Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

Debate between Mark Field and Caroline Lucas

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I think I speak for everyone in the House when I say that no one wants to see a return to an arms race. It is also worth pointing out that broader Russian interests extend well beyond the nuclear; they go into cyber-attacks, disinformation and influence peddling more generally. I think that is the bigger concern that many have in mind—I am slightly quoting the formidable Edward Lucas, who had an interesting article this morning in The Times on that issue and who knows Russian affairs to a great extent.

In terms of the bigger concern, yes, it is not in anyone’s interest to see an escalation of an arms race on European or other soil. Equally, it is very undesirable to see the moves that have been made by Russia consistently, as I say, over half a decade or more. The allies had very little choice other than to trigger this withdrawal, as we have done today. As I say, there is still time for Russia to come back to the table, and I very much hope it will do so.

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

Russia is in violation of the INF treaty, it seems, but when someone breaks the law, the answer is not to repeal the law and, in the case of the UK Government, to support another country in walking away from that process, but to look at the well-established methods for bringing an offending nation back into compliance—in this case, through the Special Verification Commission mechanisms. Will the UK Government be doing that, and will they make it clear to the US that if it is now suspending its obligations under the INF treaty, it should not assume that it is going to start putting cruise missiles back in the UK?

[Mark Field]

It does not “seem” that Russia has breached its commitments; there is absolutely no doubt, and there is absolute evidence, of that—evidence that is understood and supported by each and every NATO member. We will continue to work with partners across the international community to try to prevent the proliferation that, understandably, the hon. Lady is very concerned about and to continue to make significant progress, as we have, in the UN and elsewhere on multilateral nuclear disarmament. However, that can happen only when we are in a position to build confidence and trust between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states and to take tangible steps towards a safer and more stable world. That trust, I am afraid, is at a very low ebb with the Russians, not just for this reason, but, as she will be aware, in other areas. However, we are determined to try to discuss these matters, and we will continue to do so in whatever forum we can.

UNHCR: Admission Pathways for Syrian Refugees

Debate between Mark Field and Caroline Lucas

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I am glad that the hon. Lady has given the UK Government some credit. Our aid contribution and our leadership should be admired to a great degree. The one thing she has not touched on—maybe she will do so later in her speech—is where she sees the medium term for Syria. Does she see it as being a united state—which I know is still the position of Her Majesty’s Government—or does she see it as being divided? In other words, does she see the displacement of huge numbers of Syrians as a medium to long-term phenomenon, or can it be solved more quickly, if the international community has the will and can provide safe havens within the country that we currently call Syria?

[Caroline Lucas]

Well, if anybody knew the answer to that question, they would be a very much wiser person than many of us here, and certainly very much wiser than I am. I would love to think that there is a solution in the shorter term. All countries need to redouble their efforts on the peace process. In reality, a solution is more likely in the medium term. I do not know whether that will be through splitting the country or keeping it coherent. I would certainly favour the latter, if it could be done in a safe way. Essentially, that decision needs to be made by the Syrian people. They need to make that decision in a democratic way, and we need to ensure that they are able to come to that kind of decision-making process in a safe and legal way.

[Mark Field]

It is important that we give some consideration to that. I accept that it is not our decision to make here in the UK: it will be a decision of the international community. To be brutally honest, if large numbers of Syrians are relocated—maybe hundreds of thousands, or millions—the danger is that they will tend to be the more educated people. It will be the very people who could make a real difference to Syria’s future who will essentially have no stake in it if they end up living in the United States, Canada or western Europe, yet they are the very people who would be needed to provide the backbone for a future sustainable Syria into the decades ahead.

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but the priority right now—the overwhelming priority for all of us—must be ensuring that those people are kept safe so that they can go back, and I think the vast majority will want to go back: it is their home, where they have their roots, histories and cultures.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Mark Field and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

The right hon. Lady makes a perfectly fair point. Most of the evidence is coming from that direction. I agree that we need more evidence gathering specifically on the Islamist threat, but none the less I think the point I am making remains that we need greater understanding of why people are radicalised.

I was talking about counter-radicalisation and Prevent, and I wanted to flag up the fact that, as Members will know, Prevent has been criticised for failing properly to engage at the community level and instead making some communities feel singled out and stigmatised. I think that is a lost opportunity and we must redouble our efforts and engage in effective community-led counter-radicalisation programmes, learning from other countries that have done just that.

Deradicalisation is more relevant to the debate we are having now. I draw Members’ attention, if they are not already aware of them, to programmes in places such as Denmark, where a programme called Back on Track has been operating. Its targets include prison inmates who have been either convicted of terrorism or involved in hate crimes or other extremism-related crimes. The aim of the project is to support inmates through mentoring to become better at handling everyday situations, problems and conflicts. Another key element is to focus on engaging families and social networks in order to offer inmates long-term support when re-entering society. Other Members have already underlined the importance of family and kinship groups.

Back on Track has been running alongside another programme, De-radicalisation-Targeted Intervention, which uses mentoring to support individuals who are trying to leave an extremist group. It is focused particularly on being proactive by reaching out to potential beneficiaries and motivating them to participate. A key objective is helping them to find constructive social alternatives to extremist groups.

Germany has what is known as the Hayat programme, which has been developed to reflect the premise that the minds of young Europeans intent on practising jihad in Syria or Iraq are perhaps less likely to be changed by politicians’ threats or force of law than by their next of kin. One of Hayat’s family counsellors says:

“Families are the closest social community that most radicalised young Muslims have. It is the perfect living counter-narrative to radical Islam.”

Since 2012 Hayat has operated a national helpline, which families who are concerned about their sons or daughters drifting into radical Islam can contact.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

While I agree that there is much we can learn from what happens in other nations, does the hon. Lady agree that significant work already goes on in our communities, both with the Prevent programme and without it, which takes the lead and which also co-operates with other nations along the lines she is outlining? On the deradicalisation programme, it strikes me that we have to deal with incredibly difficult issues, but I am confident that a lot of thinking is going into this and there is a lot of co-operation between nations, particularly on the very large number of returning jihadis, which is an even bigger problem, in numbers terms at least, in places such as France and Germany than it is in the UK today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I do not doubt that much work is going on, some of it very good, but I wanted to pinpoint the experience of young people who have got caught up in some of these things. They have gone to places such as Syria and they want to come back, and at the moment it does not feel that there is a path that is particularly encouraging to them to come back. We talked about this yesterday when we discussed the temporary exclusion orders and whether or not that means someone will go straight into criminal proceedings.

What I would like us to do is look at some of the models in places such as Germany and Denmark, so that when we have someone who is trying to come back and who is turning their back on what they have done, we do not automatically put them through the criminal process but instead devote a lot more time to trying to see how they can be reintegrated. Obviously one would not do that at the expense of wider security issues, but neither do I think that this is a soft approach. I think, in fact, that it could be a way of making us safer in the long run if some of these deradicalisation programmes work. There is a bit of a gap there, and it is an area that I would like us in this country and our Government to be looking at in more detail.

[Mark Field]

Does the hon. Lady not recognise that we are some 20 weeks away from a general election and so, unfortunately, the rhetoric about throwing away the keys will inevitably come from party leaders? However, in their heart of hearts they all recognise the importance of looking at this issue in a much more holistic way. I agree with her that it is in the interests of our intelligence services, apart from anything else, that we make common cause to find out about some of these returnees, as they can perhaps co-operate. I suspect that work of that order is going on, as well as the range of programmes to which she refers. In many ways, it is understandable that tabloid rhetoric has its part to play, but our authorities are bringing to bear a much more sophisticated, nuanced approach to this very real problem.

[Caroline Lucas]

Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I would not be as relaxed about the tabloid rhetoric as he is. I certainly do not think we should be stoking it in this Chamber because that sends out a message that is heard out there and makes young people believe it is too dangerous to come back. I am aware of people from my constituency and the wider area where I live who are out in places such as Syria and do want to come back, but are terrified of doing so. It is not in the interests of wider security that we just send out the same messages; we have to have different messages and learn from countries that seem to be doing a better job on some of this work than we are.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Mark Field and Caroline Lucas

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I would indeed like to say a few words about new clause 8, which I tabled. As we know, there will be situations in which it is necessary to prevent a person from leaving the country, but I would argue that the police already have a tried and tested way of preventing suspects from doing so—the power of arrest, combined with the ability to require passport surrender if a suspect is arrested and released without charge. However, passport surrender is not currently possible in the case of those arrested on suspicion of being a terrorist under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, as conditional police bail cannot be granted following such arrests. That anomaly means that there is a currently a loophole in the ability of law enforcement to require passport surrender of terrorism suspects. It would be much simpler to remove that loophole than to proceed with the convoluted passport retention scheme set out in clause 1 and schedule 1.

The safest and fairest way to prevent suspects from leaving the country to participate in terrorist activity would be for police officers to use their powers of arrest. If an individual was considered to pose an immediate risk to the country, they could be detained rather than left to roam the UK for 30 days, as would happen under the Government’s proposal. If they did not pose an immediate risk, they could be detained and bailed, and their passport could be surrendered as part of the process.

Including that provision in the Bill and removing the bar on police bail would be much simpler and fairer than a convoluted passport surrender scheme. It would deliver the same practical result as the Government seemingly wish to achieve—preventing individuals from leaving the country—but would do so in a way that, crucially, protected against misuse and discrimination.

My new clause is intended to give the police the powers they need, and to enable them to exercise them consistent with upholding suspects’ human rights. That would act as a greater deterrent, by allowing for arrest rather than summary passport seizure, and would help to overcome some of the in-built discrimination that exists in relation to stop-and-search and would inevitably be part of a stop-and-seizure approach to passports.

[Mark Field]

I do not wish to cast judgment on the two proposed processes, but does the hon. Lady not recognise that the arrest and bail process would probably involve a higher threshold than mere passport seizure? Considerably fewer people would therefore be subject to it, so it might not make the rest of us much safer. The Government’s intention in using passport seizure is to stop those who wish to escape these shores—they will not necessarily be guilty of any offence before doing so.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think his point stands up. Under new clause 8, an individual considered to pose an immediate risk to the country could be detained rather than being left to the roam the UK, as would happen under the Government’s proposal. If they were not considered to pose an immediate risk, they could be bailed and their passport seized. Seizing a passport as part of the bail process would be more effective than what I believe he proposes.

[Mark Field]

The problem is not that there would be a risk of people roaming through the UK and being a direct and immediate risk to other UK citizens. It is that they might leave these shores to carry out terrorist activity abroad.

[Caroline Lucas]

I do not see that as being more of a risk under my new clause, the advantage of which would be that we would not be involved in a so-called stop-and-seizure approach, which we know is often not effective. Summary stop powers do not yield effective results—Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has found that in most years since 2001, more than 1 million people have been stopped and searched, but only 9% were subsequently arrested. If the summary sanction were the removal of a passport, that failure rate would be too high. In addition to risking injustice for the individuals concerned, such an approach would serve to perpetuate a climate of fear and suspicion rather than encourage good relations between different communities in British society.

The Home Secretary herself recently recognised the prejudicial nature of stop-and-search powers and sought to scale them back. She stated:

“Nobody wins when stop and search is misused. It can be an enormous waste of police time and damage the relationship between the public and police.”

It appears odd to legislate for a new stop-and-search-type power when the problems that such an approach causes have been clearly identified and when it is contrary to the Home Secretary’s policy on stop-and-search away from the borders.

I do not think that my suggestions in new clause 8 would reduce our ability to ensure that we are secure. On the contrary, they would make us better able to know where people are, and crucially, they would mean that we would not use so-called stop-and-seizure powers, which have been discredited and are not very effective.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Mark Field and Caroline Lucas

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I have tabled a number of amendments in this group, but given that we are so pressed for time, I will speak to just one of them, new clause 8, which I hope to press to a vote.

I am deeply concerned about the lack of affordable housing, which is yet another indictment of this Government, who have turned their back on “generation rent”. Housing is undoubtedly at the heart of the concerns of my constituents in Brighton. That message comes across clearly from conversations on our city streets, in my surgeries and from the e-mails and letters I receive.

In addition to tackling things such as letting fees, housing standards and security of tenure in the private rented sector, it is absolutely crucial that we ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing. Yet this coalition’s slapdash, ill-thought-out approach to right to buy is undermining this. The Bill, as currently drafted, would reduce the eligibility period for the right to buy from five years to three years. Giving local authority tenants and some housing association tenants the opportunity to buy their home at a discounted price is not a bad thing in itself, but only on the strict condition that it does not jeopardise affordable housing supply, including the ability of housing associations to build new affordable housing.

The new clause would require the Government to produce a plan to replace affordable homes lost in England as a result of right to buy, review the effectiveness of current policy and ask for an assessment to be carried out of changes since 2012 before further policy changes are made. Around 1.8 million households are waiting for a social home, which is an increase of 81% since 1997. The reality of right to buy is about much more than families being able to own their home. Last year, it was revealed that rich landowners are cashing in, buying up multiple ex-council properties and renting them back to people on endless housing waiting lists. In one London borough, as I said earlier, a third of council homes sold in the 1980s are now owned by private landlords, some of whom own dozens of properties.

Far too often, the rich, not the poor, are the real beneficiaries of housing benefit. Currently, only one in every seven homes sold through right to buy has been replaced, and I find it astonishing that the Government are so complacent that they are not even monitoring the number of homes replaced following the preserved right to buy. Housing associations say that, in fact, the number is likely to be even less than one in seven. It is inexcusable that Ministers have not even consulted housing associations, which provide 2.5 million homes to more than 5 million people.

We are a rich country. If we are serious about tackling the housing crisis, we need a major programme of direct capital investment to build sustainable council housing, and the constraints on borrowing faced by local authorities should be lifted, so that councils can better meet demand for new homes. We must not inhibit the ability of housing associations to build more homes. This would ease pressure on the private market and, in turn, help rent levels and housing prices. Instead, we have the appalling situation where we are paying housing benefit to private landlords at extortionate market rates for good houses that once belonged to the taxpayer. It is a scandal.

Today, house prices speak for themselves. In my constituency, the average one-bedroom flat costs nearly six and three-quarter times the median household annual income, and three-bedroom houses cost more than 12 times. That is why I hope that people will support my new clause.

[Mark Field]

I think I speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) when I express some concerns about what appears to be the anomalous situation in London with the short-term letting of residential properties. These proposals have caused enormous concern among communities in the heart of our capital.

The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 was originally introduced to ensure that London’s permanent housing stock would be protected from strong market pressure to convert homes into visitor accommodation, and was deemed wholly necessary to deal with the acute housing shortage that London was then experiencing. At that time, London had a population of some 7.5 million and declining. Its population now stands at 8.2 million and, as all London MPs know, increases at a breath-taking annual rate. It needs to be recognised that allowing greater flexibility to change use from permanent residential occupation to short-term letting will have significant implications for London’s stock of permanent housing. It may make it impossible for our local authorities to meet their targets for new homes.

My constituents have very good reason to believe that a loosening of the rules governing short lets, as set out in this somewhat ill-thought-through new clause 21, will make it much harder to keep their buildings safe, secure and well maintained. It risks undermining a sense of community that can be all too difficult to build in an essentially transient urban population. In fact, London’s hyper-mobility and hyper-diversity get greater year by year. It will make it far more difficult for local authorities to deal with noise and antisocial behaviour. Above all, it threatens to make central London homes, already traded by many people as some sort of global currency, into little more than assets to be exploited for maximum profit.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Debate between Mark Field and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

Very much so. I suspect that my hon. Friend knows more about the chocolate industry than I, particularly as he is a Yorkshire MP.

The enthusiasm that I mentioned has been seen predominantly on this side of the Atlantic. The main aims of the partnership, on which formal negotiations began last July, are to increase trade and investment between the US and the EU by reducing tariffs, particularly on agricultural products; to align regulations and standards; to improve the protection for overseas investors; and to increase access to services and government procurement markets for foreign providers.

There is no doubt that the prize is enormous and that the TTIP is highly ambitious. The US is and will remain the EU’s most important trading partner, with some $2.7 billion of trade daily in goods and services.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has commissioned a cost and impact assessment on the agreement. That research states that

“an EU-US investment treaty would impose costs on the UK to the extent that it prevents the UK government from regulating in the public interest.”

Why is the hon. Gentleman so gung-ho about such an agreement when the Government’s own impact assessment states that the investor state part of it will cause problems for us?

[Mark Field]

I look forward to the Minister destroying one or two of those arguments. I suspect that the hon. Lady has provided a selective reading of the BIS impact assessment.

Much of the media coverage of the TTIP has focused on the trade of manufactured goods. Rather less attention has been given to a sphere of commerce in which the UK economy excels globally: financial and professional services. I represent the City of London, which is a hub not only for banking, but for a range of related service businesses such as accountancy, insurance, consultancy, the law and pensions management. To put into perspective the importance of those industries to the UK, in 2012 the financial and associated professional services sector employed some 7% of the UK work force, produced some 13% of total economic output, contributed £65 billion in tax and generated a trade surplus of £55 billion.

The City of London is strongly supportive of the TTIP, but has been consistent in its belief that no industry should be excluded from the partnership’s scope, including financial and professional services. There would be benefits not only through boosted trade, but through a reduction in the potential for the kind of regulatory arbitrage that currently means that differences in the implementation of financial standards are exploited, thereby putting financial stability at risk. Some of the regulatory differences are unavoidable because of the variations in EU and US market structures and cultures. Others cannot be justified on prudential grounds.

As was demonstrated so painfully in 2008, we tend to get regulatory co-operation only in times of severe crisis, when deals are brokered at the eleventh hour to avoid market fracture. If financial services were within the TTIP’s scope, I believe that we could design a stable, long-term framework for the discussion and co-ordination of regulatory issues long before we hit the next crisis point. The other great prize is that we could create a larger, more efficient market place for EU and US financial institutions, thereby solidifying their leading role in global financial regulation—a market that will get much bigger in Asia as the emerging economies of China, India and the like strengthen.

It is for those reasons that the EU has been lobbying hard for such services to be included in the TTIP negotiations. However, there is still stiff opposition from the US Treasury, which suggests that the TTIP is primarily a trade pact, not a forum for regulatory co-operation. The fear seems to be that the US might lose its sovereignty over regulation. It must be made clear that that is not what the EU proposes. Nobody wants to undermine existing regulations, even the Dodd-Frank Act. Co-ordination is quite different from capitulation. We need sustained, high-level political engagement to bring financial services within the TTIP’s remit.

I am concerned that there is insufficient public awareness of the TTIP, including what is at stake, what the challenges and benefits are—I accept what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) says—and what the potential benefits are. Quite understandably, given the systematic undermining of the world’s political and economic elite in recent years, which has been referred to, there is a wave of distrust at the tenor of the negotiations that are under way. There is a common perception that side deals are being brokered to benefit global corporations, posing a risk to national sovereignty that might see our independent courts being made subservient to outside arbitration. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified his position on those arguments this afternoon. I encourage the Government to run an even more visible campaign on the TTIP that allows us all to have an open, honest discussion about its potential benefits and drawbacks.