Gay Marriage 'To Be Made Legal In Britain By 2015'

The coalition is to push ahead with plans for gay marriage following the personal intervention of David Cameron.

Liberal Democrat Lynne Featherstone will today unveil plans to legislate to bring in gay marriage before 2015.

The Equalities Minister will also announce that Britain should be a ‘world leader for gay rights’.












For whom the bells toll: David Cameron is backing legislation to legislate gay marriage.

Vowing to be a personal ‘champion for gay rights’, Miss Featherstone will risk controversy by arguing that the Coalition should go even further in future.

At present, gays and lesbians are allowed to enter civil partnerships, which offer most of the legal protections of marriage. But the term ‘marriage’ is not used.

Miss Featherstone will announce that a consultation will begin next March on allowing homosexuals to get married. A change in the law will follow the consultation.

Under the plans, same-sex couples will be able to have full marriages in registry offices, as heterosexual couples can.

But they will still be barred from getting married in churches and other religious buildings – even though some denominations want to offer the services. Coalition sources said ministers are determined to enact the change before the next election.

Downing Street made it clear that the Prime Minister had taken a strong personal interest in the move, and had insisted that progress be speeded up.

Under changes announced earlier this year, churches and other religious buildings will soon be able to host civil partnerships for the first time – although they will not be forced to do so.

The new move will be announced by Miss Featherstone, a divorced mother of two daughters, in a speech to the Lib Dem party conference in Birmingham today.


















Advocate: Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone.

She will say: ‘While on my travels as a champion for women’s rights, I am and will be a champion for gay rights too.

‘Britain must not get complacent. We are a world leader for gay rights, but there is still more that we must do.

‘In March, this Government will begin a formal consultation on how to implement equal civil marriage for same sex couples.

‘And this would allow us to make any legislative changes necessary by the end of this Parliament.

‘Civil partnerships were a welcome first step – but this party rejects prejudice and discrimination in all its forms.

‘And I believe that to deny one group of people the same opportunities offered to another is not only discrimination, but is not fair.’

Polls have shown that two-thirds of the public would support gay marriage.













Gay men could soon be allowed to marry in Britain as of 2015.

But Miss Featherstone’s emphasis on further steps will unsettle some Tories who backed Mr Cameron’s pledge to make the Government the most family-friendly in history.

The Coalition has pledged to consult on gay marriage on at least two occasions, but the lack of progress has forced Mr Cameron to intervene.

A Number 10 source said: ‘He was very keen to press ahead on this. This is something that the Prime Minister has taken a strong personal interest in.’

Last night Ben Summerskill, chief executive of gay rights group Stonewall, said: ‘This change will make a difference to a number of gay people who are concerned at the differing status of civil partnerships and marriage.

‘But it will not apply to churches and it seems unfair as a matter of religious freedom that if some denominations – such as the Quakers – wish to celebrate same-sex marriages, they should be barred from doing so.’

Former Tory Cabinet Minister Lord Tebbit expressed concerns about the Government’s enthusiasm for gay marriage.

He said: ‘I would have thought there were other priorities at a time like this.

There can be no such thing as gay marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.’

Cameron Is Railroading His NHS Bill Through Parliament

After a political fix with Nick Clegg, Cameron is denying MPs their constitutional role to scrutinise this waste-ridden legislation.












David Cameron and Nick Clegg meet nurses and doctors at Guys Hospital in London.

After a politically turbulent summer, coalition MPs might have been hoping for a quiet first week back in Westminster. But as Save the NHS protests and vigils are held across the country, the House of Commons begins two days of crucial debates on the hugely unpopular health and social care bill.

Despite the unprecedented pause and the NHS Future Forum's demolition job of the bill, the chorus of criticism has grown again as doctors, nurses, patient groups and health experts have digested the detail of the reorganised reorganisation and concluded that the government is failing to properly safeguard the NHS.

During and after the so-called listening exercise, David Cameron made much of his willingness to pause, listen and reflect. Nick Clegg, meanwhile, boasted of major concessions to the original plans – plans he himself had signed off last year. In reality, what happened in June was a political fix, more concerned with the future health of the coalition than the future of the NHS, and a fix that has acted as a smokescreen around the detail of the repackaged bill.

The changes to the bill have left it more complex, more costly and less likely to help the NHS change to meet the financial and service challenges it faces. Meanwhile, many essential elements of the long-term Tory agenda – to break up the NHS and set it up as full-scale market – remain in place and need further challenge.

The revised bill will mean more bureaucracy, more complexity, more cost and more waste. It creates at least five new national bodies to manage the NHS, centralising power into unelected bodies. Having promised to "abolish the bureaucracy", the government is trebling the number of statutory commissioning bodies from 163 to over 500.

The scale of change reflects the Tories' long-term plan to set up the NHS as a full-scale market and break up the NHS as a national public service, with patients seeing the services on which they depend subject to the lottery of where they live.

The government's response to the NHS Future Forum promised that the role of the secretary of state in providing the health service, established since 1946, would be restored. However the key wording of the founding act is still changed. Legal analysis commissioned by 38 Degrees confirms what Labour has argued: that the national duties of provision will be weakened and broken up.

Monitor, meanwhile, remains an economic regulator with the power to enforce competition law, fine hospitals 10% of their turnover, or direct commissioners to open up all services to competitive tender.

Far from getting on with real reform in the NHS, we have had a wasted year of chaos and confusion, which is set to drag on as the government forces through the biggest reorganisation in NHS history. £850m will be spent on redundancies, while 2% of PCTs' budgets, almost £2bn, is being held back from patient care to cover the costs and risks of the reorganisation.

All of this is taking place at a time when NHS finances are being squeezed and when all efforts should be dedicated to making sound efficiencies and improving services. It is high cost and high risk, and Labour continues to believe that many of the changes the NHS must make could largely be achieved without legislation and huge internal reorganisation.

Having done his political fix with Clegg, Cameron is now railroading his bill through parliament with a procedural fix. Limited time for debate and the lack of a new impact assessment means that MPs are being denied their constitutional role to properly scrutinise his plans for the NHS. They are being asked to judge the recommitted bill and over 1,100 amendments in rapid time and without the full facts at their disposal. By rushing the parliamentary process, David Cameron is forcing through bad legislation that will lead to more waste, cost and confusion in the NHS.

Rescued 'Slave' Criticises Police Raid At Bedfordshire Caravan Site

Man helped from Travellers' site brands Leighton Buzzard arrests 'rubbish' as nine men refuse to help investigation












Police guard the Greenacre caravan site in Leighton Buzzard.

The police investigation into a suspected slave camp at a Travellers' site in Bedfordshire has been challenged after nine of the 24 alleged slaves refused to help police with their inquiries.

One of the nine accused the police of heavy-handed tactics and described the five arrests as "complete rubbish".

Police insist that the four-month undercover operation has broken up an "organised crime group", and were questioning 15 alleged victims, who were being treated for malnutrition and other medical problems.

Police continue to question four men and are looking for two further suspects. One heavily pregnant woman, who is expected to give birth imminently, has been released on bail. No charges have yet been brought.

DCI Sean O'Neil, from the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire major crimes unit, said: "Those people who we continue to help are appreciative of the support that is on offer, but it will take some time to work through with them what has happened."

He said he was confident the operation, called Operation Netwing, had broken up a criminal network.

Police have arrested suspects on slavery and servitude offences under section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act.

"The new legislation has allowed the investigation more scope and takes into account emotional rather than physical harm," O'Neil said. "I am confident that while the investigation is in its early stages this is a family-run 'business' and is an organised crime group that has been broken up by the Netwing operation."

At the well-established Greenacre caravan park in Leighton Buzzard, which has 16 mobile homes, one of the men taken by police, who did not want to be named, said he had been living in a caravan on a Traveller plot for several years, working as a paver and was being paid £50 a day.

"I think it's all a load of rubbish and they just hate Travellers," said the man, who is in his 50s. "Plenty of men who were here wanted to be here and they were getting paid. The police coming in heavy-handed like this is just wrong."

More than 200 police officers raided the site in the early hours of Sunday, aided by a helicopter and dog patrols. Armed officers were also present.

Four men and a woman were arrested on suspicion of slavery offences, while 24 men were taken to a medical centre.

Police said the men had been kept as virtual slaves in appalling conditions, forced to work long hours doing physically demanding jobs without pay.

However, the man told the Guardian he had worked for 15 years with one Traveller family who had provided him with work and accommodation when he had nowhere else to go. After refusing to answer police questions he made his way back to the site.

He said: "The police told me I couldn't come back but I told them it was my home and if I wanted to go back I would go back."

Speaking at the door of her mobile home, one woman – who said she was the wife of one of the arrested men but did not want to be named – said the police claims were "ridiculous".

She added: "The men who were taken were getting paid £30 a day, they had somewhere to live, this is all a load of nonsense."

Police claimed the suspects lured vulnerable men from dole queues and homeless shelters to work at the site. But the woman said they came voluntarily because they knew Travellers would give work to men down on their luck.

"Isn't it better that they have a roof over their head?" she said. "What are they going to do now – when the police have finished with them they will be homeless. It's up to them how they kept their homes, but they could come and go whenever they pleased."

She accused the police of harbouring prejudices against Travellers. "It's complete lies and they are trying to make Travellers look bad. There are two sides to this story," she said.

A police spokeswoman said the 24 men taken from the site were being offered help: "We are giving help to all of the men, but if they do not want it then obviously we are not forcing them to take it."

Paul Donohoe, spokesman for Anti-Slavery International said that, although he could not comment on the details of this particular case, it was not unusual for victims of slavery to resist help from the authorities.

"We do often see the Stockholm syndrome coming into effect – it is not unusual for people who have been 'rescued' to psychologically identify with their enslavers."

Police said on Monday that of the 24 men taken from the site, nine had left the medical reception centre and had chosen not to support the police investigation.

The remaining 15 continue to be assessed for welfare and health needs, and would be interviewed by detectives. Police said it would take a number of days to establish exactly what had happened to them on the site.

Of the men helping police, eight are British, three Polish, one Latvian and one Lithuanian, with two men of unconfirmed nationality.

The youngest person to be found on site was 17. Police said he has rejoined his family.

Autumn Of Strikes Edges Closer

Unions have moved closer to an autumn of strikes as the Government was warned it faces a huge campaign of civil disobedience over spending cuts and "attacks" on workers' rights.













Millions of public sector workers could be taking industrial action in protest at planned changes to their pensions, possibly on November 29, when the Government announces its autumn financial statement.

An announcement could made within days of widespread ballots for action, heralding the biggest outbreak of industrial unrest for decades.

Plans to co-ordinate industrial action will be discussed at the TUC on Wednesday, but sources said a large number of unions were now moving towards balloting for strikes.

At the conference on Monday, delegates agreed to consider a legal challenge against the coalition, alleging breaches of international labour law, and to campaign against "anti-union" legislation.

Officials lined up to attack the Government over its spending cuts and moves to strengthen laws against strikes and other forms of union action.

Paul Kenny, leader of the GMB union, said that if the Government brings in more laws, it would be in response to strikes against public sector pensions, which he warned looked set to be joined by millions of workers.

He said: "Bad laws have to be broken. Civil disobedience in protest at erosion of civil liberties and freedoms have a place in our history. Millions of people inside and outside of trade unions can and will fight. If going to prison is the price to pay for standing up to bad laws, then so be it.

"We will give politicians the biggest campaign of civil disobedience their tiny minds have ever seen."

Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, said unions should not "meekly accept" anti-union laws, adding: "If tax avoidance is lawful and unpunished, let's plan for anti-union law avoidance in the same spirit."

Government To Investigate 'West Lothian Question'

Commission will look into long-running complaints about rights of MPs from parts of UK with their own parliaments or assemblies to vote on legislation affecting only England.












The commission will look into complaints about the rights of MPs from parts of the UK with their own parliaments or assemblies to vote on legislation at Westminster affecting only England.
Ministers are to set up an expert inquiry into limiting the voting rights of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs at Westminster, the government has confirmed.

The commission into the so-called West Lothian question will look into long-running complaints about the continuing right of MPs from parts of the UK with their own parliaments or assemblies to vote on legislation affecting only England.

Mark Harper, a junior Cabinet Office minister, said the panel of "non-partisan" academic experts on the constitution, the law and parliament would investigate how England-only laws are handled by both the Commons and the Lords, now that there are devolved legislatures in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast.

Backbench MPs in the main UK parties have stepped up their complaints about the anomaly at Westminster where Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can still vote on issues such as health, policing and education issues when they are onlyrelevant to England.

Many non-English backbenchers, particularly nationalist MPs in the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, voluntarily often avoid votes on England-only legislation except on controversial measures or on bills which have a significant financial impact on their countries.

Michael Moore, the Scottish secretary, said: "We understand how exercised colleagues in England are but if there was a simple solution to this, it might have been found some years ago but we will endeavour to do this because it has been ignored for a very long time."

The West Lothian question was first posed by Tam Dalyell, then MP for West Lothian during a debate about devolution in 1977.

It is regarded as one of the most serious anomalies of devolution, with control over most major domestic policies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland now solely in the hands of the devolved parliaments and assemblies.

Successive governments have played down its significance because they feared it would play into the hands of nationalist parties by weakening ties to the UK parliament, and diluting the influence of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland at Westminster. It could also accelerate pressure for a more federal structure for the UK.

Even so, the UK government promised to set up a commission on the West Lothian question as part of their coalition agreement in May last year, chiefly under pressure from the Tories. The government had been expecting to make a formal announcement on the commission's remit and membership after the October recess. It will publish the final details about its scope later this year.

UK ministers were forced into an early announcement on Thursday to block a private member's bill from the Tory backbencher Harriett Baldwin, the MP for West Worcestershire, which seeks to limit voting rights at Westminster, and has unexpectedly passed a series of hurdles in the Commons.

Baldwin's bill, which is not supported by the UK government, is due to complete its passage of the Commons on Friday and would then go to the Lords. It would require ministers to state on each bill whether it only affected England, to put non-English MPs under pressure not to vote on it.

Baldwin said she wanted to study Harper's statement before deciding whether she would drop the legislation (territorial extent) bill and allow the issue to be studied by the commission instead.

Harper said the commission would not study the financial impact of devolution because of existing work by Treasury ministers, nor would it question the number of MPs sitting in the Commons. This issue was already being addressed by existing proposals to cut the number of MPs.

"The government is clear that the commission's primary task should be to examine how this house and parliament as a whole can deal most effectively with business that affects England wholly or primarily, when at the same time similar matters in some or all of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are lawfully and democratically the responsibility of the separate parliament or assemblies," Harper said.

Many English backbenchers across all the major parties have been critical of and irritated by the issue. As she unveiled her bill in February, Baldwin said the West Lothian question came from the "heart of middle England".

She told the Commons: "How can it be right for it to be possible for potentially decisive pieces of legislation to be voted on in this place by, and carried by a majority of, members of parliament who are not legislating on behalf of their own constituents? That is not a question that we can carry on parking in that car park for ever."

Tom Harris, the Labour MP for Glasgow South, said he disagreed fundamentally with limiting MPs' voting rights. He said the Conservatives had relied heavily on Northern Irish unionist votes at Westminster for 50 years, even while Northern Ireland had its own legislature.

It was right to do so, he said. "We're a UK parliament. MPs always have responsibilities outside their own constituencies and even outside their nations. MPs vote on issues affecting Libya, for example, and I don't have many Libyans in my constituency."

He said the ability of Scottish or Welsh or Northern Irish MPs to control or influence English policy was overstated. There were far more English MPs than those from other nations or areas: there are currently 533 English constituencies against 59 in Scotland, 40 in Wales and 18 in Northern Ireland.

The UK government's legislation to cut the total number of MPs to 600 for the next general election in 2015 will leave England with between 500 and 502 seats, depending on the size of the electorate in 2015, Scotland with 50 to 52, Wales with 30 and Northern Ireland with 16.

"My bottom line is this: Scotland got devolution because it is a small nation, and it's easily possible for every single Scottish MP to vote one way and be out-voted by a small fraction of English MPs, but Scottish MPs don't decide English issues. You would need every single non-English MP to vote in that direction."

Eddie Bone, chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament, said the issue needed urgently to be addressed as discontent in England about the "imbalance" between Westminster and the devolved areas was increasing rapidly, particularly with the upsurge in support for the Scottish National party.

"If they don't deal with it soon, they will have missed the window of opportunity with the people of England to save the union," Bone said.

Elfyn Llwyd MP, Plaid Cymru's constitution spokesman, said it was time for a federal system: "The problem is that Westminster is trying to do two jobs. It is trying to act as both an England and a UK parliament.

"England deserves to have its own administration to deal with issues which affect England only. This would then ensure that there is a clear distinction between what is a matter for England and what is a matter for other countries too. The lines are too blurred as they are."

Shopkeeper Florist Raid Case: Ministers Plan Overhaul Of Self Defence Laws

Pressure is mounting on the government to speed up new legislation on self defence clarifying the law on self-defence in England in the wake of cases such as those of shopkeeper Cecil Coley












72-year-old shopkeeper Cecil Coley.












Police officers guard a house in Salford after a suspected burglar was stabbed to death during a break-in.












Police officers at the murder scene on Ethel Avenue in Salford.

Ministers are planning to clarify the law on self-defence in England, after a string of cases where home owners have faced prosecution for defending their property.

The arrest of Mr Coley, 72, on suspicion of murder following the death of Gary Mullings, 30, who had broken into his shop in Old Trafford placed the issue back in the national media spotlight.

Last month’s stabbing came just days after the Crown Prosecution Service decided no charges should be brought against householder Peter Flanagan, 59, who was arrested on suspicion of murder after the fatal stabbing of a burglar.

John Bennell, 27, was attacked after he broke into his home in, Pendlebury, Salford, in June.

The incident occurred just a few miles from Mr Coley's store in Old Trafford, Manchester.

The incidents led to calls for the Government to speed up new legislation clarifying the law on self-defence in England.

Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, had earlier said that householders who used “whatever force necessary” against intruders would not be committing a criminal offence .

David Cameron has also promised that the new Justice Bill would "put beyond doubt that home owners and small shopkeepers who use reasonable force to defend themselves or their properties will not be prosecuted".

Under the current law, home owners who use “reasonable force” – which is no more than is absolutely necessary – to protect themselves against intruders should not be prosecuted.

In late June Mr Clarke spelt out the sort of action that would be permitted under the new regime.

He made clear that it would remain illegal to pursue intruders to attack them or to shoot them as they fled.

Speaking about a person’s right to self-defence in their homes, Mr Clarke said there was "constant doubt" about the issue and the proposed legislation would make this "much clearer".

The Justice Secretary said: "It's quite obvious that people are entitled to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves and their homes.

"If an old lady finds she has got an 18 year-old burgling her house and she picks up a kitchen knife and sticks it in him, she has not committed a criminal offence and we will make that clear.

“We will make it quite clear you can hit the burglar with the poker if he's in the house and you have a perfect defence when you do so."

He added: “We all know what we mean when we say a person has an absolute right to defend themselves and their home and reasonable force.

"Nobody should prosecute and nobody should ever convict anybody who takes those steps."

Labour said the law was "already clear" and the remarks were a "smokescreen" to hide confusion over sentencing changes.

Nadine Dorries' Abortion Proposals Heavily Defeated In Commons

Abortion amendment that bids to strip termination providers of their counselling role loses by 250 votes with supporters divided












Nadine Dorries debates plans to bar abortion providers from giving advice to pregnant women.

An attempt to strip abortion providers of their role in counselling women was heavily defeated in the House of Commons this afternoon after a split between the original supporters of the amendment.

MPs voted by 368 votes to 118 – a majority of 250 – to reject the amendment by the Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries after she lost the support of her co-sponsor, the former Labour minister Frank Field.

Dorries managed to win the support of three cabinet ministers – Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland secretary.

Field withdrew his support for the Dorries amendment after Anne Milton, the health minister, said the government would try to implement the spirit of her proposal.

Milton told MPs: "The government is … supportive of the spirit of these amendments and we intend to bring forward proposals for regulations accordingly, but after consultation. Primary legislation is not only unnecessary but would deprive parliament of the opportunity to consider the detail of how this service would develop and evolve."

Dorries hailed Milton's undertaking as a victory. She told the BBC's Norman Smith: "We lost the battle but we have won the war."

Milton distanced the government from the amendment towards the end of a stratchy debate in which Dorries said that David Cameron had initially encouraged her.

Dorries claimed that the prime minister had advised her on the wording of her amendment by saying that she should describe abortion counsellors as independent.

Dorries said: "I went to see the prime minister regarding this amendment and he was very encouraging. In fact it was at the prime minister's insistence that I inserted the word 'independent'. I attended a meeting at the department of health and at that meeting it was decided what the outcome, the process that would be implemented, to make this a reality."

The Dorries amendment would have stripped non-statutory abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and Bpas from offering counselling to women. This was designed to provide greater opportunities for independent counsellors, some of whom are influenced by pro-life groups, to provide counselling. NHS abortion providers would still be free to offer counselling.

Dorries claimed that the prime minister changed his mind under pressure from Nick Clegg, after the deputy prime minister was lobbied by the former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris. Dorries said: "Basically the Liberal Democrats, in fact a former MP who lost his seat in this place, is blackmailing our prime minister. Our prime minister has been put in an impossible position regarding this amendment. Our health bill has been held to ransom by a former Liberal Democrat MP."

A senior Lib Dem source dismissed her allegation. The source said: "That is utter rubbish. [Nick] doesn't need Evan to tell him the problems with her amendment."

The defeat was welcomed by Bpas. Ann Furedi, its chief executive, said: "Bpas is pleased to see Nadine Dorries' amendment so overwhelmingly rejected. We look forward to being able to focus our efforts on the issues which pose a genuine problem for women considering ending a pregnancy."

Dorries insisted that she did not want to restrict access to abortion. "I do not want to return to the days of back street abortionists," she said. "I am pro-choice. Abortion is here to stay."

The MP said that it was wrong for abortion providers to counsel women with unplanned pregnancies. "It must be wrong that the abortion provider, who is paid to the tune of £60m to carry out terminations, should also provide the counselling if a woman feels strong or brave enough to ask for it. If an organisation is paid that much for abortions, where is the incentive to reduce them?"

Diane Abbott, the shadow public health minister, said: "This amendment is a shoddy, ill-conceived attempt to promote non-facts to make a non-case – namely that tens of thousands of women every year are either not getting counselling that they request or are getting counselling that is so poor that only new legislation can remedy the situation. In matters of this kind, if legislation is the answer then you have almost certainly asked the wrong question."

Public Reject Dorries' Abortion Proposal

Tomorrow, MPs will debate whether to prevent abortion providers from counselling women seeking an abortion. The motion – put forward by Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries as an amendment to the Health and Social Care bill – is being opposed by the government, and pro-choice groups are backing a rival amendment, which reinforces the status quo. The amendement's author, Lib Dem MP Julian Huppert says:










"The present system which allows women access to evidence-based guidance works, therefore I cannot see why we need to change it. I do not want to see us opening the door to anti choice organisations which could prevent women making their own decision on such a momentus issue."

And a YouGov poll released today shows that, were the public to be voting instead of MPs, they would be much more likely to back Huppert's amendment than Dorries'.














Fewer than one-in-four people support changing the law to prevent charities like BPAS and Marie Stopes from providing counselling, while 40 per cent oppose it. And, strikingly, Conservative voters are no more likely to support Dorries' motion than the public as a whole. In addition, a majority dismiss the notion that "it is too easy for women to obtain abortions in Britain":














These results are hardly surprising in a country that is predominantly pro-choice, as shown by a poll yesterday showing more than three-to-one support for the claim that "if a woman wants to have an abortion, she should not have to continue her pregnancy".

Why Cameron Must Stop Running Scared Of These Abortion Zealots

Many who gaze across the Atlantic have long been amazed at the way in which the toxic issue of abortion fundamentally distorts the U.S. political agenda.

With a certain amount of smugness, the British have told themselves that things are very different in the UK.

Here, such issues are settled not by divisive decisions of the courts, as in the U.S., but through the democratic and unifying route of Parliamentary debate and votes.

Yet now it appears that abortion hysteria is beginning to distort British politics, too.



















Amendment: Frank Field and Nadine Dorries have been pushed the law changed, yet it looks as though their proposals will be lost after a screeching u-turn.

Just one week ago, an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill drafted by Tory MP Nadine Dorries and Labour MP Frank Field looked set to sail through the Commons on a wave of general approval.

Their amendment — to be debated in the Commons this week — aims to break the stranglehold of abortion clinics which are the sole state-funded providers of counselling to pregnant women who are contemplating abortion.

The measure would open up to independent counsellors this optional process of advice and guidance to avoid any possible conflict of interest by abortion providers.

According to opinion polls, no fewer than 92 per cent of MPs, along with around three-quarters of the public, said they supported the amendment. For its part, the Government let it be known that it was already developing proposals to introduce independent abortion counselling for women.

Nevertheless, the amendment now seems likely to be lost because the Government has performed a screeching U-turn and urged MPs to vote against it.

In an unprecedented letter to Tory MPs, Health Minister Anne Milton said that ministers would themselves vote to block it. This has been interpreted by some Tory MPs at least as a covert attempt to whip them all into the ‘no’ lobby.

Yet abortion has always been decided by free votes rather than the imposition of party lines. So why has the Government suddenly decided to wreck both the amendment and this sacred constitutional protection for issues of conscience?

















Unprecedented: Anne Milton sent a letter to Tory MPs saying that minister would vote to block the proposals.

It has been suggested that this was yet another example of Nick Clegg forcing David Cameron to adopt a Left-wing position. Well, maybe.

What seems more plausible, however, is that with the Prime Minister’s antennae so finely tuned to the Guardian/BBC agenda, he simply took fright at the vitriol being hurled from the Left.

If so, this demonstrates once again the power of the campaigns of instantaneous demonisation and denunciation now employed to silence those who uphold a socially conservative position by tarring and feathering them as swivel-eyed bigots. It is particularly instructive that the amendment’s co-sponsor, Frank Field, has not been subjected to the abuse being hurled at Nadine Dorries.

For Field is a decent and principled man of the Left. But those seeking to characterise the measure as an import from what they portray as the knuckle-dragging, U.S. Right-wing Christian fundamentalist agenda cannot acknowledge Field’s involvement.

For this would destroy the demonisation strategy by suggesting the amendment is motivated by sound and decent principles. So, tellingly, Field has been all but airbrushed out of this venomous campaign. It is Dorries, the Tory bogeywoman, who receives the hate mail and death threats.

The impetus behind the amendment is a change in British attitudes. While only a minority would want abortion made illegal once again, thus returning to the evils of back-street butchery, there is now widespread revulsion over two aspects in particular of the current situation.

The first is the unmistakeable humanity of the foetuses subjected to late abortion. The second is the enormous abortion rate, which last year amounted to more than 200,000 terminations in England and Wales.

According to Dorries, up to half of those women who have independent counselling change their minds and decide not to abort. However, when women are referred straight to an abortion clinic for counselling, that number can be as low as 8 per cent.

It does not follow from these figures that the two abortion clinics providing most of the available counselling, Marie Stopes International and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, are subjecting vulnerable pregnant women to pro-abortion propaganda.

Maybe they do exude a more subtle ethos of pro-abortion sympathies — but that would hardly be surprising, since they are, after all, abortion clinics.

The reason for the different rates might merely be that women who seek out independent counselling have a more open mind in the first place and so are more likely to decide to have the baby.












Counselling service: Statistics appear to show Marie Stopes and other clinics to be be pro-abortion and therefore offer advice that way - but it is not surprising given that abortion is the very reason they exist.

Whatever the explanation, surely only a zealot would be complacent about the huge number of abortions — a number which was never envisaged when the procedure was legalised.

Dorries has been pilloried for declaring that she wants to bring the number down. Yet how can any decent person not want to bring down the huge rate of what should only be a procedure of last resort?

Some of the objections used in the past week — that if tens of thousands more children were born as a result this would put pressure on social services — have been spine-chillingly callous.

They are sobering evidence of the brutalisation of attitudes that abortion virtually on demand has brought in its wake.

So if independent counselling would reduce this toll, who could possibly object? Only the pro-abortion zealots, whose visceral hostility to faith-based counselling is based on the fact that this changes some women’s minds.

This is no more than opposition to thinking independently. To put it another way, to the pro-abortion lobby, if a woman decides against having an abortion after counselling, she has been brainwashed, but if she decides to go ahead with it she has reached her own decision.

Now we can see the vacuity of the pro-abortion slogan: ‘A woman’s right to choose.’ From the reaction to the Dorries-Field amendment, a woman only has the right to choose counselling that is pro-abortion.


















Compromise: Louise Mensch has put forward proposals suggesting women should be able to receive support from faith based charities and abortion clinics.

Having said that, it does seem unnecessarily divisive to prevent abortion clinics from themselves offering counselling. Surely women should be able to access counselling from both faith-based charities and abortion clinics, as another compromise amendment by the Tory MP Louise Mensch is suggesting.

This would seem to allow various folk to climb down from their respective trees. After all, Downing Street said the Prime Minister supported providing women with more counselling about their pregnancies, but didn’t want to shut down what was provided by Marie Stopes and the BPAS.

Nevertheless, the Government has refused to back even the Mensch compromise. By way of explanation, the Department of Health came up with a prize bit of obfuscatory waffle about there being no need to define independent counselling.

This makes little sense. The real reason is surely that this Conservative Prime Minister is running so scared of the ‘nasty party’ tag that no compromise with the Left is possible.

But what is nice about thinking there is nothing wrong with 200,000 abortions a year? What is nice about wanting to prevent pregnant women from accessing different types of counselling? What is nice about demonising people in order to shut down debate?

Surely this is what is really nasty. The country is crying out for leadership to stand up to this kind of bullying and intimidation. The Prime Minister should get up off his knees and support women’s genuine right to choose.

Clegg Calls For 'Probing Questions' On NHS Bill

Clegg's demands over NHS may spark Lords amendments – as Lib Dem grassroots say bill will hurt patients and party.












A demonstrator protests at Tory-Lib Dem moves to reform the NHS.

The Tories and Liberal Democrats are facing a fresh clash over the government's NHS reforms after Nick Clegg encouraged his MPs to put "probing questions" to ministers when the bill returns to the Commons on Tuesday.

In a two-hour meeting with his parliamentary party on Monday night, the deputy prime minister held out the possibility that he will accept amendments to the heath and social care bill when it moves to the House of Lords later this month.

Clegg's move means that Lady Williams could be backed by Liberal Democrat ministers if she attempts to amend the bill to guarantee that the health secretary has a legal duty to deliver a comprehensive health service free at the point of need.

But a source at the Department of Health indicated last night that Andrew Lansley, the health secretary – who has already amended the bill after the government's "listening exercise" – would not accept fresh amendments on this point.

The source said: "Our view is that the legislation is watertight on the secretary of state's obligation to ensure there is an NHS available to all. That was always our view. But we amended the legislation to reassure those who were not sure."

Clegg said earlier in the day that he accepted the view that there was no need for fresh amendments on this issue.

In a speech on schools in south-west London, he said: "Let me be absolutely clear. There is nothing, nothing, nothing in any of the government's plans which in anyway threaten the basic founding principles of the NHS...There is no question, legally or politically, of the secretary of state under these new arrangements being somehow able to wash his or her hands of the NHS."

But at Monday night's meeting of the Lib Dem parliamentary party, Clegg admitted that ministers still had to work hard to clarify the bill for MPs and peers with concerns.

Paul Burstow, the Lib Dem health minister, is to offer further briefings to MPs and peers who will also be invited to meet officials at the department of health.

All sides accept that it is too late to table further amendments on the NHS reforms when the bill is debated by MPs at report stage on Tuesday and Wednesday and at third reading on Wednesday . But Lib Dem MPs have been encouraged to put "probing questions" to ministers for possible amendments that will be tabled in the House of Lords.

One Lib Dem source said: "We hope that we will not need to amend the bill further. But we may have to." Another Lib Dem source said: "There will be robust interventions in the debate."

Lib Dem whips believe that the overwhelming number of MPs will support the amended bill. But Andrew George, the Lib Dem MP for St Ives, said he would rebel.

The battle within the Lib Dem ranks was exposed last night in leaked emails, in which grassroots members of the party vented their anger at the leadership.

Jeremy Sanders of Huddersfield Liberal Democrats wrote in an email to John Pugh this week, the Lib Dem backbench health committee chairman, that "yes, we can try to get improvements to the details, but none of these changes are going to alter the basic fact that the legislation is based on the assumption that what the NHS needs is a system based on private sector involvement, free market competition and internal markets.

"Quite honestly, if our MPs are willing to go along with this, what exactly won't they be willing to support?"

In the same batch of emails obtained by the Guardian, Robert Hutchison, a Lib Dem councillor in Winchester, tells Pugh that "in my view is that if Lib Dem MPs vote for the bill this week — without further major amendments — it will damage the NHS and damage the party".

Charles West, one of the key party activists on the NHS, has written to party members to back an appeal against the the Lb Dem's conference committee decision not to debate the health bill at the forthcoming party conference. "I have therefore written a letter of appeal to the Federal Conference Committee against their narrow decision not to take the motion that I and over 100 conference reps submitted in June, and in case that appeal fails we are submitting an emergency motion which will achieve the same ends".

Last month Andrew George, the Lib Dem rebel on the health bill, emailed Lib Dem activists with a blunt message: "of course I'll try to influence colleagues but some are still basking in the synthetic afterglow of the post-pause Bill revision, perhaps having duped themselves that it's 'job done'! People need to wake up to the fact that we can say what we like at Conference, but the MPs main chance to influence would already have passed!"

Labour twisted the knife into the Lib Dems with the party's health spokesman John Healey arguing that Nick Clegg's claim that he had met 11 out of the 13 changes demanded by his party's spring conference resolution was "wrojng". "He's failed on seven and sallen short on six". Baroness Thornton, the party's spokesperson in the Lords, warned that the lack of scrutiny in the Commons — where 1,000 amenments mean just 40s of parliamentary to consider each one — could see the bill be put into a specialist committee to examine whether there is enough time to debate the bill.

Writing in the Guardian, Tory MP Sarah Wollaston, a former GP who had criticised the health bill, says now is the time to back the coalition's plans as "the structural changes to the NHS have passed the point of no return".

She argues instead that the bill needs to be amended to ensure that the choice of who is appointed to sit on and run the new NHS National Commissioning Board, a quango with £60bn to spend, is fairly and openly discussed.

Health Ministers Vow A United Front Against Plans To Tighten Up Abortion Laws

Health ministers promised yesterday to vote en masse against Commons moves to tighten up Britain’s abortion laws.

Backbenchers are seeking an amendment that would change the law to stop charities carrying out abortions, such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, from offering advice to women considering a termination.

In a letter to Tory MPs last night, public health minister Anne Milton said she and ministerial colleagues would not support the change.




















David Cameron said that the was sympathetic to the proposals on abortion made by Nadine Dorries and other MPs, but he would not in favour of them.

She said she had no evidence that organisations such as the BPAS were causing ‘any harm to women’, despite claims from pro-life groups that the charities are biased because they earn money from terminations.

And she said she did not want to create an extra ‘hurdle’ for women seeking an abortion.

Mrs Milton reiterated that the Government would put forward proposals this year to ensure women had access to independent counselling.

The Health Bill amendment, to be tabled by Tory Nadine Dorries and supported by Labour’s Frank Field, aroused fears that faith groups opposed to abortion on moral grounds would start to offer counselling.












Offering advice: Charity Marie Stopes, based in central London, is against the backbench proposals.

David Cameron has already signalled that he will vote against it.

Mrs Milton said in her letter: ‘We are very sympathetic to the aim of ensuring that all women requesting abortion are offered impartial, informative counselling.

‘However, on the issue of preventing abortion services from offering counselling, we disagree with the amendment.

‘What matters is the quality and independence of view of the advice given. Counsellors should stick to the facts, not promote a particular view, and most importantly help to support women to make their own decision.

‘It is important to be clear that the Government’s position neither represents a criticism of existing counselling services, nor hopes to create an extra hurdle for women to pass before successfully requesting an abortion.

‘We have no evidence that existing abortion counselling services are causing any harm to women.

‘If pressed to a vote, my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health and I will vote against the amendments. This is because the amendments exclude existing abortion services from offering counselling.’

Tory backbencher Louise Mensch has said she will also put down an amendment, saying women should be offered counselling by independent organisations that are neither abortion providers nor faith groups.

A source at the Department of Health said that although ministers had not yet seen the text of this amendment, they were likely to vote against it because they did not see the need for legislation defining independent counselling.

Lib Dems Seek Candidates For Police Commissioner Posts, Despite Peer Revolt

Battle lines drawn as party touts for suitable candidates while its own peers work to derail controversial Tory policy.












Lib Dem peers hope to derail Theresa May's plan for elected police commissioners.

The Liberal Democrats are advertising for candidates to become elected police commissioners despite the party's peers still believing they can derail the policy in the House of Lords.

The bill to bring in one of the prime minister's and home secretary's most cherished policies was defeated in the Lords by Lib Dem peers in the last parliamentary term.

The Lords and Commons must now get together soon after parliament reconvenes in the autumn to agree how the legislation will reflect the Lords vote. The scene is set for a battle as Tories in the lower house do not want to water down their policy.

They are now highlighting the fact that the Lib Dems themselves are touting for candidates – a fact seized on as evidence that the party has little faith in its parliamentary efforts to derail the bill.

Campaigners in favour of elected police commissioners intend to have legislation in place in time for the first batch of police commissioners to be elected on the same day as next May's local elections.

The longer into the autumn the Lib Dems can delay the bill, the less likely that becomes, given the time the electoral commission would need to make the necessary arrangements.

In a speech delivered last week, the home secretary, Theresa May, used the police response to the riots to push her case again. "One thing is clear. The experience … makes the case for police reform more urgent than ever."

Senior Lib Dems opposed to the policy fear an elected police commissioner might play to a particular portion of their electorate in a bid for popularity. Cost is also a concern. According to a Home Office answer to a parliamentary question, the system could cost £130m to set up and run and another £50m every four years at election time – this while the government asks the police to cut their costs by 20%.

Peers voted in May against introducing elected commissioners, leaving open the possibility of their being appointed by a board of experts.

Tory sources said the issue was one of trust between David Cameron and Nick Clegg as the Lib Dem leader acquiesced to the policy in the coalition negotiations.

The coalition agreement reads: "We will introduce measures to make the police more accountable through oversight by a directly elected individual, who will be subject to strict checks and balances by locally elected representatives."

Advisers now say there is a small window of time for Clegg to decide whether he is going to face down his peers in the Lords to ensure the legislation is passed.

Blair Gibbs, research director at Policy Exchange said: "This policy has clear support from the top and if anything, after recent months, the argument for a clearer system of police accountability is stronger than ever.

"Most senior police officers now accept this reform is going to happen. There are some unelected peers and local councillors with a vested interest in the old regime who are still grumbling, but they cannot stop this reform from happening.

"The mandate is clear and the main parties are starting to plan for the elections and search for good candidates. It is no longer a case of if and why we should have police and crime commissioners, or even how and when, but who.

"These roles are really important and their success will depend more on the calibre of the office holders than any final minor amendments to the legislation."

Lib Dem MPs plan to hold an emergency debate at their party conference but Tory advisers believe the issue needs to be wound up in early September.