Rights to Protest

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. I join the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) in dissociating myself from what I think were, frankly, smears from the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers). There is no misunderstanding about what the Bill will do, and it is quite condescending to suggest otherwise. The vast majority of protesters are entirely peaceful. They represent a cross-section of our constituents, and they know that there is a proud history of peaceful protest in this country that needs to be defended.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and to add to what I said on Second Reading of the Bill—namely that this legislation is dangerous, undemocratic and disproportionate. It is clear that huge numbers of our constituents feel the same: nearly 2,500 Brighton, Pavilion residents signed the petition opposing any restrictions on our right to peaceful protest. I know from my inbox that there is grave concern about giving the police new powers to undermine what are treasured and critical fundamental rights in any democracy. Handing more draconian powers to the police would be troubling at any time. It is especially dangerous when too much of the police response to the outpouring of anger and grief at the murder of Sarah Everard has been characterised by bad judgment, heavy-handedness and tone deafness. Footage of women apparently being wrestled to the ground by male police officers at vigils to protest male violence and to remember a woman killed by a police officer sent shockwaves around the country.

Moreover, this Bill has been tabled at a time when, as a recent police watchdog report makes clear, the police have responded to the demands of the pandemic and the frightening lack of clarity from Ministers about what was and was not a criminal offence by overreaching and with overzealousness. A review from the Crown Prosecution Service suggests that the Coronavirus Act 2020 has been misapplied by the police 232 times since last year; in fact, that is every single time it has been used to charge someone. Throughout the pandemic, heavy-handed police interpretation has not only been sanctioned but has been encouraged by Ministers.

Let us be clear: the Bill is a blatant and biased attack on the long-standing right to protest from a Government that have a track record of dismissing the rule of law, the truth, legal obligations and human rights as disposable inconveniences. As an aside, I remind colleagues that the Government are also seeking to change how judicial review works—further evidence of their ongoing opposition to future accountability and the rule of law. The Bill is about protecting those with power, and presumably with the Prime Minister’s mobile number on speed dial, from being challenged or held to account by the citizens of this country. It will do that through a range of restrictions on the right to freely assemble and to express dissent.

For example, the Bill seeks to extend the practice of handing out harsh sanctions as a disincentive to those considering organising protests to anyone simply taking part, which is insidious. At the same time, Ministers want to increase almost fourfold the length of time organisers could potentially be imprisoned. Those and countless other proposals are chilling. Put simply, everyone in this country risks being criminalised simply for exercising their democratic rights if the Bill becomes law. Friends of the Earth warn of the particular barriers that will be created for those from marginalised communities to having their voices heard, such as people of colour, who already have disproportionately negative experiences of policing and the criminal justice system. The hostile measures contained in part 4 of the Bill and which will clearly be used to target the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community appear nothing short of racist in their intention.

The Bill is about silencing our constituents and communities, metaphorically and indeed literally, with clauses that would allow a protest to be severely restricted by the police in anticipation that it might be too noisy and thereby disrupt those at whom it is aimed. But right now the voices of our constituents, and of campaigners clamouring for the Bill to be scrapped, are echoed far and wide. The opposition is cross-party and it is growing. Critics of aspects of part 3 of the Bill include two former Home Secretaries, Lord Blunkett and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). A former Greater Manchester police chief constable, a former Durham constabulary chief constable and a former Metropolitan police commander have all warned of the dangers this legislation poses to British democracy and to safe policing by consent in our communities. So will the Government stop and listen?

When I spoke on the Bill on Second Reading, I noted that it would have made Greta Thunberg, sitting alone with a placard, a potential criminal, likewise all the brave and passionate youngsters who know that the future of humanity and our planet depends on peaceful protest, exposing just how inadequate Government action is compared with the scale of the climate and nature emergencies.

As one of the few MPs to be arrested during a peaceful protest and subsequently, after a week’s court case, acquitted of any wrongdoing, I have first-hand experience of the power of non-violent direct action. My protest was against fracking, as part of a movement that has secured an effective moratorium on that technology. Protest works; it changes things. Throughout the long history of this country, people have assembled to express their dissent and have changed the course of that history.

I remember when Members from all parties were falling over themselves to be associated with the Suffragettes on the 100th anniversary of the Representation of the People Act 1918. Back then, protest was suddenly not a dirty word. Now, when the protests are a little closer to home, whether that is Black Lives Matter or Extinction Rebellion, it seems the right to protest is no longer quite so universally celebrated. Fundamental rights are not like multiple choice; we don’t get to pick the most convenient and carelessly ditch the rest. They are universal and they should be defended in their entirety.

I end by calling on the Minister to tell us the truth and answer this question honestly: are the Government committed to upholding the human rights and civil liberties set out in articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights? He recently affirmed:

“The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental tool of civic expression and will never be curtailed by the Government.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 385.]

Yet the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill seeks to do exactly that. He and his Government either need to level with the British public about the facts or put this dangerous, undemocratic and disproportionate Bill where it belongs—on the scrap heap.

Policing and Prevention of Violence against Women

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Much of what we are discussing right now speaks to greater assurance and public confidence in the criminal justice system and of course, as Members have touched on already, in policing and the events on Saturday evening. It is vitally important that, through the VAWG consultation and the development of the strategy, we look at this not in an isolated way, but end to end. We need to look at the entire system, right down to the types of abuse and harassment that girls and women are experiencing. We need to look at the root causes and behavioural factors to understand why perpetrators and individuals are behaving in a particular way. We need to look at why abuse is taking place and at how we as a country and a Government tackle those issues. That does impinge on the criminal justice system. All our work is based on driving better outcomes—the right outcomes—so that, when criminality takes place, we can ensure that the perpetrators of crimes are receiving the tough sentences that they deserve.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]]

I join others in extending my condolences to Sarah Everard’s family and to the families of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman and countless others who have lost their lives because of male violence.

I acknowledge the particular policing challenges at a time of covid restrictions, but the Met is still obliged to follow the Human Rights Act and execute its powers proportionately and only when necessary. It is clear to everyone that it got it terribly wrong on Saturday night. Does the Secretary of State therefore not see that handing over yet more draconian powers to the police when they have so badly misjudged this situation would be both foolish and dangerous? A Bill that criminalises protests that are noisy and have impact effectively means cancelling this country’s long-standing right to peaceful protest altogether. Finally, will she stand in solidarity with the women arrested over the weekend and call for the withdrawal of any fixed-penalty notices that were issued because of the Met’s disproportionate response?

[Priti Patel]

I will not go over my comments about the police on Saturday evening. Those points have been made. I absolutely disagree with what the hon. Lady said, but we will discuss it further on Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill later this afternoon. The fact is that, as a country, we believe in freedom of expression, free speech and the rights of people to express themselves freely through protest—managed protest—in the right way. The police always engage with individuals and organisers. We will debate this during the course of the Bill, but I am afraid that the hon. Lady has completely misrepresented the proposals that we are putting forward.

Channel Crossings in Small Boats

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

There are dozens of investigations under way into these criminals who are facilitating illegal immigration. I have mentioned the 24 convictions and prison sentences given already this year in the UK, and there has been a similar number—in fact, I think a slightly greater number—in France. We are now working ever more closely with our French colleagues and the various arms of the French Government on this activity. We have the joint intelligence cell. There is the Co-ordination and Information Centre unit in Calais, which co-ordinates activity between our two Governments and our two sets of law enforcement agencies. I said that an arrest was made as recently as this morning. The French are making arrests as well. Both Governments share the objective that my hon. Friend described of putting these dangerous and ruthless criminal gangs out of business.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Minister keeps referring to applying for asylum in the first safe country, as though it were a legal requirement. It is not—it is one of the criteria under Dublin. People have a right to apply in any country they choose and family reunion is supposed to take precedence, so I would like him to correct that when he replies. I would also like him to say whether his Government will focus more on the causes of migration, including the accelerating climate emergency, and take seriously a Bill that I will be tabling later today—the climate and ecological emergency Bill—which is designed precisely to try to tackle some of these root causes of why so many people are taking to dangerous boats.

[Chris Philp]

Of course we agree that dealing with issues in source countries—economic issues and others—is a vital part of fixing this problem. Migration trends across the world, and into Europe across the Mediterranean and the Aegean, have grown dramatically over the last few years. The small boat crossings that we are seeing are a small part of that much bigger picture. This Government have done a huge amount on climate change. We have virtually eliminated coal-fired power stations, one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, and CO₂ emissions generally in this country have fallen dramatically over the last 10 or 15 years, as the hon. Lady well knows.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 6th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I warmly welcome the Bill and the amendments to it that have been tabled. It has been urgently needed for a great many years, but perhaps never more so than now. I add my thanks to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for all they have done on the campaign against the “rough sex” defence, and associate myself in particular with amendment 35 on misogyny as a hate crime, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and spoken to very ably by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine).

Like many others, I urge the Government to look again at the issue of migrant women and the issue of “no recourse to public funds”. I do not think that, so far, the Government have really recognised what is at stake. As the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), suggested, simply taking away the existing law would be a positive way to deal with the crisis right now.

I wish to speak in particular to a survivor’s right to press anonymity, in respect of which there is an omission in the Bill. That gap in the legislation risks undermining many of the provisions designed to increase reporting and access to justice. Currently, the law allows the media to identify domestic abuse survivors when they appear in court. For survivors, the majority of whom are women, that means accepting yet another level of fear and risk. It potentially means that a perpetrator can more easily find them. It means that every aspect of their past behaviour is potentially subjected to unaccountable scrutiny and judgment. Without press anonymity, domestic abuse survivors face the risk of being abused all over again.

My new clause 19 has been developed with RISE, which is one of the leading service providers and advocates for women in my constituency, and it is based on RISE’s wealth of experience of what prevents women from reporting domestic abuse and what keeps them as safe as possible once it does happen. The new clause seeks to ensure that survivors of domestic abuse receive the same guarantee of press anonymity that has been in place for survivors of sexual assault for almost 30 years via the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. In essence, it would prevent identifiable details from being published by the media, online, in print or on social media, and require any content that breaches anonymity to be deleted. The right to anonymity would come into force as soon as domestic abuse is reported to the police and last for a survivor’s lifetime. The new clause would also create a new offence whereby a publisher could be fined for anonymity breaches. That penalty, and the level of fine, is consistent with the 1992 Act and the rights of survivors of sexual assault.

There are many reasons why a failure to guarantee anonymity for survivors weakens the objectives of the Bill. First, domestic abuse victims and survivors are more likely to be killed within the first year of their leaving an abusive partner—a timeframe that frequently coincides with their cases coming to court. Naming survivors in the media puts their wellbeing and safety at further risk, putting them and their children under unimaginable strain and anxiety during what is already an extremely difficult process.

Secondly, the fear of being identified by friends, family members, work colleagues and employers after being named in the press actively discourages survivors from reporting domestic abuse. As one told RISE:

“"None of my family knew, neither did my employer…I felt sad, ashamed, embarrassed and violated.”

It must be a survivor’s choice as to who they tell about an abusive relationship, and when, not one taken from them by the media. The law as it stands wrests power and control from women in a situation in which a loss of power and control are already factors in their abuse.

Thirdly, cases of domestic abuse can involve sexual abuse, too, and inconsistent survivor-anonymity provisions may lead to a breach of the 1992 Act, perhaps inadvertently. The best way to keep survivors safe is to protect their anonymity, especially as sexual violence may not always be disclosed in domestic abuse reports.

The view expressed by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), in Committee was that the anonymity provisions are

“an exceptional interference with open justice.”––[Official Report, Domestic Abuse Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2020; c. 325.]

With respect, I think he is wrong. Of course, there is always a balance to be struck, but there are precedents not only in the 1992 Act but in the Serious Crime Act 2015 in respect of female genital mutilation and in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 as well.

Under my new clauses, survivors could still be named in court and journalists could still report on other aspects of the case; they simply would not be able to publish identifiable details, such as photographs or the survivor’s, name, address or workplace. It is not about restricting free speech; it is about keeping survivors safe and alive. There is no justice unless that is one of the Bill’s primary objectives. I urge the Government please to consider my new clause again. It would bring this Bill in line with the 1992 Act and make it better and more consistent.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Prevent Programme

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend, who has huge experience in this field, makes a very important point. Yesterday the Government announced moves and measures to ensure that people who commit the most heinous crimes, including terrorism, will see longer, more severe sentences, and victims can have confidence in that. It is also right that we continue to do everything we can to ensure that people who commit an offence are able to reform and move forward. There are lessons to learn. The Prevent review is looking at the lessons to be learned from what happened at Fishmongers’ Hall. My hon. Friend is right: we need to continue to work in this area to ensure that we keep our society safe.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The police might say that this was an error of judgment, but it is also part of a pattern. Footage of my arrest for peaceful protest against fracking was used in Prevent training sessions back in 2015. In 2016, the Home Office said that support for anti-fracking was not an indicator of vulnerability to extremism, but years later, evidence shows that four police forces were still identifying anti-fracking as a perceived extremist risk, so can the Minister tell me why we should now trust his Department on this subject? What is it doing differently? In particular, what reassurance can he give us that he will advise the police to ensure that any policing in the run-up to, and at, COP 26 is within the law and appropriate?

[Brandon Lewis]

First, as I said earlier, the police in this country have independence, and it is important that we protect and respect that. They have said that this was an error of judgment. They have withdrawn the document and are reviewing it. The guidance documents that Counter Terrorism Policing produces are used across policing and by partners to deal with groups, including at public events in public venues. The hon. Lady refers to COP 26, which is coming up soon and is a tremendous opportunity for this country to outline what we do. I have absolute confidence that our police will do as they always do at these events, which is to do our country very proud.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 28th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have set out an economic analysis of the deal and exit from the EU, including in a no-deal scenario. I point him to that.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the Home Secretary recognise that ending freedom of movement is a huge loss for many people—not just for businesses and for our economy, but for families and friends here in the UK now? Will he actually own up to the fact that, as we should be reminding people, ending freedom of movement means that the freedom of movement for young people in this country to visit, stay and work in other countries will be massively reduced—we are shrinking our young peoples’ opportunities—and that if our goal is to reduce immigration, this is perverse because immigration from non-EU countries is actually going up while immigration from EU countries is going down?

[Sajid Javid]

I think the hon. Lady and I will have to agree to have different points of view. I respect her view, but I think one of the clear messages from the referendum result was that many people felt we needed an immigration system that is designed in Britain and built in Britain and which is designed specifically to meet the long-term needs of our economy and our society, and that is what we have set out in the White Paper. The independent work by the Migration Advisory Committee—the analysis it has done by looking at the immigration systems of other successful industrialised economies—shows that it is not necessary to have freedom of movement or something similar to freedom of movement in order to have a successful country and society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. I want to take him back to the threshold figure of £18,600, because it is so unfair, so unequal and so unjust. That is not even the minimum wage, so it deliberately splits up families, depending on the wealth of one person in that family. The Supreme Court says it has a particularly harsh effect on citizens who have lived and worked abroad. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is cruelty and callousness at the heart of this Government’s policy?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I absolutely agree. We could spend many hours debating, and highlighting the flaws of, so many of the features of the family migration rules. Another is the fact that this threshold only takes into account the earnings of the UK sponsor; it does not take into account, for example, the potential earnings of those who want to come and join their family members here. So these rules achieve absolutely nothing but keeping families apart—families split apart and destroyed.

Our asylum system also urgently needs important reform: to fix and extend the “move-on period” that forces newly recognised refugees into homelessness and poverty; to end the poverty support rates for asylum seekers and allow them the right to work; and to respect the vote in this House on the Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill to extend family reunion rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I do not mind being called a traditional Tory, but I am not so keen on “lazy”. If I am articulating that view and if it reflects a view that is held by many of my constituents and a large number of other people, I am doing the House a service.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

I will give way in a second.

Trevor Phillips, the founding chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, argued that there is a liberal consensus not to speak about such things. There is what he described—I do not know whether I am being unfair, but perhaps the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) matches this description—as “touchy”, “smug”, “complacent” and “squeamish” unwillingness on the part of bourgeois liberals to address the issue. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is a bourgeois liberal, but I do know that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) is, and I will happily give way to her.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way with the customary courtesy that we all appreciate so much—Hansard could perhaps put “sarcasm” in brackets there. To address his point, of course he needs to respond to his constituents, but would he accept that his constituents may have reflected such a view back to him because of things such as the poster put up by Nigel Farage during the referendum campaign that actually showed Syrian refugees while implying that that was something to do with freedom of movement being out of control? Perhaps he would be doing his constituents more of a service if he based his arguments on evidence, and the evidence, time and again, is that freedom of movement does not reduce wages. We need a Government who are willing to enforce a minimum wage. I wish this Government would do that, but that is not the fault of freedom of movement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Harman]

I am heartened by the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I hope he will join us when we take up the Home Secretary’s offer to go and talk to him about how we can make progress.

[Caroline Lucas]

The right hon. and learned Lady is making a powerful case. When I finally got into Yarl’s Wood, what came over to me from my conversations with the women I met is the mental torture, the arbitrariness, of not knowing why they had been taken. Although I respect that she is trying to get a majority for a particular timeframe, which is why she has chosen the 28 days, does she agree that, if we were not trying to make that compromise, there is an argument for ending indefinite detention altogether, without any timeframe?

[Ms Harman]

But the point is that it would not be indefinite—it would be finite. It would be for up to 28 days, and then with the possibility of a further 28 days—the cap would be there, with no more days after that. Perhaps I could talk to the hon. Lady about this further.

Here in the UK we pride ourselves on our commitment to human rights, so how is it that indefinite Home Office detention has been a feature of our system for so long? I suspect one reason is that immigration detention used to be used for a very small number of people—exceptional cases. In 1993, there were only 250 detention places, and for the most part many of them were not full. Now, 27,000 people are detained every year, with 7,000 of them for more than 28 days. I am very encouraged by the Home Secretary’s offer to meet us to discuss a way forward on this. I am grateful to the Immigration Minister for the evidence she gave to the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Unaccountable, arbitrary, indefinite detention is a human rights abuse. It is a cruel anomaly in our system, and I hope the Government will use the opportunity of this Bill to end it. They will have then done something that the last Labour Government should have done and did not, as was rightly pointed out by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary.

Immigration Detention: Shaw Review

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and for her welcoming of the pilot regarding vulnerable women. I will happily take a proper look at that report. I have seen a summary of it, but as I am looking for some more summer reading to do, that is a very good suggestion. When Parliament is back after the summer, I would be very happy to meet her and her colleague.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I visited Yarl’s Wood a few weeks ago. The overwhelming sense that I got was that the indefinite nature of detention is what makes it such a mental torture. People literally do not know how long they will be there or why they are there. It is a Kafkaesque nightmare. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge in particular that the adults at risk policy is fundamentally flawed because detention itself makes people more vulnerable? May I echo those others who have called on him to make it a priority to end administrative detention for immigration purposes, perhaps starting with a 28-day limit, but, ultimately moving to end it, because it makes vulnerable people more vulnerable and it does not work.

[Sajid Javid]

It is good that the hon. Lady has visited Yarl’s Wood, because that is the kind of scrutiny that we need. [Interruption.] I have just heard her say that it took time to get permission. I am sorry to hear that. However, it is good that she has visited and seen the centre at first hand. That does not necessarily mean that I agree with her entire assessment following her visit, but I am very happy to listen to her experience and her thoughts. Although I said at the start of my statement that administrative detention plays an important role when done properly in our immigration system, I do think—this is where we could agree—that there should be more alternatives to detention so that people can be held in the community, rather than in a detention centre, while their cases are being looked at. I hope that she welcomes some of the announcements that I have made today, but I am looking to do more and would be happy to hear her ideas about alternatives.

Cannabis-based Medicines

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point. He will know that Sativex, which has a cannabis base, is already licensed for those with MS, but today’s announcement is about how we can improve on the medical use of cannabis even further.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I, too, genuinely welcome the licence for Alfie today, but what a scandal it is that it has taken three months since Hannah Deacon met the Prime Minister and was promised swift and compassionate action, and what an outrage it is that, frankly, it is only the press attention that has finally shamed the Government into action. With regard to the expert panel, what assurance can the Home Secretary give that there will be enough Home Office staff to deal with the thousands of applications that might well now come?

[Sajid Javid]

Let me say gently to the hon. Lady that in the case of Alfie Dingley, of course we are all pleased that we have been able to issue the licence today. She should know that before the application—the approach by his clinicians—no Government had even entertained the idea, given that cannabis is classed as a schedule 1 drug, of looking at this from a medical point of view. This Government have done that. I hope that she can join us in not just welcoming that, but working together on how we can end the suffering of so many other people, particularly children, who could benefit from these kinds of medicines.

Medicinal Cannabis

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

Of course this process must be driven at pace, as it was this weekend by the team at the Home Office. I wish to place on record my thanks to the officials who worked extremely hard to find a solution and respond to this emergency. I come back to the point that this needs to be clinically led. In asking Dame Sally Davies to take forward the important work of setting up this panel, I am not talking to a plodding bureaucrat.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Further to the question from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is unfathomable that medicinal opiates, which are the same family as heroin, can be prescribed for medical reasons—usually for pain relief—yet medicinal cannabis cannot be despite the strong evidence base that it should be? Crucially, can the Minister give us the evidence base that is informing the Government’s position?

[Mr Hurd]

The evidence base comes from the official advice from the advisory council and others and it has been set for some time. The rules that we are having to work with have been around for a while under successive Governments. If this is the moment to revisit and challenge those rules, that is the role of a parliamentary democracy. What I am saying is that the Government have reflected deeply on the events of the past few weeks. They are constantly updating the evidence from the World Health Organisation and others, and are actively discussing changes to the way in which we handle these cases. I have made one announcement today and expect others to follow.

Medical Cannabis

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

We seem to be in some kind of Alice in Wonderland world where words mean the opposite of what we imagine. The Minister said that he is being fleet of foot, yet we have established that we are dragging our feet behind 15 EU member states and 29 US states. I have lost count of the number of times that he has talked about the importance of evidence, yet will he not accept the overwhelming evidence that there are no downsides to the kind of policy change that we are talking about, no matter how hard he looks for them? Why will he not commit at the very least to trials of the regulation of medical-based cannabis? That could, for example, answer questions about how best to distinguish between different types of use and facilitate research that might otherwise be hindered.

[Mr Hurd]

We are fleet of foot in the sense that we keep abreast of the evidence as it develops. I made it very clear in my statement that the Home Office will consider issuing licences to enable trials of any new medicine under schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, providing that it complies with the appropriate ethical approvals.