Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019

Debate between Tom Brake and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for getting us as far as we have got today.

On the extension, I certainly would not want our friends in the European Union to think that 30 June is, by any stretch of the imagination, ideal or leaves us satiated, because it does not. It is clearly not long enough for a people’s vote, although it clearly is long enough for the European elections to take place, which the Liberal Democrats and a number of other parties will fight very hard and positively.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the June date would not allow enough time, not only for the people’s vote, but also for some kind of process, like citizens’ assemblies, that might just have a chance of bringing the country back together again, by addressing some of the very real reasons that people voted leave in the first place?

[Tom Brake]

Absolutely, and clearly an extension could be used for that purpose, or indeed for expanding on the process that is already taking place, with all the parties in this place—with the exception, I am afraid, of the DUP—working across parties to try to find a way forward. What the hon. Lady suggests could be part of that process.

The extension is not long enough for a people’s vote, which would probably require 20 weeks or thereabouts for planning and for campaigning, so we need an extension until September at the very least. I want to help the Prime Minister. She should accept the flextension that we hope will be offered to her tomorrow, because that will save her from embarrassment in the future. Members will recall that she said there would not be a general election, and then there was; that she was going to stand by the withdrawal agreement that she had spent months negotiating with the European Union, which she then did not; and that she said there would not be an extension to the article 50 period, and then there was. So she could save herself a lot of embarrassment by simply accepting that there is going to be a people’s vote, so a long extension is required to deliver one.

We are assuming, of course, and I think it is a safe assumption, that we will be granted an extension by the European Union, but if we are not, we need some clarity from Ministers as to what exactly will happen—what the next steps that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who is now in his place, referred to actually include. Will those next steps include, if we do not get an extension to the article 50 period, revoking article 50 by the end of this week? If the Minister wants to intervene to confirm that that is the case, he is welcome to do so. He has a frown on his face, but I think he is reflecting intensely on that.

I shall conclude by saying again that the Prime Minister must face up to the truth. She will need a long extension. She should grasp it tomorrow, to avoid humiliation a few weeks later when she would have to go and ask for it.

EU Referendum: Electoral Law

Debate between Tom Brake and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the tone of the debate so far is incredibly disappointing? We are discussing something that goes to the very heart of our democratic processes. If the allegations in the report are correct, it shows that there is something rotten at the heart of our democracy, and it would behove the other side to take that rather more seriously, because it affects all of us and the credibility of our democracy.

[Tom Brake]

I could not agree more. I am sure that others will contribute to this debate—they may principally or exclusively be from the Opposition Benches—express their concerns about these allegation and ask that the matter be fully investigated in the way it deserves.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Caroline Lucas

Report stage: First Day: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the new laws on sentencing are certainly to be welcomed, but I do not see why we need to see this as an either/or. I am trying to make sure that there is no legislative gap, because I do not have confidence—perhaps Conservative Members do—that the new Bill is likely to be on the statute books by the time that we leave the EU, if that is what happens. I want to make sure we have legislative certainty—belt and braces—by putting my new clause in the Bill.

We can have a big debate about the extent to which the EU has promoted animal welfare. I would argue that usually the reason that animal welfare has not been promoted while we have been a member of the EU is the lack of political will here, rather than that the EU itself has prevented it. I take the point about the rules of the single market, but cases can always be made for exceptions—for example, on seal fur. If enough political energy is expended in the EU, such derogations can be achieved. We could have done the same on issues such as live animals, but we chose not to. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said, the Government have a record of not supporting tighter legislation on the live animal transport trade. So I will not stand here and listen to Conservative Members pretending that their new-found detoxification strategy for the Tory party is a reflection of a long-held belief in animal welfare.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that a bird in the hand—her proposal —is much better than two in the bush? It would be cruel of me to remind the House that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made a solemn pledge to support the Foreign Secretary in his bid to be leader, but then ended up stabbing him repeatedly in the front.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am happy to agree with that intervention.

In case a Conservative Member is about to embarrass themselves by repeating the spectacularly stupid suggestion yesterday by the Guido Fawkes website—[Interruption.] Yes, I know that is not hard to believe. It suggested that new clause 7 would weaken animal sentience law because article 13 of the Lisbon treaty applies to only six policy areas, whereas the Secretary of State’s Bill would apply to all Government areas. Leaving aside that it is hard to imagine a Government policy relating to animal welfare that does not fall under one of those six policy areas, which are pretty broad, the point is that we have no domestic animal sentience law to weaken. We have a hastily cobbled together draft Bill that may, or may not, become a substantive Bill that reaches the statute book before 29 March 2019—or ever.

It is this Bill that will weaken our animal welfare law by failing to transfer into UK law the obligation on the Government set out in article 13 of the Lisbon treaty. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), had I tabled an amendment that in some way added to or strengthened the obligations set out in article 13, Ministers would no doubt have rejected it on the grounds that I was trying to gold-plate EU law, which is not the purpose of the Bill. If new clause 7 were accepted, nothing would stop the Secretary of State’s draft Bill subsequently addressing any real or perceived weaknesses in the wording of article 13, and that would have my support. But let us not be left with a gap in the legislation. The real risk is that, because of the volume of legislation with which Whitehall and the civil service are having to grapple, a new Bill would not come forward in time to plug any gap after we leave the EU. That is why my belt-and-braces approach would make sure that we have this legislation safely included in UK law.

In the past, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) has called this solution inelegant. Yes, it is a bit inelegant, but I would rather be inelegant and effective than elegant with a big gap in the legislation. Let us stop playing political games with a draft Bill that may, or may not, get anywhere near the statute book. Let us do what the Secretary of State clearly wished to do himself as recently as July last year, when he was asked whether he wanted to include article 13 in the Bill—he said of course he did. There can be no better legislative vehicle right now to transfer article 13 of the Lisbon treaty into UK law than the Bill, which exists to transfer EU law into UK law. I therefore commend new clause 7 to the House.

I also wish to put on record my support for amendment 57 and new clause 19, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol East. The amendment would preserve more comprehensively than clause 4, which it would replace, the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures derived from EU law and incorporated into domestic law by the European Communities Act 1972. As the hon. Lady has already made clear, there are weaknesses in clause 4, as a result of which some provisions in EU law are at risk of being lost. She gave several examples, and I want to add one more. Unless amended, clause 4 could result in the loss from EU retained law of provisions that detail the aim and purpose of directives such as article 1 of the environmental liability directive, which includes reference to the polluter pays principle, and article 1 of the habitats directive, which specifies that the aim of the directive is to contribute towards biodiversity conservation.

New clause 19 would remove the risk of transposition gaps in retained EU law. It is simpler and more comprehensive than clause 4, and it would ensure that the rights arising from EU directives are preserved and a mechanism would be in place after exit day to deal with problems arising from the incorrect or incomplete transposition of EU law. I hope that Ministers will accept the amendment and new clause.

Chris Gibb Report: Improvements to Southern Railway

Debate between Tom Brake and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

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

May I, Madam Deputy Speaker, add my congratulations to you following others that have been expressed? It is a pleasure to see you in your place.

I welcome this debate, as the Secretary of State has some major information gaps to fill and some serious questions to answer. It is a shame that he left the Chamber almost as soon as he could, because on top of the six-month delay between the Government receiving the report and its publication, we have had no serious formal Government response. The Minister’s 500-word statement barely stretches to a side of A4. That is indicative of the whole attitude that we are seeing from the Government—all hands-off and no leadership. After two years of the Brighton main line rail nightmare, my constituents expect more and deserve better. They have regularly been in tears of anger and frustration. We have heard the stories of jobs lost, relationships broken up, and businesses taking a very serious hit in Brighton and Hove. All the while, passengers continue to pay through the nose for Britain’s worst-performing rail service.

I have listened to the Secretary of State today. May I point out to him that it will not help passengers to heap all the blame for our long-running rail nightmare on to the unions? The people who work on our railways every day—people who are trained to a safety-critical standard and work on the frontline—are raising specific concerns about access and safety that have yet to be answered. Moreover, the Secretary of State simply cannot keep up the pretence that this two-year-long fiasco is nothing to do with him and the Government. The buck stops with him, whether he likes it or not, and chronic problems long predate the industrial action. That action started a little over a year ago, at the end of last April, whereas we have had enduring problems for well over two years. A glance at the graph on page 93 of the Gibb report makes that very clear. Southern was the worst-performing company a very long time before any industrial action took place.

As the Secretary of State well knows, Chris Gibb says that

“all the elements of the system have been under strain”.

He says that Southern rail was attempting to run too many trains on poor and unreliable infrastructure. He makes a lot of technical suggestions on issues such as signalling, timetabling and service patterns. He says, critically, that strategic leadership is missing. That is not news for long-suffering passengers. With regard to this dispute, the bottom line is that there has been a chronic lack of leadership from this Government and from Ministers. It is plain that we are not going to get anywhere unless we get people talking together.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that this is a case of “a plague on all their houses”—that Southern, Network Rail, the unions, and indeed, I am afraid, Ministers, have all failed passengers? Does she agree that it might be worth investigating the possibility of using binding arbitration to get them in the same room to agree a way forward?

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I certainly agree that we need a situation where everybody is in the room at the same time, not a strategy where certain unions are picked off separately, and not one where the Government do not sit in the room either.

In his report, Gibb makes it clear:

“In GTR ‘do nothing’ is not an option, so negotiations must be entered into.”

The Transport Committee has called for all parties, including the Government, to sit down together and resolve the dispute, and that was months ago. The involvement of Ministers in the industrial dispute is often officially denied but in one phrase Gibb lays bare their central role, saying that the Secretary of State is

“already determining the strategic direction of this dispute”.

If the person in this position will not get around the table without preconditions, I really do not see how we are going to make any progress.

Can the Minister also tell us where the famous appendix 9 —entitled “Recommendations regarding the GTR franchise agreement”—is? That appendix, which might just shed a bit of light on the issue, is conspicuous by its absence. My constituents think that Southern has failed, as do I, and we want to see that section of the report. Does the mysteriously missing appendix 9 actually tell us whether GTR is in breach of its contractual obligations? Is the censoring of that appendix in its entirety the reason why the report was kept hidden for half a year? Perhaps Ministers want to avoid being pushed for answers about whether GTR was in breach of contractual obligations.

In October 2016, the Select Committee told the Government to “get a grip” on the monitoring and enforcement of the franchise, to speed up their assessment of the franchisee’s force majeure claim and to be prepared to restructure or terminate the agreement should GTR be shown to be in default. Until the court case brought by the Association of British Commuters, however, no action was taken at all.

ABC is also raising interesting and important questions about the safety of the concourse at Victoria station, which I want to touch on briefly. Gibb says:

“At major stations such as Victoria, pedestrian flows, gateline and concourse capacity are all significantly influenced by commercial strategy.”

He pointed to the dangers that arise when many commuters are concentrated in very small areas of the concourse. He points to the Department for Transport as the place from where we should be getting leadership, but are we getting that leadership? Is Victoria safe from overcrowding? Can the Minister give us a timetable and a funding commitment for the works that are needed?

Finally, Gibb says that bringing the franchise into public hands would create disruption and result in projects having to be put on hold, but that lays bare the fact that the Government have allowed the travelling public effectively to be held to ransom by a failing operator. The Government have dismantled Directly Operated Railways, so if they had to strip GTR of the franchise, they would have very limited options in terms of current project delivery. That is a serious dereliction of Government duty.

The state has to guarantee that if the private sector fails, the Government can and will take the franchise back into public control. Without that, there is no stick. The Department needs to rectify the situation and must immediately start preparing a publicly owned organisation to take over on a clear and agreed date. If the industry knew that, for example, in six months’ time the GTR franchise would switch to a directly operated railway, projects could be provided without disruption and my constituents in Brighton Pavilion would have a chance of getting a better deal on the railways.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Caroline Lucas

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), not least because I would like to disagree with several of the points she made—I am sure she will not find that surprising. She says that she finds the Prime Minister’s attitude to EU nationals “appropriate”. I find it deeply inappropriate, and so do the EU nationals themselves, who simply want certainty about their future in this country. The Prime Minister’s refusal to guarantee that now, when she has the ability to do so, is cruel and, frankly, immoral. We are talking about people’s lives, which are not commodities to be traded in some wider bargain. The Prime Minister could and should guarantee to people who have made their lives here in good faith that of course they can stay. The idea that it is appropriate to do otherwise is out of order.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Is the hon. Lady aware, as I am, of EU nationals holding senior positions in UK institutions already leaving the country and of EU nationals being interviewed for senior positions but asking searching questions about what Brexit means for them and their families?

[Caroline Lucas]

I completely agree. I was talking to the vice-chancellor of one of the universities in my constituency the other day and hearing that already staff were wondering about their future and whether it was worth leaving. Some of them feel unwanted, despite having made a massive contribution to our society and communities. That is why, again, I think that the Government’s attitude is incredibly irresponsible.

I want to talk in particular about my amendment 38 on the environment. I am so pleased that we have at least a few moments to talk about the impact of Brexit on our wider environment and on sustainability. So many of us have been trying to raise these issues for a long time, because they are massively significant, and I know that the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee was waiting hopefully yesterday to make some interventions, based on some of the evidence that we heard in that Committee about the environmental impacts of Brexit. They are deeply worrying, and I would particularly like to focus on the issue of the monitoring and enforcement of environmental legislation once we leave the EU.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Caroline Lucas

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is a very good point, which I think it would be more appropriate to respond to in writing. Clearly, there may well be contractual issues. If local authorities have entered into contracts for, say, a five-year period, there may be implications, so rather than giving him an off-the-cuff response, I will write to him on that point.

Amendment 61 would remove from the Bill the three clauses that relate to taxis and private hire vehicles. That is not a course of action that the Government intend to adopt. On the contrary, we consider that the taxi and private hire vehicle clauses will have significant benefits, both in terms of cost savings for the trade and convenience for passengers, and we are determined to see those benefits realised.

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

Will the Minister explain why he has not listened to what the travelling public want? There is huge concern about these clauses. He has not consulted the Local Government Association, nor has he listened to the public or the evidence, and as a result, he is going to put public safety at risk.

[Tom Brake]

I cannot agree with that at all. We are not putting public safety at risk, and I think the people who have concerns about safety do at least have London to consider, where, of course, all the measures apply, and I am not aware of significant issues being raised in relation to safety in London.

Clause 10 concerns the circumstances in which a private hire vehicle driver’s licence is required. Its purpose is to allow people who do not hold a private hire vehicle driver’s licence outside London and Plymouth to drive a licensed private hire vehicle when the vehicle is off duty. At a stroke, that will lift the burden that many families currently face of having to run a second car so that other family members can drive for domestic purposes. I have heard arguments to the effect that this will be unsafe and that the Government are being reckless in taking forward the policy, but I do not agree with that.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Caroline Lucas

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

Simply repeating it again and again does not make it true. The changes we have made to the registration thresholds indicate our willingness to move on this subject.

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

On the process by which we are having to deal with this Bill, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Parliament is being made a laughing stock by the fact that we are trying to concertina such a complex issue into such a short time? Does that not undermine any credibility this Government had? They are supposed to be championing the big society, but they are trying to muzzle it, both in the Bill and in the process they are setting out here today.

[Tom Brake]

First, it is not unusual for things to proceed at this pace. I should also point out that what we are supposed to be focusing on in this debate is a limited number of amendments that have come from the Lords and some amendments in lieu that the Government are proposing—that is today’s subject. I do not want to make too long a speech, because I can see from the requests for interventions that a lot of hon. Members want to speak on this group.

Amendment 1 was moved on Report in the House of Lords by Lord Tyler and was agreed to by a majority of 18 votes. The amendment would extend the scope of the register to those who lobby special advisers, in addition to those who lobby Ministers and permanent secretaries. We debated this issue ourselves when discussing the amendments tabled in Committee by the Opposition, the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and other Members. During that debate, the Government made it clear that the register was designed to complement the existing government transparency regime and to address a specific problem.

It may help if I first remind the House of the context for the part 1 provisions—the unique open government context in which they have been developed. Transparency is at the heart of this Government’s agenda. We are opening up government and the public sector, and by doing so we are enhancing transparency, participation and accountability. [Interruption.] The noises from Opposition Members need to be quiescent for just a couple of seconds because I want to outline the things the Government have done since 2010 to open up transparency. We have published unprecedented amounts of information about decision makers and decision making. Since 2010, we have proactively and regularly published the following details: Ministers’ private interests; Ministers and permanent secretaries’ meetings with external organisations or individuals; Ministers and special advisers’ meetings with media proprietors, editors, and senior executives; all gifts of hospitality received by Ministers, permanent secretaries and special advisers; ministerial overseas travel; all official and charity receptions held at No. 10; and those who have received hospitality at Chequers and Chevening.

Drugs Policy

Debate between Tom Brake and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 16th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Lucas]

That is an interesting observation. Yes.

If the Government are serious about tackling drug abuse they also need to tackle inequality. Turning people with a medical problem into criminals, and burdening them with a whole new set of obstacles to overcome, seems particularly perverse and counter-productive. As well as tackling some of the social factors that contribute to drug use, we should tightly regulate the production, supply and use of drugs, as that is the most effective way to reduce drug harm.

Legal regulation of potentially risky goods is the bread and butter of Government, so it is logical and consistent to apply the same principles to drugs as those applied to alcohol and cigarettes, for example, or to imported toys and hair dyes. The Government are there to regulate potentially risky goods. Some of the most useful work on this issue that I have come across is from the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, which has published a “Blueprint for Regulation”. It starts by saying that it is helpful to know what regulation would actually look like, so that we can begin to outline different kinds of supply models. For example, it suggests prescription as one particular model, or pharmacies that have restrictions according to buyer age, the quantity of drug being bought, and the case specific concerns relating to potential misuse. One particularly appealing aspect of that approach is the scope to require pharmacists or licensed suppliers to offer advice about harm reduction, safer use and treatment services where appropriate.

I have had the privilege of visiting the RIOTT—randomised injecting opioid treatment trial—programme in my constituency. In case hon. Members have not heard of it, it is one of three trials to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment with injected opioids, such as methadone and heroin, for patients who were dependent on heroin but did not respond to conventional methadone substitution treatment.

Some 150 people receiving oral methadone substitution treatment and injecting illicit heroin on a regular basis were recruited to the trial. Fifty of them were provided with optimised methadone medicine to take orally, and 50 were given supervised injected long-acting methadone treatment. The remaining 50 were given supervised injected heroin, with access to doses of oral methadone. They also received—this is absolutely crucial—one-to-one personal support and had people who worked with them, got to know them and gave them advice and support. All participants were followed-up for six months to enable researchers to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the three treatments.

The main measure of the trial’s effectiveness was the proportion of participants who stopped using illicit heroin. In other words, they stopped trying to get dirty heroin from the streets. Laboratory urine tests allowed researchers to check if the heroin used had been prescribed or had come from the streets. Researchers also collected information about other illicit drug use, injecting behaviour, health and social functioning, criminal activity and so on. The results and the strength of the conclusion were amazing. They suggested that pharmaceutical heroin was far more effective in helping to stabilise people’s lives, get them off the illicit heroin and, crucially, to begin to reduce their overall drug use. The treatment was not just about keeping people on a particular dosage for ever, it was about enabling them to withdraw from ongoing drug use. I met participants on the trial who told me that it had saved their lives. It had given them back control of their lives, allowed them to kick crime, find their families again and, over time, reduce their drug use.

Professor Strang from King’s College London, one of the leading academics on the study, described its outcomes as follows:

“The RIOTT study shows that previously unresponsive patients can achieve major reductions in their use of street heroin and, impressively, these outcomes were seen within six weeks. Our work offers Government robust evidence to support the expansion of this treatment, so that more patients can benefit.”

I am pleased that the drugs strategy foresees a role for substitute prescribing. I call on the Home Office and the Home Secretary to ensure that the results of the RIOTT programmes are properly factored into the analysis, and that such programmes are made more available across the country. The trials are an example of the regulated use of a drug that is otherwise prohibited. They provide a useful, albeit limited, example of how regulation can enable users to become prescribed users, rather than street users, thereby illustrating some of the benefits of regularising the supply route and decriminalising drug use.

I would like to address the issue of cost, which has been mentioned several times. Some people argue that programmes such as RIOTT are extremely expensive, but I would like to look at the other side of the equation. Given the cost of following up drug-related crime to the police, or the cost to the NHS, approaches such as that of the RIOTT programmes are far more cost-effective than the continuing prohibition that we see today.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I apologise for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of this important debate and I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue today. The hon. Lady sets out an alternative approach to tackling the drugs problem. Does she agree that, whatever policies are advocated, it is essential that they are properly assessed for their effectiveness in reducing crime and improving health, and that they should be based on sound science and regularly reviewed after implementation to check whether they continue to be effective?

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our position needs to be based on science and evidence, and regularly reviewed. It is precisely that kind of approach that characterises the RIOTT programmes that I mentioned. I have seen the results in my own constituency and I passionately hope that such programmes will be made more available across the country.

In conclusion, hon. Members will appreciate that to consider the legal regulation of drugs represents a huge shift in thinking. As such, any regulation should be brought in slowly and carefully, step by step, with each phase properly assessed before moving on to the next one. I mentioned earlier that, sadly, any debate on drug strategy is all too often derailed by knee-jerk reaction and an assertion that attempting to question the existing prohibition-based approach is tantamount to dishing pills out like candy to school children.

I hope that hon. Members will not take that kind of simplistic approach today. I am sure that they will not as the nature of the debate has been very constructive. I hope that we can build a cross-party approach to drug regulation that will be open to learning from the example of countries such as Portugal, which primarily treats drugs policy as a health concern. I would certainly advocate an entirely joined-up approach to drug abuse under the auspices of a single unit in the Department of Health, rather than, as at the moment, the Home Office. I hope it is clear that being in favour of drug controls is entirely consistent with the objective of reducing drug-related harm, and that continuing to support prohibition actively works in the other direction.