, but it saddens me to say that far too little progress to validate alternative methods has been made since.

We all want to see zero use of animals in medicine, but for the foreseeable future it is clear that that is not going to happen, for a variety of reasons, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said, because animals are used in experimentation during the creation of medicines for animals. Clearly, that is necessary for the foreseeable future.

I stand to be corrected, but I believe it is also still the case that the licensing of new medical products around the world depends upon the use of animals. Whether that is necessary or not is immaterial, in this context, as it is a fact. If someone wants a licence for a new pharmaceutical entity for use in Japan, the United States or Europe, it is a requirement that it has been tested on animals. Personally, I happen to believe that the science has by far overtaken that necessity. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) referred to work with genomics. It is infinitely more possible now to do in vitro rather than in vivo testing of pharmaceutical products, and we should be moving faster in that direction.

My caveat to those who say, “Ban it now,” is that if we do that, those tests will still have to take place internationally and we would be in danger—I do not think this is a spurious argument—of simply transferring the problem from A to B, and patting ourselves on the back, while finding that the animals are still being used in testing in other countries, under far worse conditions than they are treated in the United Kingdom. Whether we like it or not, the veterinary profession takes a clear view of the work of the named vets in pharmaceutical companies, and I have no reason to suppose that they are anything other than humane and responsible.

My question for the Minister is, how can we use the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, or other animal welfare legislation going through the House, to bring the process up to date, to advance progress towards the abolition of the use of animals in medical experiments and to do that in such a way that we can carry the international community with us? While a ban in the United Kingdom might make us feel good, it is not going to solve the problem. There has to be a global and, most certainly, a European solution, as well as a national one.

Marriage and Civil Partnership: Minimum Age

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Latham]

I have not actually looked at comparative ages in the rest of Europe. However, certainly in Africa and other developing countries, there is a wide range. We ask African countries and anywhere that we send development money to not to allow children to marry, and to set the minimum age at 18. They turn to us and ask why they should listen, because we allow children to marry. That is another very good reason why we should increase the age to 18.

The problem cuts across religions, regions and cultures, and it happens at home in the UK too, in the 21st century. The fact that it is possible to marry at 16 effectively means that child marriage is written into British law, which is held up as a guiding light in legal systems across the world. By not changing it, we give regimes an excuse to say, “What’s good for the British is good for us.”

I previously advocated changing our marriage law to increase the legal age to 18—with no exceptions—through a ten-minute rule Bill. Unfortunately, I had to withdraw it on Second Reading. Among the arguments I made in the House in support of the Bill were those relating to maturity levels, negative social implications, meeting international standards and helping to prevent forced marriages. I will reiterate all those arguments in more detail in this speech, to stress the importance of increasing the legal age of marriage in the UK.

Statistics on marriage among 16 and 17-year-olds are limited, but a limited dataset can be found on the Office for National Statistics website. It shows that 40 boys and 200 girls aged 16 to 17 married an opposite-sex partner in 2014, which is the most recent period for which we have data. Same-sex partners can now also marry at 16, but there is no recorded data on same-sex couples getting married at 16 or 17, which might be because there are so few cases, or none at all, of same-sex couples marrying below 18. The numbers might be relatively low, but the negative impact on the individuals involved in the marriage are large and wide-ranging.

Hon. Members should keep in mind the wider influence that our laws have. Increasing the marriage age in the UK to 18 has been gathering political momentum for some time. It should be noted that in 2017 Parliament considered the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill, which sought to raise the minimum age of consent to marriage or civil partnership to 18 and create an offence of causing a person under 18 to enter into a marriage or civil partnership. Unfortunately, the 2016-17 Session was prorogued and the Bill made no further progress. I attempted to reignite the process with my ten-minute rule Bill, but this failed on Second Reading.

Frustratingly, previous efforts to amend the existing law have been rejected or delayed for a number of reasons. One argument is that the number of people who get married under 18 is so low—and ever decreasing—that it is not worth the legislative time to change the law. However, for those who get married at such a young age, the social impact is enormous, and as we have not legislated for more than a month, we could have fitted it in. The reality is that the largest body of people that this change in the law will protect are not foolish, love-struck teens but vulnerable young women forced into marriages permitted by their own families for a host of social and cultural reasons.

As a nation, we have a moral duty to do everything in our power to reduce the number of forced marriages and close loopholes that make it possible to obtain such marriages by legal means. This relatively simple and straightforward change to the existing law would have a significant impact on young people. Marriage is a major life decision for which children are not emotionally or physically ready. Marriage is intended to be a lifetime commitment and should not be rushed into. Setting the minimum age of marriage at 18 provides an objective, rather than subjective, standard of maturity, which safeguards a child from being married when they are not ready.

I passionately believe that it should be our priority to protect children, and that may mean from themselves as well as from potential dangers from others. The very fact that children of 16 and 17 need the consent of their parents to be married shows that they are not mature enough to make the decisions themselves—they are children. Increasing the age to 18 ensures that teenagers do not recklessly and naively rush into marriage, but it also protects them from the demands of parents who try to push their offspring to marry early. I say this as somebody who believes in marriage; I am not trying to stop marriage, just for those who are too young. In both cases, child marriages suffer from complications that too often end in divorce.

This year marks 101 years of the suffragette movement. We should recall that it was pressure from those brave campaigners that brought about the Age of Marriage Act 1929. Until then there was no defined minimum age, and making it 16 was seen as protecting children. However, 90 years ago, most young people aged 16 would have been working, probably since they were 14, unlike now, in England, where they must stay in either full-time education or training. My own mother started work at 14, so it would not have been unreasonable for her to get married at 16. She did not; she waited until she was 19, which in my view is still too young. However, life has changed. In other words, that was then and this is now, and we need to move with the times. Culture has changed, and so has our commitment to protecting young people—or at least it should have done.

There are a number of negative consequences from marrying at 16 or 17. Research has shown that child marriage is often associated with leaving education early, limited career and vocational opportunities, serious physical and mental health problems, developmental difficulties for the children born to young mothers, and an increased risk of domestic violence. A clear example of that is that if married children drop out of school and fail to finish education and training, they can subsequently be locked into poverty. It is clear that that phenomenon disproportionately affects girls. Child brides in particular are often isolated, with limited opportunities to participate in the development of their wider communities and reach their full potential in modern society. It is difficult for child brides to pursue education, employment or entrepreneurial opportunities. Child marriage therefore hampers efforts to eradicate poverty and achieve sustainable development goals. It leaves young brides at risk of premature school drop-out, sexual activity—often without consent or contraception—and the myriad health-related consequences that accompany teenage pregnancy.

The Campaign for Female Education notes that teenage birth rates are highest where child marriage is most prevalent. When girls become pregnant before their bodies are ready, they are at high risk of complications during pregnancy and childbirth, which endanger the life of both mother and child. Human Rights Watch noted that girls who marry are at higher risk of domestic violence than women who marry as adults. The Campaign for Female Education supports that assertion.

It is interesting to note that, in general, fewer people are getting married at a young age. For marriages of opposite-sex couples, the average age for men marrying in 2015 was 37.5 years and for women it was 35.1 years. People are less likely to settle down quickly when they are young.

There is a far greater focus on education for both men and women now. Quite rightly, ambition and expectation are higher for many young people in the modern day and age. The late teens and early twenties are seen as key development years to study, travel and consider options for the world of work. Historically, women may have got married younger, but in the modern world their education and employment prospects are far greater. Some 37.1% of young women go to university, which did not happen in previous years.

The Campaign for Female Education states that women who are employed reinvest 90% of their earnings in their families, lifting themselves, their children, their siblings and relatives out of poverty. However, when a girl is married as a child, that can often mean the end of her education and impede her ability to become financially independent. The campaign concludes:

“One girl’s potential to lift an entire family, and even a community, out of poverty disappears. This is happening millions of times over. As the inter-generational cycle of poverty continues, youth unemployment and economic instability can lead to migration, conflict and violence.”

Every child bride could have been a doctor, teacher, scientist, entrepreneur or politician even. There is a huge social as well as economic cost to child marriage.

British law should act as a gold standard internationally and reverberate around the world. That should be the case with child marriage. We should be using our influence with other countries to end child marriage. Unfortunately, the UK is out of sync with other western countries and ignores the advice of the international human rights conventions on this issue. The international human rights conventions on women’s rights and on children say that countries should end the practice of enabling child marriage below 18. The UK is violating those commitments. Under the UN sustainable development goals, countries around the world have pledged to end child marriage—any marriage in which one or both spouses are under 18—and we have promised to do that by 2030. Human Rights Watch has asserted that the EU could do more to help to end child marriage, and I understand that the European Parliament is working towards that.

Many countries’ legal systems prevent marriage before the age of 18. I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) that I had not researched the position in Europe, but I have looked at Sweden, the Netherlands and Spain, because they recently reformed their laws on child marriage, as did the US state of Virginia. Similar laws are pending in other US states, but not in this country yet. Other countries permit marriage among the young only for certain groups. For instance, according to the US State Department’s human rights report on Trinidad and Tobago from 2014, the official marriage age is 18 for men and women, but Muslims and Hindus have a separate Marriage Act.

International law is very specific about who should be allowed to marry. If a country wants to permit exceptions to the minimum age of 18, “mature, capable” children are allowed to marry, but only “in exceptional circumstances” at age 16 or older, when

“such decisions are made by a judge based on legitimate exceptional grounds defined by law”

and

“without deference to culture and tradition.”

By allowing 16-year-olds to marry without consent from a judge, the UK is in reality breaking international law. However, the great hypocrisy here is that we ask other countries, in the developing world, to abide by international law and ensure that the legal age of marriage is 18. I believe it is vital that the UK live by the standards that it is keen to advocate for in the developing world.

Following the first Girl Summit in 2014, the Department for International Development allocated up to £39 million over five years to support global efforts to prevent child marriages. There is a vast body of work to do, as globally 15 million girls under 18 are married each year. By its proactive contribution, the UK recognised that child marriages result in early pregnancy and girls facing social isolation, interrupted schooling, limited career and vocational opportunities and an increased risk of domestic violence, so why are we not leading the way by increasing the legal age of marriage in this country?

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

If I get the opportunity, I hope to catch your eye, Mr Bailey, and raise a couple of points, but in the interim, let me ask this. My hon. Friend has referred yet again to teenage pregnancy. Can she clarify whether she is seeking to change both the legal age of marriage and the age of sexual consent, or just the legal age of marriage?

[Mrs Latham]

With my Bill, if I can bring it back after the next Queen’s Speech, I would be looking to change only the age of marriage. I do not think the House would accept changing the legal age at which sex can take place and I think it would be very difficult to stop that—to change that law. Although it might be desirable, I think it would be impossible—just think of all the young people in this country, with hormones racing round their bodies—to stop sex happening. It has happened throughout the ages, and I think that a measure to try to stop it in this day and age would not get through the House. What I want to do is to change the age of marriage, and perhaps that will have some influence in terms of people deciding to keep themselves pure until they get married. That is a hope I have, but I do not know whether it is a reality.

Why are we not leading the way by increasing the legal age of marriage in this country from 16 to 18, which is the recognised age of adulthood? In Bangladesh, which has the second highest absolute number of child marriages in the world—just under 4 million—some lobbyists are said to be using the current UK law as an example of why the legal age of marriage there should be lowered. They are saying, “You allow children to get married. Why shouldn’t we? Why should we listen to you?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I will endeavour to be brief. I have just been doing a quick bit of research while the debate has been taking place. To start, I notice that throughout the European Union—I appreciate that that may not be regarded as a particularly good example at present—the average age of marriage is fixed at 18 legally. That varies in some cases between men and women. In the Nordic countries, for example, the age for males to marry without consent appears to be 18, while for women it can be 16, which tells us something about the problems we are facing in this day and age. That is why I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) about the age of consent. There are those of us who believe, as she clearly does and as I do, that the age of marriage without or even with consent is too young and needs to be raised to 18, but we then have the problem of promoting unmarried sexual relationships, which many of us would not wish to seek to do. There is a dilemma there.

I was running a yard rule over the ages of consent, and they range from 11 in Nigeria up to Portugal at 21, though the age of consent for marriage in Portugal is 18, which presumably makes for some interesting celibate relationships between the ages of 18 and 21. I am not sure how they square that circle, but happily that is not our problem. We are here to discuss the situation that prevails and the situation we would like to see prevail in the United Kingdom.

I have listened to the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Derbyshire and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and I concur with virtually everything they said, but I do not think we are here this morning to preach, and I am not here to sit in judgment on my fellow man or, in this case, more particularly, my fellow woman. Relationships and cultures vary, but we live in a United Kingdom that sets its norms and standards by the wishes of our population, and, in so far as it is possible—I think it is right to use the phrase that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire used—we try to set a gold standard. We seek to do what is right for the young men and women of our country, of whatever colour, class, denomination or creed.

I hope you will permit this, Mr Bailey, but I will digress very slightly. During the debates on same-sex relationships—note that I use the word “relationships”—as a Christian and an Anglican, I apparently heretically raised the proposal that marriage, a word I use advisedly, is a relationship between a man and a woman with a view to procreation and that anything else is a partnership. That is something that prevails not only in the Christian faith, but in many other faiths—probably most. I put forward the suggestion that we should recognise the fundamental difference between a civil union and a faith marriage and that the word “marriage” should be reserved for faith. I would have got rid of registry office weddings and civil unions and had one category of civil partnership, whether heterosexual or same-sex, for everything else. That would have made a much safer definition for everyone, but unhappily we did not go down that road at the time, because that was not the way the political wind or political correctness were going.

While seeking to recognise the separation between the age of consent and marriage, or civil union—in this context, I will use “civil union” from now on—it seems to me that one of the duties we have is to protect young people from predatory older adults of whatever sex. I can just about remember when I was 16. I suspect I was fairly vulnerable; I suspect most of us were and I suspect that young people today still are, in the main, in the United Kingdom, which is what we are talking about.

I understand the culture of arranged marriages, but that is not what we practise in our culture. I do not think they are advisable or desirable, but if such marriages are going to take place and that is the nature of the culture, I see no reason whatever why even an arranged marriage should not be arranged at 18, rather than 16. I take the point that has been made that 18 ought to allow a child to have a childhood, an education and a degree of maturity, whether male or female, before entering into what for some of us is the most sacred of unions. By the way, I speak as a hypocrite, because I am a divorced married man. I am happily married now, but I have to concede that my “till death us do part” vows did not hold. I want to set the record straight on that. I am unable, in the terms of my faith, to marry the lady whom I love and live with in a Christian church because technically, in the eyes of the Lord, I am still married.

Although I support the motion, I want to put down one caveat, which is that comparisons with other continents are dangerous. I have worked as an international election observer in many countries for some years, but particularly throughout the continent of Africa, where the voting age is 18, as it is in most countries. I recall very vividly challenging a young lady about her voting intention as she was queueing to vote. I asked her to produce a card, which she did. She had an ID card that claimed she was over 18. Well, that young lady was certainly not a day over 13, but she was carrying a baby on her back, and it was her baby. It was borne in upon me by local people that although this young lady was probably well under 18, sadly, in the terms of that particular country, where the average lifespan for a young woman is still probably only about 35, she was actually nearly halfway through her life.

If we look at it from that point of view, to suggest that that union, inside or outside of marriage, should not have taken place, becomes ridiculous. We have to recognise that while we may set an example and want to raise the bar ourselves and say, “This is what is right for our young people,” it ill behoves us to go to far-flung places to try to tell other people in other countries with other cultures and, sadly, other life expectancies, how to live.

[Mrs Latham]

I understand what my right hon. Friend says, but the girl is a child. If he thinks she was only 13, she must have been pregnant when she was 12. Whatever the culture of the country, it is a terrible burden for her, however long her life will be. She could have had the child at that age as a result of rape. She probably was not married. If she was married, it was probably a forced marriage. I cannot agree with his point, because that girl should never have had a child at that age. Whether she lives to 35 or 95, it matters not; her body is not ready for it. I fundamentally disagree with the point that he has made.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I knew it would be a point of disagreement; it was fairly inevitable. That is why I said carefully that I do not think we can come here and preach this morning. Secondly, while we are entitled to set our own gold standards and yardsticks, we should not seek to impose them on other people in other countries with other cultures. We can set an example and help to raise standards of living and life expectancy in other countries through our aid programmes and in other ways, but we cannot tell them what they should do.

The reality on the ground is precisely the reality that my hon. Friend conceded when she said we could not fix the age of marriage in this country to the age of consent. We have to live with the reality internationally. The reality in this country can well be marriage at 18, and in my view and my hon. Friend’s view, it should be, but to say that we are going to stand like Canute at the waves’ side and tell the tide to go away is nonsense. Realistically, politically and practicably, we will not be able to raise the age of consent. It simply will not happen.

There is an incompatibility between the age of consent argument and what we are proposing, which I endorse: the age of marriage at 18. I would prefer people to be married or in a formal, legal civil union before they have children, but in reality that is not the case. With those caveats, I am pleased to support my hon. Friend’s motion.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I welcome the Minister to his place and congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on securing this important debate. I thank Members for their valuable contributions today. The hon. Lady argued for raising the minimum age for marriage and civil partnerships, which I will respond to, but first I will lay out the current position.

The current law in England and Wales states that the minimum age for marriage or civil partnership without parental consent is 18. The number of 16 and 17-year-olds who married in 2016 stood at just 179, so the number of young people deciding to get married with their parents’ consent before they turn 18 is a relatively small group. But we must ensure that access to marriage and civil partnership is equal. The introduction of the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Act 2019, which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) worked so hard to secure, extended civil partnerships in England and Wales to non-same sex couples. The Labour party has a proud history of establishing equality—it introduced the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and equalised the age of consent—and I am very proud that this place introduced an equal marriage Bill that became law. Now civil partners can convert their partnership to a marriage if they so wish.

The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire has made various arguments for raising the minimum age for marriage and civil partnerships to protect against forced marriage. It is of the utmost importance that we protect vulnerable individuals who are exploited and coerced into a forced marriage. Forced marriage is a vile, dangerous and abhorrent practice, and we must ensure that those who fall victim to it are protected. Sadly, the practice takes place across the UK, and we need to do more to protect the vulnerable and offer them the dignified support that is required to free them from such relationships.

Statistics from the forced marriage unit show that in 2017, where the age was known, 15% of cases involved victims below 16 years of age, and nearly 30% involved those under 18, so the UK Government must do more to ensure that victims of forced marriage are listened to and given the support they require. Those who force vulnerable individuals into marriage—for example, to secure immigration status in the UK—must be challenged. Although I welcome the steps that the Government are taking against forced marriage, including their public consultation into introducing a legal mandatory reporting duty relating to cases of forced marriage, they have been too slow to react and those who are suffering now need urgent help.

I get what the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire says regarding maturity, but if we allow people to join the Army and buy a lottery ticket at 16, and given that Wales is currently consulting on lowering the voting age to 16, we cannot say that they are mature enough to do all of those things, but not mature enough to marry. I know several couples who met in school, married at 16 and have had wonderful married lives together. I also know many people who got married at 40 and within 18 months could not stand the sight of each other.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I think I am absolutely correct in saying that although it is technically possible for somebody to join the Army as a boy soldier at 16, they are not allowed to engage in combat until they are an adult.

[Carolyn Harris]

I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman; I was making the case that they were eligible to join the Army at 16.

Couples can fall out of love at any age; I do not believe that age plays any part in how their future develops. If this debate was about protecting people from forced marriage, I would 100% agree with the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire, and if it was about thousands and thousands of 16-year-olds getting married and then finding themselves getting divorced a few months later, I would also agree, but in reality we are talking about a very small number of young people who decide to get married very young for whatever reason. I remain receptive to the arguments, but I want to see a bigger conversation. Far be it from us to stand in the way of love’s young dream. I cannot honestly say that if my 16-year-old son came to me and said he wanted to get married, I would be best pleased, but I would support his decision and help him and his future partner in any way I could.

I really do appreciate the hon. Lady’s sentiments, but can we truly say that by increasing the age for marriage and civil partnerships to 18 we will stop forced marriage and unwanted pregnancies, and stop people remaining in happy relationships purely because they are 16? Let us have a bigger debate and work collectively to ensure that we protect and offer equality for all.

Pensions Uprating (UK Pensioners Living Overseas)

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on his good fortune in securing this debate. I also congratulate him on his election to officership of the all-party WASPI group. Perhaps in that capacity he will be good enough to write to my constituents who expect me to be at its meeting today to explain why both he and I are here rather than upstairs.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on frozen British pensions, might be surprised that my name is not on the motion. The reason is merely that it is technically flawed, as my hon. Friend the Minister and, I think, the hon. Gentleman recognised. However, that should not be allowed to diminish in any way its thrust, which is very simple. For that reason, I do not want to detain the House for very long.

This is about an injustice that was perpetrated just post-war and has continued ever since under successive Governments. The point has been made, but let us make it again: it is absurd that a pensioner living in Canada on one side of the Niagara falls has a frozen pension, while a pensioner living in the United States, 500 yards or so away on the other side of the river, does not have a frozen pension. There is no equity, no sense and no logic in that whatsoever.

It has been said, slightly incorrectly, that a lot of these people have paid national insurance contributions and should therefore be getting their pensions. We all need to recognise that national insurance is not a funded pension scheme. Unlike a private pension scheme, which is fully funded, NI is not—it contributes to a number of benefits. Nevertheless, throughout their working lives, very many of these now-elderly people who are being shoddily treated have not only paid national insurance contributions but paid their taxes to the United Kingdom, served the United Kingdom, and, in some cases, served the United Kingdom in the armed forces. If, in retirement, having paid their dues all their working lives, they wish then to join friends or family in another country, why should they not be able to do so and take their pensions with them?

As we have heard, there is another restriction on movement. A significant number of Commonwealth immigrants who came to the United Kingdom in the 1950s and 1960s, became established here, worked here, regard themselves as British and have paid their dues all their working lives, would like now, in old age, to return to the Caribbean, for example, but feel that they are being prevented from doing so because they are afraid that their pensions will be frozen and they will not be able to afford to live in the country of their birth. I believe that is morally wrong.

Another downside to all this is that we are in danger of generating a cadre of pensioners who will be coming back to the United Kingdom, like the 90-year-old in Canada who may have to abandon his partner who has dementia and come back here because he cannot afford to live. If they do so, there will be a cost to our health services and our social services. That needs to be taken into account by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury.

On expats living particularly in France and Spain but throughout the European Union, one potentially very serious issue has been touched on but skated over. If—I hope we do not—the United Kingdom votes to leave the European Union, there is no guarantee that those pensioners will continue to have their pensions uprated. Following the cessation of the winter fuel payment, on the slightly spurious grounds that Guadeloupe, Martinique and one or two other places are part of metropolitan France and that it is therefore appropriate to remove that benefit from those living there, a lot of these pensioners are not, as is popularly described, rich retirees living on yachts in the Mediterranean drinking gin; they are struggling. They will come home, because they will not have anywhere else to go. I suspect that the trickle of people doing so will turn into a torrent if we leave the European Union. It is no good the Brexit people saying we will negotiate unilateral agreements. With 27 countries? Okay, it may be mainly France and Spain, but we would also have to consider Italy, Greece and some of the other 26 member states dotted around the European Union. It is a very real issue that the DWP and the Treasury will have to face.

The all-party group recognises the very real difficulties involved in resolving a problem that has been allowed to build up over many years. With great respect to my hon. Friend the Minister, it is facile to say that successive Governments have done this. Successive Governments have, but successive Governments have been wrong, and it is time we put the injustice right. There has to be a way of addressing the issue.

John Markham, Jim Tilley and others from the International Consortium of British Pensioners have met the Cabinet Office and proposed what I believe to be a sensible solution. I understand entirely that the Treasury is very afraid—this is not a DWP issue, really—that if an inch is given, a mile will be taken in the law courts by people who will seek recompense for the last 40 years. That, of course, could add up to a considerable amount of money. We have to move forward, however. We cannot honourably stay where we are, so John Markham and his colleagues, along with the all-party group, have suggested to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that there should be an uprating based on receipt of today’s pensions. If somebody had their pension frozen 20 years ago when they left the United Kingdom, and many have, they would be uprated at that figure, not at today’s figure. That would be a pittance—a pitiful sum of money—but it would be a step in the right direction. Gradually, over time, it would resolve the problem and we would accept the principle that those pensions should be uprated in line with inflation year on year, which is the right principle.

Following receipt of John Markham’s paper, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has looked at it and construed that more information is needed. That I accept. The pensioners are not expert in all these matters, although they are pretty good. My understanding is that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been in touch with John Markham and referred the matter back to him. He is now assembling the further information that is required to enable the Office for Budget Responsibility to consider the matter.

The DWP, the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister all have to recognise this. If we do not address the problem, there will certainly be a moral cost, because we are wrong. There will also be a financial cost, on two fronts, because pensioners who cannot afford to live overseas will come home and pensioners who want to retire overseas will not go. At the end of the day, that will be a cost to the social services budget.

When my hon. Friend comes to respond, if he is granted the leave of the House to do so—I assume that he will be—I would like him simply to say that he recognises the problem, and that he understands that there has to be a way forward. There has to be a solution. I mean no disrespect to him, but I suspect that this is slightly above his pay grade; it is certainly above mine. I want this Conservative Government to have the pride and the courage to give people who are in retirement overseas the dignity that they deserve.

West London Coroner’s Court

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Before I call Mr Berry to move the next motion, I want to make it plain that it is neither my intention nor my desire to curtail debate. However, I have to advise colleagues that inquests, which are the subject of the House’s sub judice resolution, may not be referred to directly in this or, indeed, any other debate. Investigations that are under way by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office are not subject to the sub judice resolution, but I ask Members to exercise good sense in referring to such investigations. I will be as tolerant as I can, but I may have to draw the line. Looking at the number of Members present, I would be grateful if speakers apart from the opening speaker would curtail their remarks to no more than about three to four minutes.

Sentencing (Cruelty to Pets)

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Ordinarily, Mr Knight, it would not be proper to call a Member who has not heard the opening speech, but I will make an exception, because you took the trouble to write to Mr Speaker. Put that down as a marker for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Once I call the Front Benchers, that will in effect be the end of Back-Bench contributions to the debate. Ms Solloway, do you wish to speak?

[Amanda Solloway]

No.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

That is fine. I wanted to be certain, so that you were not prevented from making a contribution if you wanted to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I declare an interest, as my wife is a magistrate. Occasionally, she comes home in tears of frustration, because she and her colleagues have not been given the powers to enable them to do the job in the way in which they wish to do it. Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider extending sentencing powers so that they can take some of the waiting and the queues out of justice in future?

[Damian Green]

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the queues, as he put it, in Crown courts in particular are coming down. We will consider the proposal from the Magistrates Association and others to increase the maximum sentencing length, but that has to be considered along with many other reforms that are needed to improve the process of justice throughout the criminal justice system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

The right hon. Gentleman is a distinguished former telecoms Minister, so I take what he says very seriously. I was at the launch of the Policy Exchange pamphlet, but I do not agree with him. I think that it is right that we have a superfast broadband commitment of 90% by 2015, which is realistic and achievable.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

A considerable amount of money is being released from the sale of spectrum for reinvestment in broadband. Superfast broadband is important to business, but surely rural areas should also benefit. Is 2 megabits really too much to ask?

[Mr Vaizey]

No, 2 megabits is not too much to ask, which is why we will deliver 2 megabits to the last 10%.