European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

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

[Caroline Lucas]

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

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

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

[Caroline Lucas]

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

UK Drugs Policy

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being nominated, and I am sure he will win next time. His point is incredibly important. Until now, politicians often thought that they were reflecting public opinion, but they are now massively behind it, as the poll in The Sun absolutely demonstrates.

It strikes me that a time of austerity, with the Government seemingly looking under every last stone to find money to save, is an odd time not to consider drugs policy, given that so much money is invested in the current drugs regime. Yet drugs policy seems to be completely divorced from the usual considerations about public spending and the good use of taxpayers’ money, and we simply have no proper public mechanism for knowing whether the money spent on the so-called war on drugs has been put to good effect.

No one now buys alcohol in unmarked bottles from the back of a pub—that would be dangerous and unnecessary—but for 40 years we have left our children to do exactly that with drugs. There is no denying that drug misuse has the potential to wreck lives, but surely it is time to be honest about the damage caused by the drug laws, which can cause a proliferation of criminality and public harm. The entire drugs trade has been handed over to the worlds’ racketeers and gangsters. The drugs market has soared, and that has brought untold misery. Essentially, the current market is almost wholly uncontrolled.

From speaking to young people in my constituency, it is clear that many of them can get hold of drugs far more easily than alcohol, which is surely wrong. When someone tries to get hold of alcohol, they at least have to show an ID card if they are thought to be under age. Drug dealers do not care about someone’s ID or anything else; they care only about their profits. I believe that the current policy is based on a deliberate ignorance about the effect of drugs.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate, and on her extraordinary petition, which has 130,000 signatures. I understand that 20% of people who have taken heroin said that they got it for the first time in jail. If we cannot control drugs in jail, how on earth are we supposed to control them on our streets?

[Caroline Lucas]

That is an extremely good point. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very helpful intervention, which speaks for itself.

If we are to design a better drugs policy that is based on evidence, we need to agree on the objectives of drugs policy. For me, it is about protecting people, particularly the young and vulnerable, as well as reducing crime, improving health, promoting security and development, providing good value for money and protecting human rights. In setting out why that is important, I will say a little more about the impact of the current drugs policy and why I believe it adds to the case for a review; I will talk a little about the growing consensus on rethinking the current approach to drugs policy; and I will say a little about Brighton and Hove, where my constituency is situated, where the approach of following the evidence as far as possible has delivered benefits.

Before doing any of that, I would like to talk about Martha. Martha’s mother, Anne-Marie Cockburn, is in Parliament with us today. Like so many parents, she had always wanted to protect her child. However, on 20 July 2013, she learned that that was not always possible. On that day, Martha swallowed half a gram of MDMA powder—ecstasy—and died. She was 15 years old. Today, 30 October, would have been Martha’s 17th birthday. She is not celebrating that birthday because the Misuse of Drugs Act did not protect her. Making MDMA illegal did not protect Martha. We owe it to her and to Anne-Marie, and to the many other people who have died drug-related deaths and their families and loved ones, to ensure that in future each and every one of us is offered the best possible protection by our drugs laws.

In her incredibly moving blog, “What Martha Did Next”, Anne-Marie writes:

“Had Martha known that what she was about to take was 91% pure, she would probably have taken a lot less, in fact I’d go as far as to say that she might still be alive.”

Anne-Marie argues that, under prohibition, it is impossible fully to educate people such as Martha, because there is no way to tell what drugs contain. Prohibition has not stopped risk-taking, but it has made those risks much more dangerous. Anne-Marie suggests that we are failing to protect children such as Martha—that we are letting them down—and that, alongside deterring young people from taking drugs, we need a regulatory model that reduces the risk if drugs do get into the hands of young people such as Martha.

I agree with Anne-Marie. Perhaps many people in the Chamber will not. However, the fact that Martha is not celebrating her 17th birthday today is surely the first of many good reasons to carry out an impact assessment of our drugs laws. We urgently need to know whether prohibition is an obstacle to education about drugs, and whether our children would be better protected by alternatives, such as strict regulation. Despite all the accusations that are thrown at those who are in favour of drug policy reform, the bottom line is that it is not about being pro-drugs, but about saving lives. The only credible way to do that is to know whether our policies are up to the job.

That is especially important because there is powerful evidence that the so-called war on drugs is making things worse. Far from being neutral, in many instances the current model pushes users towards more harmful products, behaviours and environments. Let me give two examples of what I mean. In doing so, it is crucial to distinguish between the suffering that is caused by drugs and that which is caused by drugs policy.

First, the vast majority of drug-related offending happens 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 significantly to reduce such crime and its impact on our communities under a different system.

Secondly, on legal highs, according to research into synthetic drugs by Demos and the UK Drug Policy Commission, 40 new substances emerged on to the market in 2010, compared with 24 in the previous year. By 2014, the figure had grown to 80 different synthetic drugs. Professor Les Iversen, the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, recently admitted that drug control legislation is being forced to play “cat and mouse”. Such substances are routinely banned under the Misuse of Drugs Act, but that simply spawns more substances that, in turn, are banned. The legal process cannot keep up.

The Government have published a report today that recommends that all novel synthetic psychoactive substances, or legal highs as they are more widely known, be banned. I appreciate what they are trying to do with that policy, but I think that it is misguided. It fails to appreciate that many legal highs are the products of prohibition. Synthetic cannabis, for example, would not exist if there were a legally regulated supply of real cannabis. Nor does the policy recognise our knowledge that prohibition—in other words, banning things—does not stop people taking drugs, but simply increases the risks.

Antibiotics (Intensive Farms)

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith]

Again, I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I thank him for making it. I will come to that in more detail shortly.

There is no argument against treating sick animals with antimicrobials but, surely, not the most modern and medically important ones, especially when other antibiotics, which are not as critically important in human medicine, are available. I recognise that this topic does not lend itself easily to tabloid news, but there is a real, worrying chance that that could change. By overusing antibiotics, we risk ruining for future generations one of the great discoveries of our species. In short, we risk entering the post-antibiotics age.

My hon. Friend the Minister will know that some antibiotics have already been lost to resistance: for example, penicillin for staphylococcal wound infections, ampicillin for infections of the urinary tract and ciprofloxacin for treating gonorrhoea. Many more are under threat, and new antibiotics are increasingly hard to find and license. We are now using our reserve antibiotics, and worryingly, seeing the spread of resistance to them as well. For example, rises in resistance, such as those seen for E. coli, force doctors to use carbapenems, which were previously the reserve antibiotics for use when other treatments had completely failed. However, we are now using carbapenems much more and seeing the spread of resistance to them as well.

University of Cambridge researchers revealed the first cases in UK livestock of a new strain of the multi-resistant superbug MRSA. It is called ST398, and it has become endemic in European and north American pig populations and has spread to poultry and cattle. It is significant because, unlike most strains of staphylococcus aureus found in farm animals, it is readily able to transfer to humans. If not checked, that is likely to lead to rising community-acquired MRSA, just at the time that hospital-acquired MRSA is falling, due to sterling efforts by health professionals.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. In the light of the very real health risks and the strong words from a former chief medical officer, as the hon. Gentleman has said, about the unnecessary use of antibiotics being nothing less than

“a death warrant for a future patient”,

does he agree that we need a legally binding timetable for the phased ending of all routine, prophylactic, non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in animals?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I do, and I will be coming to that point as well, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady’s intervention.

Clearly, we need to continue with efforts to reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics by doctors, but the European Food Safety Authority was spot-on—I do not often say that—last year when it warned that

“it is…of high priority to decrease the total antimicrobial use in animal production in the EU.”

To date, the UK Government’s antibiotic resistance strategy, as I have said, has focused exclusively on over-prescribing by doctors, with zero mention of antibiotics in the livestock industry. Although they have spent money trying to understand why we are seeing a rise in bacterial infections, they are spending nothing, as far as I know, to understand the rise in resistance, which is clearly the issue of importance.

The Department of Health is currently developing its new cross-Government, five-year antimicrobial resistance strategy and action plan for 2013 to 2018, so I ask the Minister these questions today. Will she promise that it will give significant consideration to the use of antibiotics on farms and to the link between farm use and resistance? Will the Government work with the veterinary profession and the agricultural industry, as they have done in recent years with the medical profession? Does she agree that we need better data on antibiotic use, published by antibiotic family and by animal species, as is already done in France? If we do not know the type and quantity of antibiotics used and how they are used, there is very little chance of our being able to understand the emergence of resistance.

Furthermore, will the Minister lobby vigorously her ministerial colleagues at DEFRA to take urgent action to restrict the prophylactic use of antibiotics, to limit the prescription and use of antimicrobials for the herd treatment of animals to cases in which a vet has assessed that there is a clear clinical justification and to limit the use of critically important antibiotics to cases in which no other type of antimicrobials will be effective?

Will the Minister call on DEFRA to ban the use of fluoroquinolone antibiotics in poultry production to reduce the risk of antibiotic resistance in E. coli, campylobacter and other infections in humans? Incidentally, it is worth pointing out that campylobacter is the most common cause of food poisoning in the UK, affecting some 350,000 people a year, and poultry is the source of between 50% and 80% of those cases. A ban of that sort would bring the UK into line with the US, where the Food and Drug Administration stopped the use of those antibiotics in poultry in 2005, because of increasing resistance in campylobacter. Denmark, Finland and Australia also do not use fluoroquinolones in poultry. All those countries have lower levels of resistance in humans.

I mentioned Denmark, and it is worth taking a moment to consider the Danish situation. The latest Danish disease surveillance report showed that, although the presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the country’s pig population had decreased since the tighter restrictions came into effect, including the banning of cephalosporins, the level of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meats being imported into the country is higher than in its domestic meat. Nearly half the tested samples of chicken meat imported into Denmark in 2011 contained resistant bacteria. The Danish Government, quite rightly, have taken their concerns to Brussels, complaining that their national approach has been undermined by other EU states’ continued overuse of antibiotics.

Almost certainly, excessive antibiotic use on farms is linked to the intensive manner in which animals are kept. Improving animal health and welfare by limiting overcrowding and the worst excesses of factory farming must therefore become key components of the Government’s antibiotic resistance strategy. Disease prevention should be achieved through good hygiene, husbandry and housing, without recourse to the regular prophylactic use of antimicrobials—a point that has been made by two hon. Members. I recognise that factory farming interests have wielded enormous influence on Government policy for many years and that any move to restrict the use of antibiotics today will be fiercely resisted by them.

Plastic Bags

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith]

I shall provide a few examples of why I do not accept that. I remind my hon. Friend that I did say that 16%, not 100%, of the animals found washed up on the coast that have died as a result of waste have died as a result of their interaction with plastic bags. It is still a significant number. I shall come to that issue in a second.

Despite this being described as a minority or a small issue, every year 8 billion bags are used and thrown away in the UK. Throughout the EU, 800,000 tonnes of bags are used. Only 6% of those bags are recycled. They are used for an average of 20 minutes and can take anything up to 1,000 years to decompose. The vast majority will end up in landfill. Hundreds of millions will litter the countryside, and many will end up in the oceans.

It is an appalling thought—I mentioned this to pupils at a school a few weeks ago—that if Columbus had dropped plastic bags over the side of his ship 500 years ago, there is a pretty good chance that they would still be floating around intact today. Thousands of sea turtles, whales and countless other species mistake the bags for food and, once ingested, they block the animal’s insides and cause a horrible death.

I am sure that hon. Members remember that in 2006 a Northern bottlenose whale swam past this very building. Unfortunately, it died. It was in serious trouble, for all kinds of reasons, but when it was cut open in the autopsy, it was discovered that its stomach was packed with plastic debris. Unfortunately, the bags did not have a logo on them, so we cannot blame the individual companies, but plastic was a major contributing factor.

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

The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case. Does he agree that if the Government care about evidence-based policy, as I am sure they do, the evidence coming from, among other places, Wales, where the tax has already been implemented, shows that it has managed to reduce the use of plastic bags by up to 95%? It also has 70% support among the general population. If the Government care about evidence, there is a lot to support the tax.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I absolutely agree with her—indeed, she has taken the words out of my mouth. I shall come to the Welsh example very soon.

Just to continue on the basic statistics, a 2006 UN report estimated that on every square mile of ocean, there are 46,000 pieces of plastic debris floating around. They are not all plastic bags, but a great many are. The plastic does not disappear, even when eaten; it does not break down. When a creature has ingested a plastic bag, the creature itself decays faster than the bag. When the body of the creature breaks down after death, the bag is likely to be released back into the environment and can be reingested—recycled—continuously. The plastic bag has been described as a serial killer for that reason.

The Minister will know that many countries and regions around the world have already sought to address this appalling waste. We heard about the example of Wales, but there are many beyond our shores. California, Bangladesh, Rwanda, South Africa, Botswana, Kenya, parts of India, Taiwan and parts of China have all introduced outright bans. Others have introduced levies. In Ireland, which is one of the best examples, a bag tax, introduced in 2002, has led to a reported 90% reduction in the number of plastic bags used.

Procedure Committee Reports

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I want to make some progress.

There is an ongoing pilot in Public Bill Committees, which is permissive in that it allows Members to table explanatory statements to amendments if they wish. What is now needed is to make that pilot permanent and to extend it, so that Members can table explanatory statements in Committee of the whole House and, crucially, on Report.

Given this state of affairs, it beggars belief that a Government who say they want more transparency and a healthier democracy were so negative and obstructive in their response to the Procedure Committee recommendation for explanatory statements on the Floor of the House. Why are the Government doing their utmost to block this simple move, which seeks to make sure that MPs are not just rubber-stamping legislation and to prevent the Government from sneaking things through on Report without any scrutiny whatever?

The Government try to use the low take-up of the Public Bill Committee pilot as an argument against changing the status quo on the Floor of the House, but that argument does not stand up to scrutiny. First, as the Government well know, MPs serving on Public Bill Committees will all be thoroughly engaged in the detail of the Bill, and the 20 or so members of a PBC voting on an amendment that they have all thoroughly discussed in minute detail is quite different from a Division on the Floor of the House, where 650 Members are called to vote, the majority of whom have no idea of the specifics of what they are voting on. So explanatory statements would be there not for those who had tabled them but for those who are voting and, thus, the suggestion that a lack of action from people tabling them equates to a lack of demand simply does not stack up.

If the Government really want to measure demand, why do they not simply survey MPs running down the escalators from Portcullis House to the Lobby all asking each other hurriedly, “What’s this on? What’s going on? What are we voting on?” Furthermore, the Government should have been leading on this pilot. If they had made the effort to provide explanatory statements consistently themselves, they could have created a culture where such provision was expected. Instead, they did nothing to participate in or assist with a simple pilot of a mechanism to increase transparency.

When I tabled explanatory statements alongside my amendments in the Energy Public Bill Committee, MPs from all parts of the House told me how helpful they found it. This is about leading and working to change the standards that Members expect, and have expected of them, when they try to change legislation.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I understand that this proposal does not require the Government or anyone tabling an amendment to provide an explanation, but merely allows them to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. Does the hon. Lady agree that this should be a requirement on anyone tabling an amendment in order to boost slightly the chances of people having some idea of what they are voting on when they go through the Lobby? I absolutely concur with her view that most people have no idea what they are doing when they vote.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I agree with him. It should be the case that not only the Government, but all Members should provide a short explanatory statement explaining the purpose of any amendment that they table. That would help everybody.

The Government’s complaint about these explanatory statements, as set out in their response to the Committee’s report, was that the statements would be a “burden”. Their idea that providing the statements would be too burdensome for them displays an incredible arrogance. If they want to change the law, they have to accept the work involved in making their intentions transparent. They should be more respectful of the right of this House to scrutinise the laws they want to pass.

In conclusion, this proposal is about redressing the balance between Back Benchers and the Executive. The Executive are riding roughshod over the rights of Back Benchers to scrutinise them. The Government have put up obstructive objections, which demonstrate their desire to maintain a massive imbalance in their favour. This is bad for Back Benchers, bad for democracy and bad for the legislation that we must live by. So long as MPs are not told what they are voting on and Government amendments go through without debate, our system merely delivers an illusion of scrutiny. I can think only that the Government are trying to protect a system that serves to keep MPs as Lobby fodder and to keep the public in the dark. We are talking about secretive and opaque processes that serve against transparency and are reminiscent of the processes preserved for so long to try to hide the expenses scandal. I can assume only that the Government are taking this approach with some deliberate measures in mind. The fact that MPs have no idea what they are voting on is a scandal. It has been going on for years, but as the public find out more about it, as with expenses, they will be rightly horrified.

Eight months have passed since the debate on parliamentary reform in Westminster Hall, and I am disappointed that it has not been possible to effect greater change more quickly. I hope that the motion on explanatory statements will go through today. If it does, it will be a quiet but significant win for transparency and democracy. But if the Government force a vote, whipped or not, I hope very much that Back Benchers will stand up for themselves to address a glaring fault in our parliamentary democracy and correct the appalling imbalance that currently favours the Executive.

Parliamentary Reform

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Lucas]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are more fundamental matters to do with the power of the Executive. I am starting modestly, but shall come to those in due course. There are bigger issues, but after six months here, and with a degree of humility, I was trying to see whether there are ways in which the efficiency of this place could be improved. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there are bigger issues, and I know that another hon. Member will talk about those shortly.

I return to some of the smaller points. Because they are smaller, it ought to mean that they are not resisted so much. We ought to be able to speed things up and get some of this stuff done. We would then have the time and space to get our teeth into the bigger, more fundamental issues. One of the small things that we could do is to include an explanation of the design or purpose of an amendment. It is particularly difficult for people outside Parliament, and sometimes for Members themselves, if they are not following the legislation in minute detail, to understand the implications of an amendment that states “clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1)”. It takes a lot of time to unpack what it really means; we need the Bill and the amendment, and we need to know some of the background. A simple explanation of two or three sentences would substantially increase transparency. MPs themselves would also have a better idea of what they are voting on, which might not please the Whips very much, but it would increase democracy and accountability.

It is a modest proposal and one that has been made before, but providing explanatory notes would, none the less, make a significant difference. It would give more power to Back Benchers and take a little more from the Whips, and enable constituents to follow better the proceedings of the House.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I echo what the hon. Lady says about explanatory notes. More often than not, Members have no idea what they are voting on. If the first 20 MPs leaving the Lobby later on today were asked what they had just voted on, I suspect that 19 of them at best would have no idea at all. Nevertheless, the big issue is not lack of knowledge about what we are voting on but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) has pointed out, the fact that Parliament itself absolutely fails to hold the Government to account. I hope that we will cover that issue later on in the debate.

[Caroline Lucas]

I completely agree, and I look forward to having another debate on exactly that subject. Let me raise a few more issues before other Members speak. Obviously, this is a well-subscribed debate.

I want to say a few words about the talking out of private Members’ Bills. The Bills, which are introduced by MPs who are not Ministers, are relegated to Fridays, the day when attendance at Westminster drops as most of us go back to our constituencies. Why not move private Members’ Bills to a mid-week slot so that they are better attended? We could then consider the implications of making Fridays a formal constituency day. I do not accept that it is beyond our wits to find adequate time for private Members’ Bills earlier in the week without displacing other legislation. Hon. Members will be well aware that our current system allows Back Benchers deliberately to waste the time allotted for debate on a private Member’s Bill in order to delay it. The vote takes place when there are likely to be far fewer Members present to support it as people leave to get to far-flung parts of the country.

The talking out of private Members’ Bills is an insult to other Members who want seriously to debate the Bill, to the Speaker and, most important, to the electorate who do not want to pay to run a debating chamber that is being mocked by its participants. There should be explicit rules that prevent the practice of talking out a Bill. The Wright Committee stated that “merely procedural devices” should not be able to obstruct private Members’ Bills, but again, we have not seen much change in that respect. That Committee also referred to the popular proposition that a maximum of three hours should be given for the Second Reading debate on any private Member’s Bill, which should be in cumulative and successive sittings, after which the question would be put to the Chamber on whether the Bill should receive Second Reading. In a sense, that would render pointless the act of filibustering. I shall take the fact that there was no intervention on that point as agreement, and I shall proceed with great speed.