Representing you in Westminster

Greg Mulholland is committed to fighting YOUR corner in Westminster; he lobbies the Government actively on the issues that you raise with him making sure the voice of Leeds North West residents is heard at the highest level:

• Greg has spoken in 70 debates in Parliament in the last year - well above average amongst MPs.

• Greg received answers to 70 written questions in the last year - more than most other MPs.
• He presented a petition to the House of Commons opposing the closure of three Post Offices locally.
• He questioned the Prime Minister on Alzheimers funding and the plight of Christians in Iran.
• • May 20, 2013:
    • New Clause 16 - Review of civil partnership | Oral Answers to Questions - Work and Pensions | Commons debates

      This is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak on this subject, but I have been working with others to deal with some of the obvious flaws in this albeit well-intentioned Bill. I thank the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues for the way in which they have engaged and listened without question. As a result of that, however, I find it disappointing that they have failed to make some of the obvious-and in my opinion necessary-amendments to deal with the Bill's flaws.

      I have been called anti-gay rights and anti-Christian; I have been called homophobic and at the same time accused of not being a proper Catholic. I have been accused of being worryingly conservative, yet at the same time dangerously libertarian. I am none of those things. What I am, very proudly, is a liberal, and I want to support a sensible, liberal way of dealing with the inequities that we undoubtedly have in our current system with regard to the recognition of adult couples in a relationship. We have not gone about this Bill the right way, and many of its flaws are because it has been pursued from a very conservative perspective, rather than a radical liberal one.

      For the avoidance of doubt, the role of the state, very simply, is to decide how to recognise relationships between adult couples, and which adult couple relationships to recognise in that way. That should be entirely separate from any consideration of how religions and belief-based

      organisations recognise relationships in accordance with their own beliefs. Instead of dealing with that point, however, the Bill has sought to build on the confusion and conflate the two issues even further. The result, I am afraid, is something of a mess.

      I want to vote on, and will always support, the state giving equal right to equal recognition of adult relationships, which then conveys equal rights as a result of that equal legal recognition. However, not only does the Bill not do that, it makes a complicated and unequal situation worse. Let me be clear about what the Bill will produce if it is passed, as it inevitably will be tomorrow. There will be two different definitions of civil marriage for same-sex couples, and another definition for opposite-sex couples. There will not be an equal definition. The Bill will allow two different legal recognitions of a relationship for some couples but not for others. It will fail to equalise pension rights for some couples, which is one reason we are having this debate and why legislation is needed. The Bill will continue to allow ministers of some faiths to conduct a marriage in the eyes of the law, and yet people of other religions and faith-based systems will not be allowed to do so. The Bill is unequal on four counts. As I have made clear, there is a better way. Any liberal would suggest finally properly separating the civil and the religious rather than building on what we have. I will speak about that more when we debate another group of amendments.

      My new clause 13 must be seen in the context of the amendment I have tabled for debate tomorrow-both are part of dealing with the situation properly. The measures are radical. They would repeal-this might not make me popular with anyone-the Marriage Act 1994 and the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 so that we end up with a single definition for all couples. We are not at that point, which I accept, but we cannot institutionalise a new inequality during the passage of a Bill that is supposed to be about equalising marriage. Hon. Members should remember that civil partnerships were introduced to give same-sex couples another form of relationship. In many people's eyes, it is a lesser form of relationship. We must not institutionalise that. If civil partnerships are worth having, we must allow them to be a different form of legal recognition for all, or do what I suggest in new clause 13 and abolish them altogether. Either way, we would end up with proper equality.

      Ministers and shadow Ministers and others have suggested that the Bill is not the measure with which to deal with that inequality. I am afraid that that argument is simply absurd. Some say that we should not introduce that equality because of the cost-the figure of £4 billion has been mentioned. That is entirely to fall into the trap of those who oppose any change to traditional civil marriage. They argue that we should not introduce any measure because of the cost. As a liberal, let me be clear that we change civil rights and introduce genuine equal legal recognition because it is the right thing to do, not because it costs the state money. The argument that we should not do something because it costs the state money is a slippery slope. I should tell the Minister that whoever introduced that argument to the debate made a huge mistake.

      My amendment 10 would be the genuine, liberal way of dealing with the situation-properly redefining how the state recognises adult relationships. The amendment would get rid of clearly Christian concepts that come

      directly from Church of England canon law and are shared by certain other Christian faiths. It would mean that we would not count on the statute book adult couples' sexual practices with each other. Currently, adultery is a reason to allow some couples but not others to dissolve their civil marriage. Most absurdly of all, lawyers dictate that certain couples and not others must consummate their marriage in a certain way.

      It is embarrassing and ludicrous, when we are rightly dealing with the inequities of the current civil partnership regime that does not bestow the same rights, status or recognition on same-sex couples, that the Bill will continue to enshrine ancient Christian concepts in the statute book and apply them to some couples only. If there had been more listening and more acting on that listening, new clause 10, which has been discussed at some length, would not be necessary. It should not be necessary. A clear part of any redefinition of how the state defines and recognises adult relationships should have always been either to keep civil partnerships and make them open to all adult citizens, or wipe them away and have a single, equal definition for all.

      For all the sophistry and arguments from those on the Front Benches, in their heart of hearts they know this to be true. That is why I urge everyone in this House who regards themselves in any way as a liberal and who wants to see equal rights and recognition to vote for new clause 10. That is the only way people can have confidence that the real motivation-I believe it is the real motivation, even though it has been expressed badly-is to deal with the inequities currently in the Bill. Even at this late stage, I urge the Secretary of State to listen, disregard the cost of human rights and, either through changing marriage or changing civil partnerships, ensure that all adults can have their relationships recognised in one equal or two equal ways.

    • Work Capability Assessment | Oral Answers to Questions - Work and Pensions | Commons debates

      The Minister will be well aware that there have been issues of public confidence in Atos ever since it was first commissioned to do this work by the last Government. Are the Government looking into and making progress on Professor Harrington's alternative assessment process for those with hidden and fluctuating conditions, which is a very important area?

  • May 14, 2013:
    • Topical Questions | Oral Answers to Questions - Treasury | Commons debates

      The latest dismal figures from the giant pub company Enterprise Inns show the disaster that the leased pub company model has been for the British economy. The boss paid himself nearly £1 million last year, while his tenants are struggling to make a living and are subsidised by the taxpayer, through tax credits, to the tune of millions of pounds. Will my hon. Friend conduct a Treasury study into just how many millions the taxpayer provides to subsidise this immoral business model?

  • Apr 25, 2013:
    • Business of the House | Commons debates

      A few weeks ago we had a debate on the lack of accountability in the NHS and I am afraid it appears that we need another one. On 19 April, these comments were made in Computer Weekly about Sir Bruce Keogh's decision to suspend surgery at Leeds:

      "Keogh, first by requesting unverified data, then by ignoring the data's obvious faults, then by breaching usual procedure in not seeking to clarify those faults, then apparently wilfully misinterpreting that data, and then using the weight of all these errors to tell Leeds to close its heart unit, may have committed a serious breach of protocols he had helped establish."

      Why is the Secretary of State for Health still refusing to have an independent investigation into this matter?

  • Apr 24, 2013:
    • Patients: Death | Health | Written Answers

      To ask the Secretary of State for Health

      (1) how many (a) mortality alerts and (b) reviews there have been in the NHS in England in the last three months; and in how many cases services were suspended whilst reviews or investigations took place;

      (2) how many (a) mortality alerts and (b) reviews are currently under investigation in the NHS in England; and in how many cases services have been suspended whilst these take place.

  • Apr 22, 2013:
    • Teachers and School Staff (Training) | Oral Answers to Questions - Education | Commons debates

      Parents seeking a diagnosis of autism can be, and in some cases have been, subjected to unjustified child protection inquiries. Does the Minister agree that we need to look at the guidelines on fabricated and induced illness, and will he meet a family in my constituency who have suffered as a result of that very problem?

    • Teachers and School Staff (Training) | Oral Answers to Questions - Education | Commons debates

      What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of training for teachers and school staff on (a) autism and (b) fabricated or induced illness by carers.

  • Apr 18, 2013:
    • Business of the House | Commons debates

      Section 68 on page 21 of the General Medical Council's "Good Medical Practice" states:

      "You must be honest and trustworthy in all your communication with patients and colleagues. This means you must make clear the limits of your knowledge and make reasonable checks to make sure any information you give is accurate."

      Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of the NHS, failed to abide by that duty in his decision to suspend children's heart surgery at the Leeds general infirmary. When are we going to get a statement from the Secretary of State for Health that will finally announce a proper investigation into this fiasco?

  • Apr 16, 2013:
    • Cardiovascular Disease | Oral Answers to Questions - Health | Commons debates

      The role of local authorities in scrutinising NHS decisions is now even more important, yet the joint health overview and scrutiny committee of Yorkshire and Humber councils was consistently denied a number of important documents, which was one reason why the High Court ruled that the decision taken in the Safe and Sustainable review was unlawful. This is now in tatters. Will the Minister now confirm whether he will instruct NHS England not to appeal the High Court decision?

  • Apr 15, 2013:
    • Heart Surgery (Leeds) | Oral Answers to Questions - Defence | Commons debates

      I, too, thank the Secretary of State for his private phone call to me, but we should have heard from him on this fiasco before today in response to an urgent question. I have to say that his response has simply not been good enough, considering what has happened. To correct one thing that he said, it was not with the agreement of the LGI that services were suspended. Clearly, Sir Bruce Keogh marched into the LGI at 8 o'clock in the morning and said that if surgery was not suspended, people would be sacked. That was no way to behave even if the data were accurate, but Sir Bruce has now backtracked and admitted the data passed to him by his friend Sir Roger Boyle were not accurate.

      The decision to close children's heart surgery in a safe unit, which is what we now know Leeds always was, puts children at greater risk. To make a decision of that nature that is incorrect is simply unacceptable. Will the Secretary of State do what is now clearly necessary and

      have a full investigation of this fiasco, including the conduct, judgment and motivations of senior NHS officials involved?

  • Apr 10, 2013:
    • Tour de France | Treasury | Written Answers

      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what money has been made available from the Treasury reserve to fund the Yorkshire and UK staging of the Tour de France Le Grand Depart 2014.

  • Mar 26, 2013:
    • Devolution | Oral Answers to Questions - Deputy Prime Minister | Commons debates

      The biggest threat to the UK might be not the Scottish referendum next year, but the increasing sense in England that the current constitutional settlement is not a fair one. Does my hon. Friend agree that we already have two different classes of MPs, in the sense that Scottish and Welsh MPs have colleagues in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly who perform some of the role that English MPs do?

  • Mar 25, 2013:
    • Net Migration | Oral Answers to Questions - Home Department | Commons debates

      We need a firm, fair and sensible immigration policy, but that is confused by the inclusion of international students in the net migration figures. Those students contribute about £5 billion to the economy. America does not do that, Australia does not do it and Canada does not do it. Why do we continue to do it?

  • Mar 20, 2013:
    • Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation - Amendment of the Law | Provisional Collection of Taxes | Commons debates

      People will indeed be raising a glass to this Government for this. Does my hon. Friend agree that we now need to hear from the large pub-owning companies? They need to say clearly today that they will pass on the 1p reduction to their licensees, who can then pass it on to their customers.

    • Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation - Amendment of the Law | Provisional Collection of Taxes | Commons debates

      I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman and all the other members of the parliamentary save the pub group for their support in this campaign. I would also like to echo what was said about the Economic Secretary being a Minister who listened-I warmly thank him for that. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this shows that the Government are listening and realised that the beer duty escalator was damaging investment and growth opportunities. Hopefully, we will see growth coming back to the brewing sector, which will have a knock-on effect for pubs.

  • Mar 19, 2013:
    • Parish and Town Council Precepts (Referendums) | Oral Answers to Questions - Justice | Commons debates

      Will my hon. Friend give way?

  • Mar 18, 2013:
    • House Building | Oral Answers to Questions - Communities and Local Government | Commons debates

      In the Leeds city council area, developers are exploiting the planning framework to build expensive housing on greenfield land. At the same time, there is an acute shortage of social housing, and there are empty homes, in Headingly and Hyde Park. Will the Minister join me in encouraging Leeds city council to use its powers to buy some of those homes for social housing, which they can do under new powers?

  • Mar 12, 2013:
    • Alcohol and Fuel Duty | Oral Answers to Questions - Treasury | Commons debates

      Turning to the other escalator, the nonsensical beer duty escalator, I can give my right hon. Friend good news: there are now around 1,000 breweries in this country, the highest number for 70 years, because of the explosion in micro-breweries due to fairer and lower beer duty. Now that the Government are rightly going to tackle overcharging by the pub companies, which will allow more access to market for the wonderful micro-breweries, may we also have some joined-up thinking with the abolition in the Budget of the beer duty escalator, which simply does not make sense?

  • Mar 11, 2013:
    • Housing Benefit Changes | Oral Answers to Questions - Work and Pensions | Commons debates

      My right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister have acknowledged that some of the spare rooms are not spare by acknowledging the need for discretionary housing payments. May I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider whether some of those categories could and should be covered by genuine full exemptions?

  • Mar 7, 2013:
    • Business of the House | Commons debates

      We always knew that the decision to close the children's heart surgery unit in Leeds was flawed, biased and unacceptably opaque, and today we have found out that it was unlawful. In addition, the safe and sustainable consultation as a whole has been declared unlawful and the conduct of the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts has been called into question and accused of failing in its duty. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we must have a statement in this House, because the whole review is now in chaos, and part of that statement should say that JCPCT members should never take part again in any consultation on major changes to the health service.