Cannabis

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have a host of stories going back to the ’80s and early ’90s, when we first had demonstrations in support of medicinal cannabis. It is a sad story. I have looked into the eyes of so many people who have said, “This is the only thing that gives me relief. Why on earth can’t I take it?”.

Cannabis is the oldest medicine in the world. It has been trialled and tested by tens of millions of people over 5,000 years. If there were any problems with natural cannabis, that would have been apparent a long time ago. However, all we have is this wall of denial by Governments who are afraid of the subject, afraid of becoming unpopular and afraid of it being said that they are going to pot.

I am not unrealistic, and I do not expect the Government to make a volte-face on recreational cannabis, but they should explain their position and realise what is going on. However, the case for medical cannabis, including in its natural form, is overwhelming. We can have it in Sativex, but there are problems with the drug, which is of limited value. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence does not like it, because the cost is very high.

Medical cannabis can now be used in 23 states in America. The best form is one produced in the Netherlands, which can be used in about a dozen countries in Europe. A change has to come. It is barbaric to deny people their medicine of choice. There can be no justification for doing that.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Does he agree that the biggest scandal is that this Government, like successive Governments, have set their face against the evidence? If we look at an evidence-based approach, there is absolutely no correlation between a drug’s legal status and the amount it gets used. In other words, prohibition simply does not work.

[Paul Flynn]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. We look at the United States with incredulity because it does not accept the evidence on gun possession. We can all see the evidence; it has been shown over and over again that the more guns there are in society, the more deaths and murders take place. However, the United States will not accept that. We are in a similar state of denial on cannabis. Many places in the world now recognise that prohibition has been a continuing disaster—a disaster more serious than the prohibition of alcohol in the United States—yet we refuse to recognise the fact.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, and a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb)—I think I completely agree with everything he said. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) for securing the debate and all the people who signed the petition, which raised the profile of this important issue.

I shall start with a few quotations:

“Drugs policy has been failing for decades.”

We need

“fresh thinking and a new approach.”

Not my words, but those of the Prime Minister, David Cameron, back in 2005 when he was a contender for leadership of the Conservative party. At that time, he also said that it would be “disappointing” if radical options on the law on cannabis were not looked at. Since then, he has reversed his position almost 180^° and done what, sadly, all too many politicians do once they have secured power—ignored the evidence and, in the face of what can be a hostile media environment, retreated to the status quo.

My position, which I have set out repeatedly in the House, is that we should be guided by the evidence. We need an urgent review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to determine whether the legislation has been effective and to consider whether alternative approaches might better reduce drug-related harms. That other countries and some US states have been more committed to following the evidence on cannabis than the UK has been creates an opportunity for us to learn from their experiences, whether they be of decriminalisation or some form of regulation.

There are clear and compelling grounds to legalise cannabis for medical use in particular and, having studied the evidence, I am fully persuaded that we need to do just that. Not because it is popular—although it is, with 53% of the UK public backing the legalisation or decriminalisation of cannabis for medical and non-medical use, according to an Ipsos MORI poll from last year. Not because many of those who already use cannabis-based medicines testify to the positive effects—although they do, with many claiming benefits for chronic pain, including that caused by neuropathy, fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis, and others, such as MS sufferers, citing its benefits. Not because the UK lags behind other nations when it comes to recognising the therapeutic value of cannabis—although it does, with 20 US states, Canada, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Israel, among others, legalising the production and supply of cannabis for medical use. I am fully persuaded, because a strong evidence base justifies looking in much more detail at exactly how we should regulate the production and supply of cannabis for medicinal purposes.

We owe it to people like my constituent, Charlotte, a 34-year-old mother living with a palliative cancer diagnosis. She told me:

“When you are faced with such a diagnosis, you either accept it and let the rot set in or you look outside the box!”

She believes that cannabis oil is saving her life and allowing her to live well:

“I would be dead or very, very ill if not for cannabis oil.”

She goes on to say that

“the Government is shooting itself in the foot, if it supported cannabis and proper evidence based trials were properly funded it would have a huge impact on the cancer costs.”

We owe it to Charlotte, and the many people like her who use or want to use cannabis medically, to stop our ideological opposition and start gathering, and then listening, to the evidence.

Trials of the regulation of medical-based cannabis could, for example, answer questions about how we differentiate types of use and how to avoid the potential for leakage into non-medical supply. They could facilitate research that might otherwise be hindered and, if successful, they could provide a potential stepping stone for regulated legal production and supply of cannabis more widely.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan in the Chair]

It is important to note that in those countries where medical cannabis is already regulated, implementation and practice has varied enormously. Some models have successfully demonstrated what effective, controlled production and responsible prescribing or retailing can look like. Elsewhere, regulation has been inadequate, leading to over-commercialisation and irresponsible sales practices and promotions. All that and more must be looked at within an agreed framework of what might be achieved through regulation, so that any proposals brought forward in the UK have learned from and built on existing good practice. That principle applies not just to medical cannabis; we have an opportunity to learn from countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark and US states that have introduced various regulated models for the sale of cannabis for recreational use too.

Colorado, which in 2012 became the first jurisdiction in the world to legalise cannabis, demonstrates the benefits of ending the criminalisation of users and putting the Government in control of the trade. Despite dire predictions, early evidence suggests that legalisation in Colorado has had the following positive outcomes: no spike in cannabis use among young people; thousands no longer receiving criminal records; no increase in road fatalities; and a significant reduction in the size of the criminal market, as the state now controls 60% of supply.

In these times of austerity, it is also interesting to note that in Colorado, for example, legal marijuana tax revenues have been breaking records. Through the first seven months of this year, Colorado has brought in nearly $73.5 million, putting the state on track to collect more than $125 million for the year, with $40 million of that allocated for school building programmes. If that kind of benefit can be properly balanced with a regulatory regime that minimises individual and social harm, which theoretically Governments are supposed to do for the production, sale and use of alcohol, why does it not make sense to be open to alternatives to prohibition? There is growing pressure to learn from what is being tried in other countries. The Select Committee on Home Affairs concluded that Government action is needed “now, more than ever” to learn from the models adopted in, for example, Portugal.

We should also pay attention to the evidence from closer to home. When in 2004 cannabis was declassified from a class B to a class C drug in the UK, most estimates suggest that there was a decline in cannabis consumption or no change. A study from Newcastle University Business School also concluded that there is generally no evidence for an increase in the consumption of any other drugs by young people, in particular heroin, cocaine, crack, amphetamines, ecstasy, acid or glue, or for an increase in the consumption of any class A drug.

There is also no evidence for an increase in various forms of criminal behaviour, including drug production and distribution, with the possible exception of a small increase in property crime among 15 to 17-year-olds relative to those under 15. Finally, there is no evidence for an increase in antisocial behaviour, victimisation or any other types of risky or antisocial behaviour.

In other words, and this is borne out by looking at long-term trends across drugs and other different classification regimes, illegality or otherwise has very little effect on whether people use drugs.

[Paul Flynn]

Does the hon. Lady recall a very spiky example here of one of the scare stories about cannabis? It was said that cannabis users were on the slippery slope and that if they started with cannabis they would end in a life of degradation in the gutter. It was followed up by Ann Widdecombe, who wanted to introduce some new punitive laws, until half the shadow Cabinet declared that they had taken cannabis as young people. They ended up on the slippery slope to a form of degradation on the Tory Front Bench, but one that is not illegal yet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his recollection. It is of a time before I was in this House, but he has made a very eloquent testament to the fact that cannabis does not act as a gateway drug; it does not drive people to crime or to act antisocially.

Successive Governments have used carefully calibrated snapshots in time in an attempt to illustrate that the laws are working to reduce drug use, but if one looks at overall trends over time the only thing that is really certain is that there is no link between illegality and use. For example, cannabis use has been in decline since 2000 and that trend was completely unaffected by the drug being downgraded in 2004 and subsequently upgraded again in 2009. In other words, the relative illegality of cannabis does not appear by itself to act as a deterrent.

That conclusion is also reached in research published in the Journal of Substance Use, for example, which corroborates previous studies that found that whether or not a drug is illegal has very little bearing on people’s decision to use it. One study compared Norway, which has a relatively liberal regime, with Sweden, where strict controls are in place, and both countries have similar levels of drug use. Again, that undermines any correlation between levels of punishment and levels of drug taking.

However, there is powerful evidence that the so-called war on drugs is actually making things an awful lot worse. Far from being neutral, in many cases the current model pushes users towards more harmful products, behaviours and environments. I know that many of us are concerned about the long-term effects of newer and stronger forms of skunk, for example, and prohibition makes it incredibly difficult to monitor or test new drugs, to evaluate their impact or to provide users with health information. On the other hand, regulation would allow individuals to make more informed choices and to reduce many of the risks associated with illegal consumption.

Therefore, it is crucial to differentiate the suffering caused by drugs and the suffering caused by drugs policy. The scandal is that it is the latter problems—those caused by drugs policy—that are the more serious, and they are the things that we could make a difference to if we could just garner sufficient political will and courage in this House. The vast majority of drug-related offending takes place not because people take drugs but because of drugs policy; users are driven to burglary and theft to buy drugs at vastly inflated prices in an unregulated market. There is enormous potential to reduce crime and its impact on our communities significantly if we were to adopt a different, regulated system.

Cannabis is a good place to start with that, so that we can introduce change gradually and safely, monitor the effects on individuals and wider society, and ensure that we have a model that minimises harms and does not encourage so-called drug tourism but instead educates users and—critically—removes the trade from the hands of the criminals and the gangs. This is a chance to take the best of what has been tried elsewhere and reject the worst, finding a legal, regulated model for the production, sale and use of cannabis.

This week, we will be giving the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill its Second Reading, and I will argue that if the Government were serious about devolution they would also allow local authorities far greater scope to pursue drug policies that are shown to work locally, even if local priorities are at odds with national policy or legislation. Such an approach would be in keeping with the advice from the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which has recommended that national Governments allow local initiatives to experiment with locally designed policies that are, as the commission puts it:

“designed to undermine the power of organised crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens.”

That is exactly what we tried to do in Brighton and Hove, the city that I represent here, because when I was first elected in Brighton, Pavilion, our constituency had the much unwanted title of the drugs death capital of the UK; at that time, more people were dying of heroin overdoses in Brighton than anywhere else in the UK. As a result, a group of us got together and set up a commission on drugs, and we looked at what we could do to try to make a difference, based on evidence. Although we made big strides forward, I have to say that the national policy framework was a real obstacle to our going as far as we would have liked to, in terms of some of the measures that we wanted to pursue.

None the less, by looking at the evidence, we have managed to achieve a 17% increase in the number of people leaving treatment successfully, compared with a national average of 7%; we have actively tackled concerns about whether people were too easily left on maintenance programmes, so that almost half the people leaving treatment services now do so in a drugs-free way, compared with 35% at the end of 2010-11; we have rolled out training to administer naloxone and reverse heroin or methadone overdoses, and we have reduced benzodiazepine prescribing rates; and the number of drug-related deaths in the city has also fallen, at a time of massive Government-imposed spending cuts and massive upheavals for the NHS and police services in particular.

In conclusion, the call contained in this petition that so many of our constituents have signed—930 in my own constituency alone—is an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate their commitment to the evidence, to genuine devolution and, indeed, to fiscal responsibility, and I hope that the Minister will be able to offer us reassurances on all those fronts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

Brighton, Pavilion.

[Mike Penning]

I apologise. She is the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—my civil servants will be told off later for the notes I was given. I say to her: do not believe everything that Ipsos MORI or any other pollster says. I was supposed to have lost my seat in 2010, but I returned with a majority of 13,000. Pollsters get it wrong; it is about the questioner.

[Caroline Lucas]

indicated dissent.

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Lady can shake her head, but it is a fact that we were not predicted to win the election, yet we did. There are different views about what pollsters say and can measure, but our job is to protect our constituents.

[Caroline Lucas]

I was shaking my head only because the polls are one tiny part of the overall case that I and colleagues have been making. Our case has been about looking at the evidence. I find it shocking to hear from both the Minister and, sadly, the shadow Minister no real interest in looking at the evidence. Yes, we have heard two medically qualified people speak, but there is plenty of medical evidence out there that suggests that, for example, freeing up cannabis for medicinal use is a positive thing to do. Will the Minister undertake to look at the evidence?

[Mike Penning]

I am not certain that the hon. Lady was listening to what I said, but I suggest she read Hansard tomorrow morning. We have cross-party agreement that we will look at research and see how we can help people. I am committed to that, as is the shadow Minister. We will try to do that, but I cannot do it at the Home Office alone; it has to be done across the board. That is the most important thing that can come out of this debate. It is not about who is right and wrong; let us try to work out what can help individuals.

Immigration Statistics

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Friday 28th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

People who want to come to this country to contribute, work hard and study hard are always welcome. But at the end of the day, there was abuse of the system, and we all know that it was taking place in our constituencies on a regular basis. We will not allow that abuse to continue. That was a key part of the Prime Minister’s speech this morning, and it is very important.

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

I refer the Minister again to the research published earlier this month by University college London showing that EU migrants paid £20 billion more in taxes than they received in benefits. That means that they are not coming here to claim our benefits. His measures would be counterproductive and nasty. Instead of trying to outdo each other in being as mean as possible to immigrants with all this rhetoric, we should be looking at the root causes. We need more affordable housing. That is the way forward, rather than demonising a particular group in society.

[Mike Penning]

I have 16,000 council houses in my constituency and two areas that are in the top 10 areas of socio-economic deprivation. We need more council houses and the Conservative local authority is now building them again, but I do not want them filled with people who come here—until they have been here for at least four years. We have enough of a waiting list already in my constituency and in other constituencies around the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

That is one reason why I think it is important that we address the caution system, because it has been possible for somebody who commits an act such as shop theft simply to receive a caution again and again. Those people must come to court to be dealt with properly by our magistrates, and that is why the measures in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill are so important.

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

11. What progress his Department has made on the transforming rehabilitation programme.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

Transition to the new probation structures took place on 1 June, and bids to run community rehabilitation companies were received at the end of June. More than half the bidders include a voluntary, mutual or social enterprise organisation, and mutuals continue to feature strongly. The contract winners for each CRC will be announced by the end of 2014, as planned.

[Caroline Lucas]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is deeply worrying that a recent survey of probation workers shows that more than 90% disagree with the view that the changes will provide value for money for the taxpayer, or improve service provision for users—they talk about spiralling work loads, stress, and dysfunctional IT? When will he stop ignoring the experts and admit that the best option to reduce reoffending and protect public safety would be to cancel the probation sell-off and re-integrate the two parts of the service at the earliest opportunity?

[Chris Grayling]

I take greater comfort from the fact that 90% of probation officers chose not to respond to their union’s survey and are getting on with the job, the excellent work they do on a day-by-day basis, and their good work to help the new systems bed in.

Prison Overcrowding

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The approach that we have taken on privatisation has been to privatise individual services in the way that was recommended by the Prison Governors Association, because we needed to drive through savings quickly across the whole estate, rather than across part of it, but my hon. Friend’s point is sensible. I do not want a prison population the size of the one we have, but nor do I ever want a court to be unable to send an offender to prison when it believes that it should do so. That is why our rehabilitation strategy is so important. The way we will bring down the population of our prison estate is by preventing people from coming back to it, rather than by not locking them up in the first place.

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

What consideration has the Secretary of State given to treating drug addiction as a health issue, rather than a criminal issue? If he did that, he would have far more space in his prisons.

[Chris Grayling]

My Department and the Department of Health have jointly launched an integrated drug rehabilitation service in north-west England, which will ensure that rehab continues beyond the prison gate and is afterwards delivered by the same people. I am very much of the view that we have to tackle drug addiction, but we have to make the best use of the time in which we have people in custody, so that we ensure that they do not come back because of their addiction, that we get them off drugs, and that they do not reoffend.

Probation Service

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend has paraphrased what the chief inspector of probation, the probation trusts and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations have said, which I will come to shortly.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

I would like to make some progress first, if that is okay with the hon. Lady.

Over the past few days, the Justice Secretary has claimed that the pilots in Peterborough and Doncaster prisons show that his plans work. If he is honest with himself, he will know that that is nonsense. Those pilots are not only completely different from his plans for probation but are nowhere near to finishing, let alone being evaluated, although the interim results show that they are far from being a huge success. He should know better.

We must not let the Justice Secretary pull the wool over our eyes by saying that only low and medium-risk offenders will be in the hands of G4S, Serco and their ilk, as though only those caught stealing chocolate bars will be in their hands. Risk level is not directly related to the original crime committed. Offenders rated low and medium-risk include those convicted of domestic violence, burglary, robbery, violence against the person, sexual offences, and much more. I asked the Ministry of Justice how many offenders would be covered by these ratings and how many would be transferred over. It could not tell me how many of the 260,000 offenders supervised by the probation service are high, medium or low risk. You could not make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker! However, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is a wonderful thing. Using FOI, we have uncovered that the number of medium and low-risk offenders who will be handed over to the likes of G4S and Serco is 217,569.

[Sadiq Khan]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and then to my hon. Friend.

[Caroline Lucas]

That is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman and I am grateful. He spoke about the higher reoffending rates for those sentenced to less than 12 months. Is not that an argument in favour of extending the good practice of the probation service in allowing it to take over that area rather than contracting it out? The probation service is currently meeting or exceeding its targets, so if we let it work in that area as well, it can do equally well there.

[Sadiq Khan]

One would have thought that because the Justice Secretary is saying that we should extend supervision to those who have received a sentence of less than 12 months, he accepts that probation works and that the probation trusts are doing a good job, but no: he is abolishing the probation trusts and giving the big boys in the private sector responsibility for supervising those offenders. His argument is illogical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

Our probation staff are not prohibited from bidding. We have teams of staff who are preparing mutual bids, some of which will, I hope, be successful. They are receiving help from the Cabinet Office to do so, and we are hoping to see members of our current team take this opportunity, win contracts, and go on to make a real difference.

[Caroline Lucas]

The Government claim that private providers will have the tools they need to assess offender risks, but the proposals refer to a new and untried risk of serious recidivism model. Is the Minister aware of concerns that that could lead to private companies wrongly assessing the most serious cases—those with low risk of recidivism but high on the risk of harm, such as convicted murderers and rape offenders—and will he commit, in the interests of public safety, to proper piloting and external validation of any new tool before its implementation and before the creation of community rehabilitation companies?

[Chris Grayling]

We intend to use the same systems across the public, private and voluntary sectors—that is enormously important—so that there will be no question of people using different systems. It will be part of the contracting structure that what the public national probation service, working with the most serious offenders, uses will also be used by contractors.

Justice

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Ministerial Corrections

Legal Aid Scheme

[Caroline Lucas]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made, in calculating the likely costs or savings arising from his Transforming Legal Aid proposals, of the possibility of (a) increased applications for permission for judicial review and (b) increased applications for costs from public authority opponents, if lawyers are not paid unless permission for judicial review is granted; what the evidential basis was for that assessment; and if he will make a statement.

[Official Report, 10 September 2013, Vol. 567, c. 689-92W.]

Letter of correction from Jeremy Wright:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on 10 September 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mrs Grant]

At around £2 billion a year we have one of the most expensive legal aid systems of its type in the world. The consultation paper ‘Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system’, contained a range of measures aimed at reducing the cost of and promoting public confidence in the legal aid scheme, including a proposal that providers would only be paid for work on an application for permission to proceed with a judicial review if permission is granted by the court.

We are concerned that legal aid is currently being used to fund applications for permission for judicial review in weak cases which are unsuccessful and which have little effect other than to incur unnecessary costs for the public.

As part of our consultation we have published an impact assessment which is available at:

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-legal-aid

As noted in the impact assessment, under our proposal set out in the consultation paper the provider would need to make an assessment of whether the application is arguable and therefore permission should be applied for. There may therefore be a fall in permission applications made. This may reduce the number of cases the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) need to process and reduce the number of hours required in court for these cases with an associated saving for Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS). We have also noted in our assessment that there is the potential for an increase in requests for reconsideration of the permission application at a hearing, or onward permission appeals to the Court of Appeal where permission has been refused, which may result in an impact on HMCTS from reconsidering the applications.

In both circumstances however this is unquantifiable as the behavioural response of providers and clients is unknown.

Regarding possibility of increased applications for costs from public authority opponents, it is already the case that providers should generally agree costs as part of a settlement or seek a costs order form the court, as they would if acting for a privately paying client. This is set out in paragraph 6.58 of the 2013 Standard Civil Contract General Specification.

The consultation closed on 4 June 2013 and we intend to publish a Government response shortly.

The correct answer should have been:

Legal Aid Reform

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Teather]

I think there are critical issues involving choice.

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

rose—

[Sarah Teather]

I will struggle if I try to give way to everyone. May I at least respond to one intervention before I accept another?

I intend to speak about the residence test rather than about criminal legal aid, but I know that a number of Members—including the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who supported the application to the Backbench Business Committee, and my hon. Friends the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) and for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland)—want to refer to it specifically.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

rose—

[Sarah Teather]

I will give way first to the hon. Lady and then to the hon. Gentleman, but after that I must make some progress.

[Caroline Lucas]

I wanted to intervene early in the debate to crush the myth that this is about savings. It should be made absolutely clear that no money will be saved. Indeed, a barrister at Matrix Chambers has suggested that, rather than saving £6 million—which, in the great scheme of things, is not very much in any case—the changes are likely to generate on-costs of about £30 million.

[Sarah Teather]

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. She was referring, of course, to the changes in civil rather than criminal legal aid. I think that the costs are likely to be significantly greater, especially if people remain in detention or cannot be released from hospital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right and I could not have put it any better.

One of the most contentious aspects of these so-called reforms is the removal of the client’s right to choose. Instead people will be allocated a provider, regardless of the complexities of the case or whether they have any particular needs or vulnerabilities.

[Caroline Lucas]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the clause in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 that guaranteed the right of the individual to choose was deemed to be incredibly important and now is being completely ignored. Does he agree that there is a very real risk that the public simply will not have confidence in a system where the defendant’s lawyer is chosen by the very state seeking to convict them?

[Mr Llwyd]

That is a very important point, because it was considered vital in the civil context and yet curiously not even regarded as being of passing interest in the criminal context, where people risk their livelihood, liberty and everything else.

Comments made recently by the Justice Secretary in the Law Society Gazette make one rather suspicious that there is something ideological in the calculated removal of choice. He said that he does not believe

“that most people who find themselves in our criminal justice system are great connoisseurs of legal skills”

or to paraphrase—as we have heard—they are “too thick to pick”. These condescending comments display a sinister lack of compassion for the vulnerable in society and a cavalier disregard for these individuals’ best interests.

Denying an individual the right to choose their legal representation is arguably in breach of the European convention on human rights, article 6 of which sets out specific rights for criminal defendants including that they should be informed of the offence they are accused of in a language they can understand.

A loss of expertise will also follow, unfortunately; the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir E. Garnier). It will deprive the legal system of practitioners, firms, solicitors and counsel with specialist knowledge of particular cases and areas of law. In the event of price-competitive tendering being introduced to the so-called market, the quality of service will be considered at only a preliminary stage of the process. The final stage of bids will be determined on price considerations only. Even at the starting price, following three previous cuts to legal aid fees over the last eight years, the Government have specified that bids must be at least 17.5% lower than the current rates.

The first casualty of this race to the bottom will be the quality of service. Astonishingly, as has been said, providers will be paid the same unit price for preparing each case regardless of the offence and regardless of a push for either a guilty plea or trial. This presents a conflict of interest, but the Justice Secretary has said that he is sure the professionals can be relied on to act in the best interest of the client—but the professionals will no longer be around; that is the point. They will have been priced out of the market altogether.

The proposals provide that daily payments to solicitors, for example, will be reduced after a second day. There are many reasons for delays in court—interpreters not turning up, people speaking the wrong language, change of court date at the last minute, Crown Prosecution Service witnesses and so forth—but the individual lawyers are now apparently to be penalised. With 400 remaining providers, advice deserts will develop in rural areas.

At present, there are 249 law firms in Wales undertaking some form of criminal work. Under these proposals, only 21 contracts will be awarded to provide legal aid criminal services in Wales. Providers will be expected to service work across large distances without any additional payment for travel costs. There will be no guarantee of work after the initial three-year contracts have come to an end. It is difficult to imagine small local firms being able to survive. With them will go knowledge of the local area, local police, courts and agencies and local access to justice. Instead, we shall have Eddie Stobart, Tesco, G4S, the Co-op and so forth. There is even talk of call centres. The prospect of tendering cases out to “Stobart Law” or “Tesco Law” fills me with absolute dread. It will mean an attack on the criminal Bar and will make a cataclysmic impact on the future of our criminal judiciary.

These proposals will, I am afraid, seriously undermine the rule of law. Why is it, then, that the Council of Circuit Judges vehemently opposes these plans? Why is the Judicial Executive Board similarly opposed? Why is Lord Neuberger, until recently the President of the Supreme Court, vehemently opposed? Why? It is because they are right. The Justice Secretary—a non-lawyer—knows better than the finest legal brains in the British Isles. It is time to reconsider, and if this consultation is not to be a sham, the Government must reconsider.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) on securing this important debate.

When the Bill that became the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 was being debated, I genuinely thought that things could not get much worse—that the Government would not go any further in what appears to be a crusade to dismantle universal access to justice—but I was wrong. Since then we have had the deeply worrying Justice and Security Act 2013, and now we have these proposals for secondary legislation that will deny access to legal aid to some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our communities. Like many other hon. Members, I have been lobbied extensively by my constituents who share my passion about the importance of a justice system that supports the right to a fair trial. Yet that right is being fundamentally undermined, with precious few opportunities for MPs to scrutinise the details or to object.

Much has already been said about the impact of price competition tendering. I simply point out that many legal experts in my constituency have told me that if the changes go ahead, then cost becomes the determining factor, not quality, with the inevitable result of a huge loss of knowledge and expertise that will never be recovered. One of them notes that the effect will be more delays in court and a detrimental impact on victims and defendants in the criminal justice system. The system is already under immense pressure and only works because of committed judges, court staff, probation officers, barristers and solicitors who do what needs to be done out of professional duty and pride. Another expert issues this stark warning:

“PCT will in all likelihood destroy the independent criminal bar. A Bar that is held in the highest esteem throughout the world and which continues to adapt to a changing landscape.”

A constituent who works as a defence solicitor describes the likely impact of another proposal—namely, people having no choice about who represents them and the creation of a single fixed fee payable regardless of whether an individual pleads guilty. He says:

“The right to a fair trial will no longer be assured. Innocent people will end up in jail. Vulnerable and high maintenance defendants will be left unrepresented. The high maintenance clients will create delays and inevitable injustices in the Court and the vulnerable or weak will have inadequate protection from the police looking to meet their government imposed disposal stats.

In practice this will mean them accepting cautions at the police station and pleading guilty at court for offences they haven't committed. The police will have ‘solved’ many crimes. But it is unjust, and with criminal records, those affected will be prevented from becoming teachers, lawyers, doctors and MPs.”

I want to end with a few words about the judicial review process. Like many other hon. Members, I am deeply concerned about these proposals utterly undermining the JR process, which is one of the most important ways of achieving public body accountability. Environmental cases, social welfare cases, and cases about library closures, schools and so on were all done by way of judicial review. A consortium of non-governmental organisations working with refugees and migrants has commented:

“In our opinion the proposed change would result in an increase in unlawful decisions relating to access to services with disastrous effects on the individual and/or an increase in the number of individuals who seek to ask the court to intervene without the assistance of a properly qualified representative. This is not in the interests of justice.”

The homelessness charity, Shelter, has also raised concerns:

“Judicial review is the main mechanism Shelter uses to ensure local authorities meet their legal duties to help homeless people.”

It has stated that the proposals to limit legal aid funding for judicial review will have a significant impact on the ability of people on low incomes to question council decisions and, ultimately,

“will make it even more difficult for us to help homeless families find a place to stay for the night.”

The environmental charity, WWF, warns:

“These measures will significantly affect our ability to protect the environment… Individuals and civil society groups should not be denied their fundamental constitutional right to check an abuse of power and protect the environment on the basis of costs-cutting.”

Moreover, the Coalition for Access to Justice for the Environment has found no evidence to support the claims that the changes are justified because the Government are overwhelmed by judicial reviews on planning issues. That is not the case, nor are there any data to support a credible claim that judicial review is a significant impediment to economic progress.

If the planned changes go ahead, they will seriously damage public access to justice, the equality of citizen and state before the law, and our ability to hold the Government accountable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What recent discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on the costs and benefits of his reforms to judicial review.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The impact assessment of 23 April and the Government response to the consultation clarify the costs and benefits of our reforms, which are intended to tackle delays and reduce the burden, while upholding access to justice.

[Caroline Lucas]

Figures published by the Minister’s Department confirm that the proportion of judicial review applications for planning and environmental cases has remained unchanged since 2005. Does she agree that, rather than facing a culture of so-called meritless judicial review applications, what we actually face is a meritless attack on people’s fundamental constitutional rights to challenge unlawful behaviour by public bodies and protect their environment, without a shred of evidence to substantiate the changes she is rolling out?

[Mrs Grant]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady. Judicial review is a critical check on the power of the state—and it will remain so—but it is also subject to abuse, stifling innovation, frustrating reforms and imposing unnecessary costs on individuals, business and the economy. Our reforms will tackle the burden while maintaining the benefits of the rule of law, access to justice and the right to a fair hearing.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). I will address many of the issues he has raised. As he said powerfully, the amendments seek to provide some small right to the dreadful wrong that has been done to those couples who were forced by the state to annul marriages in order for one of them to avail themselves of their most basic civil rights.

Amendments 18 and 22 are in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), who is unable to be in the Chamber today because he is attending the spring session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I gladly agreed to speak to the amendments as the second signatory, because I have long been concerned to see that injustice rectified.

I shall provide the House with the case example that led the hon. Gentleman to table the amendments. His constituents have been married for 35 years as man and wife. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 forced them to annul their marriage, which they did in 2007, so that the male-to-female transsexual in the relationship could obtain a gender recognition certificate in her acquired gender and get on with her life. The legislation did not allow the couple to continue to be married even though they wanted that. Both were extremely clear that they wished to stay together and did not want a divorce. They had cared for, supported and loved each other as a married couple for more than 30 years, and wanted the care and support they mutually offered each other to continue in the years ahead. They wanted to keep their family together for their own sake and for the sake of their children.

Since being forced to annul their marriage, the couple have lived together as two women in a civil partnership. They entered into a civil partnership on the very same day their marriage ended and still live together, but they should never have been made to annul their marriage, even if an alternative legal mechanism was available in the form of a civil partnership. They have lived together continuously for 44 years and it is their marriage anniversary that they still celebrate. For many couples, annulment was deeply distressing and not something of mere technical and legal significance.

As I think we would all recognise, reasons for marrying and making a public commitment are intensely personal and varied. For some, marriage is not just about legal practicalities, and the blunt replacement of one legal mechanism with another is not the end of the matter. Other hon. Members will have similar cases. The number of people involved is not large—a point I will come on to in a moment—but the injustice done to them is real. We ought to take this opportunity to go some way to righting the wrong done.

What can the Government do to make amends? Amendment 18 proposes to require the Government to make a one-off compensation payment from public funds to couples whose marriages were annulled, to permit a person to obtain a gender recognition certificate and enter into or continue to maintain a civil partnership; or to those who have continued to live together as a couple in the same household since the annulment of their marriage, but who did not choose to go down the route of a civil partnership. It is a simple principle: married couples forced by the state to have an annulment that they did not want should be compensated by the Government by way of an apology for the distress and cost incurred as a result of the annulment of their marriage. The amendment proposes a nominal sum of £1,000. The public expenditure implications would be negligible—we know the numbers are small, as I will go on to explain in a moment. The £1,000 compensation payment would be far less than the cost for couples who have had to pay for a divorce and a civil partnership ceremony.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lady Hermon]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene on what is a very interesting contribution. Will she clarify a small point, but one that is of great significance to those in Northern Ireland? I am following the logic of her argument. Under schedule 2 to the Bill, those in England and Wales can avail themselves of same-sex marriage. As soon as they go to Northern Ireland, however, that marriage would have to be treated as a civil partnership. Is the logic of her argument that the state that passed the legislation must also compensate those who regard themselves as married couples in England and Wales, but become civil partners again in Northern Ireland?

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. Given that we are talking about a symbolic apology, it would be generous and appropriate for it to be offered in Northern Ireland too. My argument is not a narrow legal argument. A wrong was done. To the extent that the wrong was done by the Government, one can make an argument that the measure is relevant only to those who were living in the country at that time.

[Lady Hermon]

It is very generous of the hon. Lady to take a second intervention. Just to be clear, I was not making a recommendation that compensation be paid by the state. I was simply asking the hon. Lady whether her amendments would oblige the Government to pay compensation in the circumstances she outlined. Is the logic of her argument that she would advocate compensation in Northern Ireland? I certainly am not doing so.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. In that case, my answer is simple: yes, I would.

Amendment 22 would remove any reference to compensation and deal specifically with the reinstatement of marriages in cases where couples had their marriages annulled, so that a person could obtain a gender recognition certificate and continue to live together without forming a civil partnership. In cases where civil partnerships were formed after forced annulment, I am pleased that the Bill provides some assistance. Under clause 9, a couple are permitted to convert their civil partnership into a marriage to be treated as having subsisted since the date the civil partnership was formed.

Couples who were forced to annul a marriage and enter into a civil partnership will not be able to rewrite history—at least not legally—but it will almost be as if there was no break in their marriage, which of course they never wanted to annul in the first place. These are not the only cases, however, and we must ensure that all cases are covered. As a result, amendment 22 is designed to help couples who annulled their marriages so that one person could get a gender certificate, but who did not then enter into a civil partnership. As far as possible, the injustice that they have also faced must be addressed.

When the issue was discussed in Committee, the Minister expressed sympathy for couples who had been required to make the difficult choice of whether to end their marriage to enable one of the parties to obtain gender recognition, but she said that she could not support an amendment that sought to reinstate marriages from the date they were annulled because of the difficulties that could be caused with any rights and responsibilities that the couple had accrued since their marriage was annulled—for example, retrospective entitlements to benefits and taxation.

In order to help the Government and make some progress, in this version of the amendment, I and the hon. Member for York Central are proposing that reinstatement of the marriage be from the date that the couple gave notice to have it reinstated. This would address Ministers’ concern about retrospective legislation. It is not ideal. I would much prefer a fully retrospective measure, but given what the Minister said in Committee, it would be better than nothing for this small but greatly wronged—I still believe—group of people. Couples were forced to make a distressing and appalling choice, largely because policy on same-sex marriage was lagging so far behind what was right and just. I hope that we can use the window of opportunity in this historic Bill to do the right thing.

[Margot James]

I congratulate the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on their work in this important area. A couple in Stourbridge came to me two years ago, one of them having undergone gender reassignment treatment and surgery. They were very distressed that their marriage had been annulled and did not want to enter into a civil partnership, for their own reasons. Does this not underline the benefit of the Bill? People who are in this position having had gender reassignment surgery will have the choice, whether they are gay or heterosexual.

[Caroline Lucas]

Yes, I think it does underline the benefit. As we have said, the numbers are not huge, but for the individuals involved, it was very distressing, so I think it appropriate that we take this opportunity to address the situation.

My amendment 49 would address the continuing discriminatory hurdle in the Bill around pensions. The Bill allows employers and pension providers to award gay spouses and civil partners a fraction of the survivor benefits payable to a partner in a mixed-sex marriage. It is an unnecessary and counter-productive anomaly in a Bill that otherwise makes landmark progress in furthering the fundamental human rights of gay people. The amendment would give same sex couples entering into a gay marriage entitlement to the same pension rights as married opposite-sex couples. It removes both existing discriminatory provisions in the Equality Act 2010 and the subsequent extension of that discrimination in this Bill.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

In tabling amendment 49, the hon. Lady has identified an anomaly that deserves to be rectified in the way she suggests. If the Government and the House want to give complete equality to same-sex relationships, they must address the pension question, otherwise we will have this extraordinary anomaly that if a person in a same-sex relationship today chooses to enter into a heterosexual marriage tomorrow, their new spouse would have full pension entitlement, whereas their former same-sex partner, whom they might have had a relationship with for many years, would get a fraction of that pension entitlement. If the Government and the House want same-sex relationships to have full equal rights, her amendment must be the right course of action.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention. I know he has had first-hand experience in his constituency of exactly this issue.

Paragraph 18 of schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010 allows employers and pension providers to ignore the service and contributions of gay employees made before 5 December 2005 when it comes to assessing survivor benefits for their civil partners and occupational pension schemes. Paragraph 15 of schedule 4 to the Bill would extend that discriminatory provision to same-sex spouses.

As we saw in yesterday’s debate on opening civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, the Government are comfortable arguing that unforeseen costs to pension schemes are a legitimate justification for sanctioning discrimination, yet their warning that the equalisation of treatment in the provision of occupational pension benefits will cost too much simply cannot be substantiated. No pension provider can accurately predict how many individuals in a pension scheme will be gay, never mind how many of them will marry or form a civil partnership with an individual who outlives them by a significant period of time.

Dealing with uncertainties around length of life, the possibility of illness, the decision to marry and many other issues is second nature to pension providers. Gay married people pose no more uncertainty than their straight counterparts. What is more, according to the Government’s figures, two thirds of pension providers already do the right thing, so any additional liability to pension schemes will surely be minimal. The financial implications of perpetuating discrimination could be very grave indeed, though, for those individuals who have paid into their pension schemes in the same way as other employees, yet will be denied the survivor benefits available to married mixed-sex couples.

One recent employment tribunal found that an occupational pension scheme was directly discriminatory because it provided a civil partner with only the benefit from pension rights accrued since 2004—in other words, when civil partnerships became available in the UK. John Walker and his civil partner have been together for 20 years and registered their civil partnership at the first possible opportunity, yet the pension scheme sought to restrict the survivor benefits available to John’s partner to just £500 a year. If John dissolved his civil partnership and married a woman today, she would be entitled to £41,000 per annum in the event of his death.

With the help of Liberty, John challenged that discrimination and recently won his legal battle to secure equal pension benefits for his civil partner. The employment tribunal relied on European Court of Justice rulings, which concluded that treating married and same-sex couples differently over the pensions payable to a survivor when national law recognises the relationships as equivalent in other respects breached the framework directive on equal treatment in employment. My amendment 49 would ensure full compliance with that directive and, crucially, ensure that the equality rulings made by the courts are applicable to all marriage relationships.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that if people are to have parity before the law, they must have not just emotional parity, but financial parity? Anything less would not be equality in any shape or form.

[Caroline Lucas]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. We are talking about genuine equality. That means legal equality, as well as symbolic or any other kind of equality.

That tribunal was a landmark case. Interestingly, the Government lost the case, so one could argue that agreeing to my amendment 49 might save them money, as they would not need to pay out in future legal cases that might go against them. If the law remains as it is for civil partners and that inequality is extended to those in same-sex marriages, it could be several decades before gay couples achieve real equality in pension provision. I see no justification for continuing to permit discrimination in this area. I hope very much that colleagues will support amendment 49 and join me in overturning an anomalous and discriminatory provision.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to participate in this important debate on this group of amendments.

I have been quite conflicted over this entire subject. I am a godfather to a lovely little boy who has been adopted. His parents are in a partnership and they are both gay. I see myself very much as a progressive Conservative, and I certainly recognise that society’s attitudes have advanced, which is reflected in the fact that we are debating the amendments in such detail today. Of course we do not send children up chimneys any more, or allow only privileged landowners to vote, and we got rid of slavery long ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister explain what the situation will be if the Government lose the appeal, which seems entirely likely given the legal case?

[Mrs Grant]

As an optimist, I would prefer to decide what action is appropriate if that happens. I do not want to prejudge the appeal.

I shall now deal with the non-Government amendments on gender reassignment. Amendment 15 would enable a marriage to be held to be continuously valid from the date of the original marriage solemnisation, effectively restoring the original marriage. Amendment 22 would allow couples who have continued to live together following the annulment to apply to have their marriage reinstated from the date on which they notify the registrar of their wish to have their marriage reinstated.

I understand the concerns that prompted hon. Members to propose those amendments, and the Government have great sympathy for couples who felt required to make the difficult choice to end their marriage to enable one party to obtain gender recognition. However, it is not possible to reinstate a marriage that has been lawfully ended by an order of the court. It will be possible to backdate converted marriages to the date of registration of the civil partnership, as the civil partnership will not have been lawfully ended.

Couples who have continued to live together will be able to marry by virtue of the changes in the Bill. I realise that that will not be a reinstatement of the original marriage, but I sincerely hope that couples will feel able to make use of these important provisions. I realise that some transsexual people in this situation may be disappointed, but we need to ensure that a person’s legal relationship status is completely clear at all times in the eyes of the law.

Amendment 18 would enable a one-off payment of £1,000 from public funds to be made as compensation for the distress caused to and costs incurred by couples who had their marriages annulled to enable one or both parties to get gender recognition. I cannot support that amendment because we have to take the law as we find it. It is not fair arbitrarily to compensate couples who decided to end their marriage under the law that applied at the time. There will be other couples who felt unable to end their marriage and who may have suffered distress as a result of not being able to obtain gender recognition. We have taken on board the issues that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) have raised, and we will continue to listen carefully.

The first part of amendment 16 would provide a power for the Registrar General to make regulations about the issuing of new marriage certificates to couples in which one or both parties have obtained gender recognition that reflect the trans party’s acquired gender, but retain the original date of registration. That could include the date of registration of a marriage that had been annulled. I assure the House that that part of the amendment is unnecessary because the power provided in the Bill is wide enough to deal with those matters. We will give serious consideration to the registration date that should be referred to on any new marriage certificate issued to a couple who are to stay married following gender recognition. We will also need to ensure that the certificate does not inadvertently reveal that one party has gender recognition.

The second part of amendment 16 would provide a power for the Registrar General of England and Wales to make regulations providing for amended birth certificates for transsexual people’s children to reflect the transsexual person’s acquired gender. The amendment does not seem to be directly related to equal marriage, and in any event I cannot accept it as section 12 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 makes it clear that gender recognition does not affect the status of a transsexual person as the father or mother of a child. That section is necessary to ensure the continuity of parental rights and responsibilities and to protect the right of children to know the details of their biological parents.

Amendment 12 is intended to remove the provision in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 that makes a marriage voidable when a transsexual person marries a non-trans person but does not inform that person of their trans status prior to the marriage or at the time when it takes place. I cannot accept the amendment, because the current provision in the 1973 Act and the corresponding provision in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 provide important protection for the non-trans spouse. If a non-trans person finds themselves in a marriage to which they did not fully consent, it is only right that they should be able to apply to annul the marriage rather than have to wait to bring time-consuming and often costly divorce proceedings.

Amendments 13 and 14 would require the Gender Recognition Panel to issue full gender recognition certificates to all applicants in protected marriages, irrespective of the non-trans spouse’s views. It would then be open to the non-trans spouse to issue divorce proceedings. I understand that the amendments are intended to remove the so-called “spousal veto” in schedule 5. However, let me be clear that non-trans spouses will not be able to veto their spouses obtaining gender recognition. I also understand that the amendments are intended to deal with the problem of hostile or obstructive non-trans spouses who deliberately seek to delay nullity proceedings. I have not seen any evidence that that is a widespread problem. If the grounds for the marriage being voidable are met, the hostility or absence of the non-trans spouse should not delay a court in issuing a decree of nullity. If there is evidence that unnecessary delays are occurring, we believe that it should be a matter for the court.

It must be remembered that a marriage is contracted between two people who should have an equal say in the future of that marriage. We consider that it would be unfair to remove the right of every non-trans spouse to have a say in the future of their marriage before gender recognition takes place. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press their amendments relating to gender reassignment.

Finally, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this important debate. I am conscious of time and know that I need to leave a little time for the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) to respond, so I will conclude my remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

So much has been said about same-sex marriage over the past couple of days. It is important on the occasion of Third Reading to return to the fundamental principle that underpins what we are trying to achieve. That principle is equality. Ultimately, this is about basic human rights. Nobody should be denied on the basis of their sexuality the opportunity to be legally married.

We are righting a wrong and I urge Members in the other place to remember that when they consider the Bill. Peers, including some but not all bishops, recognised the justice of introducing civil partnerships back in 2004, and I hope they will also recognise the justice of now granting same-sex couples the choice to enter into marriage, especially as the Bill has gone to great lengths to protect important religious freedoms.

Colleagues have remarked on the historic nature of the decisions being taken, and I agree. We live in a world where 85 United Nations member states still have repressive laws against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, where same-sex marriage is still a distant dream, and where being L,G, B or T can in some cases be a death sentence. But some dreams come true, and today is an important symbolic as well as practical step forward for equality and human rights.

I met a very inspiring campaigner at a trans networking event in Parliament the other day whose business card carried the strapline, “Tolerance is not good enough”. That neatly sums up what I want to say. Tolerance is important, yes, but we need to carry on for more than that. We need to fight for true justice, for true equality, for true LGBT rights, as well as for tolerance. For me, that also has to include the issue of equal pension rights for those in same-sex marriages and civil partnerships. I am saddened that we have not made more progress on that here today, but I hope very much that it will be taken forward in the other place, as I hope will righting some of the injustices that still remain for the trans community.

But today on Third Reading is a time for celebration. For many hundreds of constituents from Brighton, Pavilion who have written to me in support of same-sex marriage, this Bill is about their lives, their loves and their futures together. I have heard many stories about why this legislation is important, including from one constituent who simply said, “Everyone should have the right to marry the person they are in love with.” Another told me that she hopes Brighton and Hove will be the first city to perform a gay marriage. To her I say, “Watch this space.”

I also thank those people against changing the law who have lobbied me, all of whom have been respectful of my position and my right to support same-sex marriage. I know it is difficult for some to square the Bill with their understanding of marriage, but I maintain that it is wrong for gay couples to continue to pay the price for that by being denied equality. Equality and justice must underpin everything else—a principle and a priority, not just something tacked on to existing pledges to try to attract more votes. The majority view in the House today has reflected that, and I hope that it will continue to do so as we vote on Third Reading.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

The Government are committed to reducing the number of whiplash claims, and we have had discussions with all parties involved in these claims. We will consult over the summer on reducing the number of whiplash claims, including through looking at the medical certificates that are handed out, as well as at small claims levels.

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

T7. My constituent Sam Taylor has been subjected to, and still lives in fear of, the most terrible harassment from her ex-partner. The new offences relating to stalking represent real progress, but Sam’s case shows that serious work still needs to be done on the ground to ensure that she and her family can be properly protected. Will the Minister meet Sam, along with the chief superintendent of Sussex police and me, to hear why she remains concerned?

[Nick Herbert]

I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss that issue.