Environment Bill

Debate between Lord Grayling and Geraint Davies

Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder). He focused on air quality and that is very much what I want to focus on today. I agree with everything he said about that. I also agree with him that we should leave the environment in a better condition than we found it, but I fear that, in its current form, the Environment Bill will not deliver that mandate, which I share. It certainly will not deliver the bigger mandate of delivering zero carbon for 2050. As the Minister will know, the latest projections show that we will reach the 1.5° increase by 2030, not 2040, so we really do need to up our game. The Bill is possibly capable of delivering environmental protection, as opposed to climate change mitigation, regarding air, chemicals, plastics and our oceans.

The problem with the Bill, at least as it is drafted at the moment, is that it does not have the teeth to deliver enforceable, known targets to ensure that we deliver those higher standards. As we leave the EU, the real risk is that because we do not have dynamic alignment, we will fall behind the escalating standards in the EU and possibly even behind the current standards. On air quality, the Minister will know that we consistently fail to meet the EU air quality standards and that is why the Government have been taken to court on several occasions by ClientEarth and rightly fined. We need a system that can duplicate that, but that system does not exist.

[Chris Grayling]

It baffles me that Opposition Members think that this country is incapable of setting high standards itself without having an international body to do it for us. If we all, collectively, across the House, believe in high environmental standards, why cannot we look after our own interests, rather than have somebody else do it for us?

[Geraint Davies]

That was very much an own goal by the former Transport Minister, who cancelled the electrification of the line to Swansea and knows that the UK has consistently failed to meet standards. The empirical evidence shows that we have not and cannot do it with this Government, because we have been dragged into court, kicking and screaming, for failing those standards. That is why we have the Bill, which waters down the standards, does not provide an independent agency and does not provide an opportunity for fines to be paid for failure to deliver World Health Organisation standards. In my view, such fines should be paid to the health service to treat people for the harm and to local authorities to actually reduce air pollution.

Rail Franchising

Debate between Lord Grayling and Geraint Davies

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

In this country, under Governments of both persuasions, we have taken decisions about the right balance between the cost of the railways being borne by those who use the railways and those who do not. Yes, the hon. Gentleman may be quoting walk -up fares, but he can go and buy an advance ticket for the east coast route at a fraction of the cost that he described.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Chris Grayling]

I am going to make some progress now, I am afraid, because the shadow Secretary of State asked a variety of questions about the east coast main line and I want to respond.

The reality is that sometimes the private companies get it wrong. The situation on the east coast franchise is a clear example. Virgin and Stagecoach overbid, and they are paying, and will pay, the price. I repeat—they will pay the price.

I have listened with interest to some of the ill-informed comments about the situation on the east coast line in the past few weeks. I have heard some absurd claims from people who do not understand what they are talking about. So let me explain to the House what the position is. I am not agreeing to early termination of a contract in 2020; no one has asked me to. This railway is paying a huge premium to the taxpayer and continues to do so, but the issue is that this franchise is not delivering the profits the operator expected and is at risk of not making it as far as 2020.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

That is simply untrue. The re-letting of the Wales and the borders franchise is being handled entirely by the Welsh Government. The interesting question is whether they are actually going to be able to deliver on their promises to electrify the Cardiff valley lines, the infrastructure of which I have given them as well. They have been given the opportunity to create an integrated metro railway for Cardiff, and I will be interested to see whether they can deliver what they have promised. They have control over the Wales and the borders franchise. The only power I have retained is to make sure that we look after the interests of people on the English side of the border. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is just not right.

[Geraint Davies]

Has the Secretary of State seen, as he has mentioned this area, the proposals made by Professor Mark Barry for an electrified Swansea metro, which, through straightening the line, would reduce by half the time it takes to travel from Cardiff to Swansea? Implementing those proposals would provide the electrification David Cameron promised, an integrated Swansea metro and a shorter journey time.

[Chris Grayling]

I have not seen those proposals, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that I think it more likely than not that we will see on the Welsh valley lines and the Cardiff metro lines the same approach that I have taken in south Wales—using hybrid technology rather than electrification. That is what I think will be done.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Grayling and Geraint Davies

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to raise these issues with Ministers on Monday. There is a balance to be found in making sure that we protect local environments and the character of local areas but also provide adequate housing for the next generation, because that is also important.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

You probably know, Mr Speaker, that children living in low emission zones have a 10% lower lung capacity than children living outside, partly because diesel emissions from cars cause pollution worse than that of many lorries, and Volkswagen has obviously been involved in emissions testing scandals. Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate on improving the cleanliness of the air in our city centres for the sake of our children’s health, including the possible restriction of diesel vehicles, given that 52,000 people die each year from diesel pollutants?

[Chris Grayling]

This matter is now attracting widespread concern. It is obviously important to ensure that we have proper air quality and that we look after public health. Ministers are taking the matter very seriously and investigating it carefully.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Grayling and Geraint Davies

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Of course, there will be an opportunity to raise that issue at Treasury questions shortly. The important thing is not to say that we should not have hand car washing in this country, but to make sure that the people and businesses doing the hand car washing are operating properly and appropriately within the tax system and have a legitimate right to do that work, in order to ensure that they perform like any other business.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

This week the Department of Justice in the United States filed a civil law suit on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency against Volkswagen, because 600,000 of its car engines were illegal as a result of defeat devices. In the light of the fact that 30,000 people a year die in Britain as a result of diesel particulate emissions—much of the contribution towards which is extra emissions from the illegal defeat devices—what legal action are the Government going to take, in line with the Americans, against VW; and may we have an urgent debate on the matter?

[Chris Grayling]

Let us be clear: what VW did was unacceptable and shocking and it has done immense damage to that company. It is utterly inappropriate for any major corporation to act in that way. Prosecution decisions in this country are a matter not for Government, but for the relevant authorities. I am sure they will have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said, but it would be wrong of politicians to get directly involved in whether prosecution decisions should be taken.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Grayling and Geraint Davies

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

No.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Leader of the House allow Welsh MPs to vote on behalf of Welsh foxes in order that English foxes, like English badgers, can escape over the border, away from the ritualistic, sadistic slaughter he is advocating in the name of sport?

[Chris Grayling]

It is appropriate that the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of his constituents, can take decisions on matters affecting them. He and his party have just diametrically opposed that.

English Votes on English Laws

Debate between Lord Grayling and Geraint Davies

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Let me take that example and the question raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about estimates. It is not our intention that estimates be voted on by individual groups of Members. They are, and will continue to be, a matter for the United Kingdom Parliament. On the question of tuition fees, what the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) must understand is that one of the things that was not understood by those in England who were affected by that change—which, if I recall correctly, was carried by a majority of five—is that, although English MPs voted against it, it was only as a result of the votes of Scottish MPs that it was carried, but it did not apply to students in Scotland. That is a very simple example. If a measure is to be applied to a group of people in England and not in Scotland, is it really unreasonable to suggest that English Members of Parliament should have the decisive say over that change?

[Geraint Davies]

Is the Leader of the House not acting a bit like a male rights activist who thinks that when females get extra rights there is a zero-sum game that takes rights away from him? If Wales passes a law to give more education rights, that has no impact on England, but if a health law is passed in England it has a Barnett consequential for Wales. There is an asymmetry and it is wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to plod forward and demand these rights when this is not a zero-sum game.

[Chris Grayling]

That was a very strange analogy. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he can vote on education in my constituency but not in his own constituency. Surely, if anything creates an anomaly, it is that.

Prison Overcrowding

Debate between Lord Grayling and Geraint Davies

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I completely agree. To be frank, I would like to have the capacity to unravel some of the residual schemes that I inherited, such as the home detention curfew scheme, which in my view should not have been introduced in the first place and which people struggle to understand. I will not be able to do that until resources are available, but it is certainly my ambition.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the light of what he has said, perhaps the Justice Secretary would like to spend the night at Swansea prison. It is the most overcrowded prison in Britain—I guess he would say it is the most popular—with two prisoners for every place. They are crammed in cells, with shared toilets, in sweltering heat, staying there day and night. Will he at last accept responsibility for the closure of 18 jails, the loss of 3,500 prison officers and the ever-escalating increase in the prison population that has led to an increase in assaults on prison officers and the deaths, suicides and self-harming of prisoners? Will he stand aside for someone who will not put at risk the public, prisoners and prison officers, and resign for his heartless, mindless incompetence?

[Chris Grayling]

Mr Speaker, sometimes you hear contributions in this House that are beyond parody. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he was not in the House during the last Parliament because he lost in 2005, but I do not recall that he called for the resignation of previous Labour Ministers when levels of overcrowding were higher.

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what I have done in Wales. I have recognised the fact that that the prison system in Wales has a problem because north Wales does not have a prison, which means that prisoners from north Wales cannot be housed close to home. What have I done? I have won from the Chancellor £250 million-plus to build a new prison in north Wales. That is doing the right thing for the people of Wales.

Criminal Procedural Rights (Opt-in Decision)

Debate between Lord Grayling and Geraint Davies

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend highlights an area about which I am concerned, and on which there are perhaps disagreements within the coalition. Although there are democratic checks on the court system in this country—if Parliament does not agree with a Supreme Court ruling, it has the option of changing the law accordingly—the same is not true of international courts.

We have a lively discussion in the coalition about our future relationship with the ECHR, but if we start to hand over key elements of the working of our justice system to the ECJ, there is a real danger that in an attempt to harmonise, we will lose some of the things that make our system strong. There is no doubt in my mind that English, Scottish and Northern Irish law are highly regarded around the world, and I would not want to see them internationalised. If that happened, the distinctive features that make London, Edinburgh and Belfast attractive legal centres might be less pronounced than they are today.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a case for minimum standards for the treatment of child defendants, and for people to have the right to appear in court and to be considered innocent until proven guilty? What is wrong with that? Why should other people not share those values?

[Chris Grayling]

In some respects, the hon. Gentleman is right, and that is what we do in this country. The question is whether he believes we should hand over future decision making about our judicial process and court process to an international court over which we have no control. He and his party clearly think that we should. I do not, and that is one of the things that divide us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

That is the point. We have 800 years of legal tradition in this country. It has evolved in a number of different ways and is subject to change and review in both the courts and our Parliament. I do not really feel that we need to bring a third body into that relationship. To my mind keeping the European Court of Justice at arm’s length over these matters is absolutely where we need to be.

[Geraint Davies]

On that point and the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—with which I do not agree, incidentally—the age of criminal responsibility in Britain for children is 10, which is far younger than elsewhere in Europe. Children are required to go to a full criminal court. Surely there is something to be learned from others, or are we too arrogant to listen?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman and I are on different sides of the House. When we disagree on different issues we can debate them in this House. If it is his view that the age of criminal responsibility in this country is too low, it is perfectly reasonable to articulate that in this House, to bring forward measures that could change that, and for us to debate it. My issue is that that is a decision for this Parliament and not for elsewhere, which is why I am taking the view I am this afternoon.

It is also worth saying that the proposal seeks to establish that any deprivation of a child’s liberty must be as a matter of “last resort”. The notion that children should not be detained unless necessary causes little difficulty in the UK, but it is obvious that it introduces a different test from that which currently applies in England and Wales in which children are deprived of their liberty if it is considered necessary—during a police investigation or on remand awaiting trial. That would also have to be subject to reconsideration if we were to opt into this measure and could lead to significant changes, which should be a matter for this Parliament and not for anyone else.

Given that the UK has one of the most comprehensive and generous legal aid regimes in the world, it will perhaps not surprise this House that our analysis suggests that our current practice—in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—means that we are already compliant with the majority of the provisions of the proposed directive. We might, therefore, argue that as it does not ask much change of us, it would be fine to opt into it. However, it does require some change. It requires changes to procedures around the entitlement of somebody who is subject to a European arrest warrant to receive legal advice both in the country of arrest and the country that is seeking arrest. That would have small financial cost for us, but it is, none the less, a financial change that would be imposed on us. It would not be a priority area for us to increase legal aid spending at a time when the legal aid budget is, for necessary reasons, under enormous pressure.

It is not necessary or appropriate for our legal aid system to come under international rules. The level and nature of spend should be subject to a decision in this House. It should be a matter for Parliament. I do not think that we should pass over ultimate jurisdiction over our legal aid rules to the European Court of Justice, which is why I have said clearly that I cannot conceive of a situation in which we would wish to opt into this. I am therefore not prepared at this stage to leave that door open. It is not what this Parliament or this country want. I will not try to pretend otherwise. Let us be clear and up front and say that this is not something of which we wish to be a part.

[Geraint Davies]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can confirm the estimated costs of that measure in terms of added legal aid costs. My understanding is that it is just £200,000, compared with his budget of £7.5 billion. It is not significant, so he is talking about the principle rather than the money.

[Chris Grayling]

I just said that it was not a large amount. It is a question of principle. Do we want decisions about legal aid entitlement to be taken in this Parliament by Government, scrutinised by the Select Committees of the House and by Parliament itself, or do we want to subject ourselves to an uncertain international jurisdiction that may, at a later date, decide that we have to do things in a wholly different way from the customs and practices in this country, often with a cost that is simply not budgeted for? My view is that we do not want that, and I propose that we do not accept that.

I have set out here in both general and specific terms why the proposals present difficulties in the UK, why, in their current shape, we could not support them and why we conclude that we should not opt into any of them. There is, of course, a question about negotiability, and these texts are not final. They may be open to changes in discussions in Brussels, which may improve them, but our assessment at this stage must be taken on the basis of the presented text; we have no other basis. It is of course possible that the proposed directive will change for the better in negotiation, but it is also possible that it could change in a way that make things even more problematical. We do not know for sure. We face a new Commission and a new Parliament in the summer. The Lisbon treaty provides co-decision making to the European Parliament. Matters relating to these directives can be amended in that Parliament and could theoretically impose costs on us that are absolutely not budgeted for.

It seems to me that the scale of our difficulties with the current proposals on the presumption of innocence and legal aid are such that it is difficult to foresee any realistic prospect of negotiating them to a conclusion that the UK could now accept. They are simply too far away from acceptability. Although we will continue to monitor the forthcoming negotiations, we will be clear about our position at the outset. I hope that that clarity will be useful to the House and that the House will support it this afternoon.

The proposals on child defendants also present significant difficulties and I do not underestimate them. I think it is pretty unlikely that we would be able to secure changes that would make them acceptable or better. That is why we are recommending this afternoon that we should also indicate that we will not opt in. I have instructed officials that they should participate in the negotiation to see whether changes made at a later date would be advantageous to this country. I am not convinced that that will happen, but I have left it open as a possibility. That was what was agreed across the Government.

I will ask my officials to work closely with interested Departments, including the Home Office and the Foreign Office, to ensure that the message is communicated effectively to our EU partners and is factored into wider engagements on matters such as the 2014 decision. My view is that the proposal I am laying before the House this afternoon is in the national interest. I have considered carefully the different measures and I am very clear that it is not right for the UK to opt into them, but it is important that this House has its say. I hope that the House will endorse that approach and that everyone in the Chamber will feel that it is right to accept our proposals and support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I entirely accept that. We will try to ensure that we do what we can to supply the right information to Committees in the future.

The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is no longer in the Chamber, made the valuable point that we should be cautious about the issue of jurisdictions. That is what lies behind my concern about measures such as these. It is important to understand that an opt-in is not—as was implied by the hon. Member for Swansea West—a simple process. It is not just about setting an example to the rest of Europe. It is about accepting the jurisdiction of an international court in regard to important areas of law. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), there is no right of appeal following a ruling from the European Court of Justice. My hon. Friend also rightly observed that our judiciary are increasingly concerned about the role of international courts. On a number of occasions recently, they themselves have suggested that decisions that should be made in our courts and our Parliament are now being dealt with on the international stage. It is clear that that is causing some discomfort to at least some of them.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the Justice Secretary confirm that the Government are still negotiating on the issues of children’s rights in courts and legal aid, and that those negotiations have not been stonewalled?

[Chris Grayling]

We have told our European partners—and will do so again if the House approves the motion tonight—that we will not take part in negotiations on the first and third directives, on the presumption of innocence and on legal aid. We will say up front that we do not intend to opt in, either now or in the future. That is a decision that has been agreed across Government, and one that we do not intend to reverse. We will provide observers for the negotiations, but they will not participate in detailed negotiations. As I said, on the second directive involving children we do not intend to opt in; we will indicate that up front. We will participate in the negotiations in case, although it is unlikely, something emerges that this House may want to consider again, but it remains the Government’s position that we do not expect, nor want, to have to opt into the directive, but we will sit around the table while it is negotiated.

There is clearly a broader issue here about minimum standards measures. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) pointed out very articulately, what we must understand is that we have a different legal system from the rest of the European Union. The hon. Member for Hammersmith made the same point. If we accept minimum standards measures, step by step they take away the ability of this Parliament and of our courts to shape our justice system. If we decide on any occasion to opt into such a measure, it is of paramount importance that we understand the implications of doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Grayling and Geraint Davies

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely assure my hon. Friend that that will be a factor. As we select organisations to fill different geographic parts of the Work programme, bidders’ ability to demonstrate a knowledge, awareness and understanding of the geography they will be dealing with will certainly be a factor for us. In substantially rural areas, it is essential that organisations have the expertise to deal with the particular challenges of the rural economy and not simply with those found in towns and cities.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that the best personalised assistance that could be offered to a couple with six children who are facing the £500 benefit cap would be to advise them to split into two single-parent families of three children? As a family, they already consume £500 in benefits plus £250 in housing benefit, but as two separate units they would get £250 each in benefits plus £250 in housing, thereby costing the Exchequer £1,000, using two houses and being a split-up family.

[Chris Grayling]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise how important it is that work pays in our society and how frustrated working people are that it is possible for a family to receive, when the tax equivalent is taken into account, an income comparable to £35,000 a year in benefits. If we are to send the message that work pays, we have to limit the amount that the state supports people when they are outside work.