European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is spot-on. This is exactly such an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that there is political will behind their words. Let us hope that, as a result of new clause 30 being on the amendment paper, we can agree it tonight, and then get on with many of the other big issues. I simply say that I am looking forward to the Minister’s response, but if it is not satisfactory, I very much hope to press the new clause to a vote.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

The intervention by the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) was a little unfair on the Secretary of State, because he is not just using warm words. There has been a flurry of activity and real commitment in the past four months, including banning neonicotinoids just a few days ago, placing CCTVs in every abattoir in the country, raising sentencing from six months to five years for those who engage in cruelty to animals, and banning the ivory trade. I could spend 10 minutes reeling off the Secretary of State’s achievements, promises, commitments and actions. We should celebrate that. It is extraordinary.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I agree with him—so far. There are still more tests to be applied to how far-reaching this Secretary of State is, but the commitments he has made so far have certainly been welcome. I hope that he will also take strong action on this Brexit Bill, in terms not only of new clause 30 but of the crucial issues of environmental governance and principles. To be honest, what I have heard so far is that different commitments will be put into national policy statements, but that is not good enough. They are not robust or rigorous enough. The jury is still out on some things, but I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in saying that the progress so far has been pretty extraordinary by the standards of previous Secretaries of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). Her commitment to environmental issues is beyond question, and it has been a pleasure to work with her on a range of them during the years in which I have been a Member of Parliament. It is also a huge pleasure to follow my right hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and for Newbury (Richard Benyon). Given that they said so much of what I wanted to say, I am now tempted simply to say, “What he said.” It was a joy to listen to both speeches, because they were absolutely brilliant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Drew]

With that mind, why are the Government even contemplating a free trade deal with the US, which at a stroke would undermine our welfare standards and probably put our exports with the EU at risk?

[Zac Goldsmith]

There are huge assumptions in that intervention. We could of course organise a rubbish free trade agreement with the US which involves lowering all of our standards to the lowest possible level, but that would not be acceptable to my constituents or the hon. Gentleman’s, and the Government are not proposing that. The example that keeps on being given in relation to the lowering of standards is chlorination of chicken, and the Secretary of State answered that question beautifully.

[Dr Drew]

What about hormones in beef?

[Zac Goldsmith]

There are many examples. I have spoken out about hormones in beef often in this House—bovine growth hormones, chlorination of chicken and the use of chemicals that we do not allow in this country, or indeed in the EU. But this will come down to the quality of the negotiations that we engage in, and it is the job of this House to ensure that the agreements we reach honour and respect the standards expected by our constituents.

There is no reason to believe that we will not be able to do that. We have had absolute reassurances and some wonderful statements from the Secretary of State, and long may he avoid promotion—I hope he does not mind me saying so—because I do not want to see him move. Like the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), I do not want to see the Secretary of State bumped upstairs into a bigger job, not that he could not do it; he is doing such a good job where he is at the moment that I want him to stay there, and I have absolute confidence in him.

[Suella Fernandes]

I applaud my hon. Friend’s passion and expertise in this subject. Does he agree that the world-leading environmental body that is proposed for when we leave the EU is a great opportunity that Britain can grasp to take the lead on environmental standards?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. In one of his interventions, the Secretary of State said that nature by definition does not have a voice and that it is our job to give nature a voice. That is what we will do if we create an appropriate institution. I am absolutely committed, as my hon. Friend is and as many Members on both sides of the Committee are, to work together to get a world-class body to ensure that nature has a voice and that the Government can be held to account. That is what we must do and will do.

[Tom Brake]

Returning to the possible trade deal with the US, the Americans have already said that a condition of doing a trade deal with the UK is that we do not sign up to the EU’s animal welfare standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

I will answer the intervention but, with respect, I do not think that that is directly relevant to the points that we are making. We will engage in talks on a free trade agreement with the United States, and there will be argy-bargy and give and take. My view and—I am so happy to say— that of the Secretary of State is that that will not involve lowering animal welfare standards or environmental standards. Another point to make is that we do not just sign up to European animal welfare standards; our standards are higher in many respects than those applied throughout the rest of the European Union. Our pig standards, for example, are higher than any other country in Europe, and that does come with problems.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Exporting cruelty.

[Zac Goldsmith]

My right hon. Friend is correct. While we apply higher standards on our own food producers, we are accepting lower quality imports from other countries, so we are exporting cruelty to those countries, which is a problem. However, there is no question about the commitment of this Government or, indeed, of any party in our politics today—our collective commitment—to maintaining high animal welfare standards. The first campaign that I engaged in, aged four, involved persuading neighbours to let their birds out of their cages, because I could not bear the idea of the cruelty. Few people here are more committed to animal welfare than I am, but I have no concerns in this area, partly because of the assurances from Government and partly because there is a consensus in this place on the issue.

I cannot remember who asked me to give way, but I will not take an intervention whoever it was, which makes—

[Ruth Cadbury]

rose—

[Zac Goldsmith]

Ah, it is hard not to give way as the hon. Lady is a neighbouring Member of Parliament.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Gentleman talks about environment law and the Government’s so-called commitment to the environment, but does he agree that on air quality we cannot trust a Government that refuse even to consider introducing a scrappage scheme to address nitrogen oxide and particulates? They have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on defending the case that ClientEarth brought against them.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am a fan of ClientEarth, but I am sure that many in this place are not. In fact, I was one of the people who helped to set it up when it came to this country, and I am proud of the small role that I played in ensuring that it is able to do its job. I will not defend the Government’s record on clean air over the past seven years, because we could and should have done all kinds of things and today’s figures are astronomical. Some 40,000 people a year are dying early as a consequence of air pollution, which is not a million miles away from the number of people who died during the smog that led to the Clean Air Act 1956. We need to bring those policies together under the umbrella of a clean air Act, which is a point that I have made many times and continue to make. However, I do not doubt the Government’s commitment to tackling such issues.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Zac Goldsmith]

I shall move on, because I will otherwise fail to address the key issues that I wish to address. Before I first gave way, I was talking about the discussions between Government Members, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State’s advisers and the Greener UK representatives. Those discussions were meaningful—in some cases they lasted a long time—and they led to a broad agreement on a solution. I am delighted to say that that is the solution the Secretary of State has presented in the past few days.

The Committee has heard most of the details already, but my right hon. Friend has committed not only to creating a strong, independent body with teeth that can hold the Government and their successor Governments to account on the environment, but a policy statement—the policy statement we have already been debating—that will set out and define those key environmental principles.

There is a hierarchy of national policy statements. They are not all the same, and some have sharper teeth than others. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury knows more about that than I do, and I invite him to intervene.

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. The marine policy statement that came as part of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009—the right hon. Member for Leeds Central will feel extremely proprietorial about this—is a good example of how Government can set policy, and of the tortuous discussions about how Government can adhere to that policy. It is a good model to take forward as part of this policy statement.

[Zac Goldsmith]

My right hon. Friend has a closer experience of this issue than I do.

The solution presented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reflects a consensus reached between parliamentary colleagues and between his Department and the main representatives of Greener UK, who by and large have publicly welcomed the policy. I invite Members to look through the Twitter accounts of some of this country’s leading environmental campaigners and lawyers to see that, generally speaking, there is a high level of enthusiasm for the Secretary of State’s promises.

I agree very strongly with the sentiments behind many of the amendments that have been tabled, and to which hon. Members have already spoken. I am delighted the amendments were tabled, because they have had the effect of sharpening and focusing minds. I found them useful in my discussions with the Secretary of State, but I hope it will at least be acknowledged, particularly by Opposition Members, as it has been by the key pressure groups, that the amendments have already done their job.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not in his place at the moment but, if he is listening, I put on record my very sincere thanks to him for stepping up and giving nature the voice that it so badly needs.

[Mary Creagh]

I rise to speak to new clause 60, which was tabled in my name, and to support the amendments tabled by other right hon. and hon. colleagues.

I voted against the Bill on Second Reading because it puts sweeping powers in the hands of Ministers, sidelines Parliament and waters down our legal rights and protections, particularly environmental rights and protections. When we were asked to vote in the EU referendum, nobody voted for dirtier beaches or dirtier air.

The Environmental Audit Committee has undertaken three inquiries into the effect of leaving the EU on the UK’s environmental policy. We found that our membership of the EU has been overwhelmingly positive for our environment. We went from being the dirty man of Europe in the 1970s to bathing on cleaner beaches, driving more fuel efficient cars and, as colleagues have said, holding the Government to account on air pollution. I do not subscribe to the Panglossian view of the world that says everything will be awesome when we leave. Everything is not awesome, most particularly in the case of air pollution and seabird censuses. We are still a member of the EU and we are not meeting the laws to which we have collectively contributed and collectively signed up under successive Governments.

Eighty per cent. of UK domestic environmental laws are shaped by Brussels, so few areas of policy will be more affected by the decision to leave. Fully one quarter of the EU acquis, which the Bill is trying to cut and paste into UK law, is related to DEFRA—our beaches, rivers, coastlines and marine reserves. We have talked about the gaps in the Bill, and my amendment seeks to close those gaps because with this Bill we are running a risk that environmental law will no longer be monitored, enforced or updated and that on exit day we will be left with zombie legislation.

What we have heard from Ministers today has not reassured me, because they have outlined a path of managed divergence, which is very bad news when it comes to giving certainty to Government, businesses or investors looking to invest in this country. That is why my Committee called for a new environmental protection Act before we leave the EU. The laws are effective only if we have strong institutions to enforce them. As the Secretary of State said when he gave evidence to the Select Committee two weeks ago, there is currently a Commission-shaped hole in the Bill’s proposals.

Assisted Suicide

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I support the motion, and congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on securing a debate on an issue that is of significant public interest and has not been debated substantially in the House for some time.

What we are being asked today is simply whether we support the view of the DPP that it is not always in the public interest to prosecute people who have compassionately helped a loved one to die at his or her request. It seems to me that that is unarguable. It is true that before the DPP’s policy was set out there were few prosecutions, but, equally, it was not at all clear how decisions were being made. People were unable to know what sacrifices they could make for their loved ones, and what the consequences would be. That is why, in 2009, my friend Debbie Purdy—who I believe is in the Strangers Gallery, and who has been rightly praised by many other Members who have spoken today—took her legal case to the Law Lords.

Debbie simply wanted to know whether her husband Omar was likely to be prosecuted if he accompanied her to Switzerland to have an assisted death. In a letter that she wrote to me last week, she explained:

“My husband wanted me to delay any thought of death while my life was enjoyable, and he was emphatic that he would risk prosecution later, if I needed his help. I love Omar and wasn’t prepared to take that risk.”

Debbie was not asking for a change in the law; she simply wanted to understand it. She wrote:

“I believed I had a right to know what would actually lead to a prosecution so we could avoid that action. Clarity would let me make an informed choice as to what help I could safely accept from my husband.”

Because of her action, the Law Lords instructed the DPP to provide clarity, and the result was the DPP’s prosecuting policy which we are discussing today

Because the detail of the policy has already been explained today, I will not go into it now, but, in short, it draws a distinction between the compassionate and the malicious. It effectively says that prosecution should not be the automatic, unthinking response to assisted suicide, and that numerous human factors should be taken into account. Before the DPP’s policy was set out, Debbie was in the awful position of having to plan for her own death even while she should have been enjoying her life.

[Anna Soubry]

Would my hon. Friend go as far as some who would argue that it is not right or fair for Debbie to have to travel somewhere else to die with dignity as she wishes to do? Does he agree that in due course our law could change so that she could die at home rather than having to travel to some clinic abroad?

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

I do agree, and I shall say more about that in a few moments. In fact, Debbie herself said at the time that had she lost her case, she would have booked into Dignitas in 2009. Her letter concludes:

“I know of situations where these guidelines have, even without the certainty of law, delayed the timing of an assisted death and made a death less frightening and lonely. For my part, the guidelines have allowed my life to be longer and happier. The Lords saved my life.”

She says that because the Lords initiated this process.

The DPP policy is clearly a step forward, as it provides some clarity. I am not convinced it provides sufficient clarity, however. For instance, only a minority of GPs feel that there is enough guidance for doctors on what to do if a patient asks for help to die. We also need to ask if it is right that mentally competent adults should have to travel abroad to receive medical assistance to die, and we must assess whether it is right that the law can brand someone a criminal for helping their loved one, even while the same law gives them a sympathetic nod and a wink.

The motion does not address these concerns. Neither does amendment (a), for which, in truth, I have yet to hear any compelling arguments. I hope we will debate the broader issues in due course. For now, however, the policy provides greater clarity on the application of the law than was ever previously available, and must therefore be welcome.

Phone Hacking

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing this hugely important debate, which has already led to something of a breakthrough. The whole House should be grateful to him for his contribution.

I shall speak briefly but firmly in support of the motion. I was encouraged by the words of the Attorney-General earlier. This scandal has escalated dramatically. At first, it involved just the odd celebrity, and then a few members of their wider families. Then it emerged that members of staff employed by those celebrities had been hacked, some of whom lost their jobs because they were falsely accused of leaking information to the press. When absolutely pushed, the public said that they were uncomfortable with this news, but there was no outcry. That was because the many media commentators soothed them, saying, “It’s just celebrities. They know what they signed up for, and this is what it’s all about. It’s tittle-tattle.” We were told that the hacking was distasteful, but if we interfered with the press, we would never see any exposure of corruption, fraud or hypocrisy.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman has alluded to the continual drip, drip of further revelations. Given what has happened, does he agree that by this stage, anyone who has been hacked should at least be informed of that fact?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman 100%, and I suspect that everyone else does, too.

The revelations have continued, and in the past few days we have seen what appears to be almost a tsunami. We have heard the details involving the families of the tragic Soham girls, and the sickening details relating to Milly Dowler. I will not repeat them. We have also heard about the victims of 7/7. Those are all innocent people who never chose to be in the public limelight.

I suspect that, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) implied, this is the tip of the iceberg. We have no idea how big that iceberg is, which is why we need a full public inquiry. On its own, this scandal justifies such an inquiry. We have seen the abuse of position and power on an awesome scale. The blurred lines that we have allowed to exist for the press, to allow them to do what we need them to do, have been well and truly stretched. We have seen systemic abuse of almost unprecedented power. There is nothing noble in what those newspapers have been doing.

We cannot see this matter on its own, however, because the corporation has not acted on its own. Revelations last night, although they have yet to be proven, showed that a former editor provided authorisation for payments to the police. This demonstrates that the company was not acting on its own, and what can generously be described as a sloppy investigation by the police suggests that that collaboration ran very deep indeed. There can be few things more important to members of the public in this country than an ability to trust the police. Tragically, however, what began as a conspiracy theory is now looking less and less like a theory.

This does not even end with the police. As MPs, we depend on the media. We like to be liked by them; we need to be liked by them. We depend on the media, and that applies still more to Governments. It is an unavoidable observation that Parliament has behaved with extraordinary cowardice for many years, with a few very honourable exceptions, whom I shall identify. They are the hon. Members for Rhondda and for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) in particular, but they are not alone. Collectively, however, we have turned a blind eye. It is only with this latest sordid twist, the shameful behaviour of the News of the World in relation to Milly Dowler and the subsequent outpouring of public rage, that Parliament has finally found its—what is the correct term?—backbone, and taken a stand. Well, it is better late than never.

Rupert Murdoch is clearly a very talented business man and possibly even a genius, but his organisation has grown too powerful and it has abused its power. It has systematically corrupted the police and, in my view, has gelded this Parliament, to our shame.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Zac Goldsmith]

I am about to finish, so it would be fine if the hon. Lady would like to intervene now.

[Sheila Gilmore]

In the light of the hon. Gentleman’s comments, does he agree that the issues Members have raised on this topic over the last few months are relevant to the proposed BSkyB takeover so we should show our backbone on that issue, too?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I agree absolutely. It is not possible, as suggested earlier, to separate what we are talking about now from the proposed takeover. I think any separation would be entirely artificial. That deal needs to be put on hold by the Government until the dust has settled and we know where we stand. Anything less than that will be viewed as appalling by the public and will be met with a nod of disapproval. This is a crucial issue, so I hope to hear some more positive remarks about it in the wrap-up.

I have said what I came here to say and have only a few seconds left. This motion is hugely important. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda for this breakthrough and I hope the House will provide him with the support he deserves in pursuing this incredibly important agenda.