Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 24th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack; as usual, I agreed with one or two of the things he said. I oppose this Bill. For me, it is a panicky little piece of legislation that has come out of two terrible events. It fits the definition of the politician’s syllogism: something must be done—this is something, so it must be done. It is illogical to think that keeping somebody a little longer in prison will solve any of our problems. I suppose that the Government will feel that they can then at least say that they are being tough on terrorism, but that is plainly not true. If they were being tough on terrorism, they would think about what happens to people in prisons, as well as before they go into prison and, very definitely, after they come out. Simply keeping people in prison a little longer is no use if they come out just as dangerous, just as hate-filled and just as angry, or even angrier, as when they went in.

This Bill will not solve the problems of terror unless the Government sort out proper deradicalisation in prisons. Of course, the severe cuts to prison budgets over the last decade of Conservative austerity cannot have helped improve the quality of supervision in our prisons. Some are now squalid dumps, in which radicalisation can fester rather than be solved. If the easy access to drugs in prison is any parallel, extremism could spread quickly and we will have a serious epidemic. The Government need to take back control of our prisons and put in the resources to solve these complex problems, which cannot be fixed by this Bill. Just talking tough is really not enough.

The scope and application of the Bill are very important. I have listened to the learned arguments made this afternoon; I hope that the Government have listened to them too and will perhaps take some lessons from them. But I have also been contacted by an animal rights activist who is currently serving a prison sentence and is due for automatic release in the summer. This person was visited by a Prevent officer, who told them that their release date has now been scrapped due to the new legislation going through. I do not believe that this Bill would have that effect; the Prevent officer is either behaving in an oppressive manner or is severely misinformed. Will the Minister please reassure me, and correct this Prevent officer, by making very clear that the legislation will not affect the sentences or early release of non-violent environmental, animal rights and social justice political prisoners?

It has been an interesting debate but, unfortunately, the present Government are far too arrogant to listen to the wise words that have been said in this Chamber. I deeply regret that and hope that, in the future, perhaps they will think twice about bringing something so panicky to this House.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 15th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I have no legal training, unlike many of the eminent lawyers who have spoken this morning. I have occasionally found myself in court, but mainly as a litigant against the Met Police and the Government, although occasionally as a defendant, but I was obviously always innocent.

As I have no legal training, perhaps I can be seen as somebody who represents some of the majority of the people in the UK who have no legal training and who perhaps will not understand what is happening here today, because quite honestly it is an aberration and something that we all have to resist. I very much hope that this Government can see that they have a fight on their hands, because if this clause gives any insight into government thinking it is quite chilling and quite upsetting, as it is contrary to everything that Britain stands for.

Our overconfident Government want to completely redraw the checks and balances in our constitution so that Ministers can opt out of legal precedent at will. Ministers are seeking power to disapply EU case law as though their existing Henry VIII powers are not enough. No good justification has been given, and no sensible restrictions have been put in place so that these powers are used only when strictly necessary. This clause will create a wild west of legal uncertainty, where no one can really be sure what the words “contained in retained EU law” actually mean, until even the most basic issues are litigated on. It is a scorched earth policy and totally inappropriate for our legal system.

Of course, these absurd powers will also be particularly harmful for the environment and our natural world, since so much of our environmental legislation comes from the European Union. The UK Government have a terrible track record of getting into trouble with the European courts for things like our air pollution epidemic and the amount of raw sewage in our rivers. It is almost no wonder that the Government would like this magic wand to take away EU case law. But what is convenient for our Government would be disastrous for our environment, which is why my noble friend, who cannot be here in the Chamber at the moment, and I so strongly support these amendments. I hope that the many clear, sensible and legal arguments put forward by so many noble and learned Lords today will encourage the Government to rethink this.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it came as no surprise to me that there was nothing to delight my soul in the Government’s programme. For example, a fair justice system that keeps people safe takes more than a royal commission; it takes resources. When budgets have been cut by one-third, the system does not function well and justice suffers. I hope that the royal commission will examine the impact of austerity on fairness and access to justice. I also question any attempt to impose longer sentences when we are failing to deal with the care and rehabilitation of the large number of people already in the system. The probation service and the Prison Service are unable to cope properly with the existing numbers. If you add to that number, you are adding to those pressures and problems.

The tighter rules on carrying knives repeat the same rhetoric we have heard for years and fail to address the fear on the streets and the lack of a visible police presence, which can lead many to arm themselves for so called self-protection. The deaths and injuries from knife crime are a horrendous outcome of bigger social problems. We should be debating legislation that strengthens the family and community bonds that stop knives being seen as the solution to anything except eating dinner. Increasing Section 60 stop and search is not the answer. Research by the Times into the use of stop and search in London throws doubt on its effectiveness. In Enfield and Camden, two of the boroughs where the tactic was used most, knife attacks over the past year rose by 28% and 13% respectively. Use of this tactic risks alienating communities that could assist in combating knife crime.

We should be getting drugs off the streets and out of the hands of organised crime by regulating their use and selling them at pharmacies. We should be focused on breaking the cycle of violence experienced by far too many who come to see it as an inevitability in their lives. While I welcome the government support for action on domestic violence, the rest of this proposed legislation lacks the vision to deal with the problems we face. In fact, many of the big issues are not discussed at all.

The preventable deaths of five people a day on our roads is a scandal. The facts that these deaths are taken for granted by the Government and that our efforts to address road danger have stalled in recent years display shocking complacency. This level of criminality receives no attention from the Government, when the obvious solution is to hand out a lifetime ban to anyone who fails to stop and take responsibility for their actions as a driver.

Instead of action on the big issues that impact on the well-being of hundreds of thousands of people, we have a government proposal to criminalise unauthorised encampments. This is targeted at Roma, Gypsy and Traveller communities, which is discriminatory and adds an extra threat on top of existing prejudice against those communities. I am also deeply concerned about how criminalising encampments will affect a whole form of peaceful protest that was previously a civil matter. It means criminalising the setting up of protest camps for the pettiest of reasons. It is because the Government and their corporate backers have been losing the debate. For example, Extinction Rebellion has changed the debate by being inconvenient. That can involve blocking roads, but obviously that is nothing like our Prime Minister, who today blocked the cycle lane on the Embankment so that he could get to work. I do not know where he was coming from. Extinction Rebellion sets up temporary protest camps to co-ordinate its actions, provide advice, handle liaison with the authorities et cetera. Last year, these actions sent a message to people and to Parliament, and Parliament responded by declaring a climate emergency. It showed that protest can be a powerful positive legitimate force in our democracy.

Local people setting up anti-fracking protest camps as a way of mobilising a continual presence on the doorstep of the frackers was very important. The frackers lost, despite all their powerful connections and party donations. Powerful people do not like losing, and they look at ways to make life more difficult for the protestors. That is the inspiration behind the proposed legislation to make this form of trespass a matter for the police and to give them the ability to seize property and vehicles. There are other protest camps. For example, local people protesting against HS2 are camped out near water meadows and ancient woodlands that face destruction, for example at Harvil Road in Hillingdon. They have been pushed out today.

I welcome the setting up of a constitution, democracy and rights commission, but could we not open that up to citizens’ assemblies to consider the way forward? The process should be designed to obtain maximum public consent and create a democracy fit for the 21st century. Obviously, the first issue of constitutional reform should be an elected second Chamber using proportional representation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for so passionately advocating proportional representation and for pointing out that Greens have to work much harder for a seat than any other party. The problem for me is that this Government will attempt to use this constitutional commission to cement their own power and give even greater autonomy to Ministers. We need a Parliament elected via a fair voting system which can take back control.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 17th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

Outrageous? Let us be grown-up here. Everybody understands the purport of the remark. Mr Johnson does not wish to prorogue Parliament. He has not said so, and he does not need to, because, following the Gina Miller case, there has been an Act of Parliament, passed by this Parliament, in this Session, requiring the UK by statute to leave the EU, as requested by the British people, on 31 October. It is simply rubbish to say that there might be an attempt stop Parliament legislating on Brexit. Parliament has already legislated, and talk about a so-called unlawful shutdown of Parliament or hyperbole about a ban on Parliament sitting reflects nothing Mr Johnson has ever said. It is so much chaff thrown up by the ditchers among the more extreme referendum deniers.

If Parliament wishes to stop Brexit, the route is open: a vote of no confidence in the Government, and the installation of a new Government. That new Government can turn to the British people and say, as I often hear people say in this House, “Sorry, 17.4 million, you are stupid, you did not know what you were voting for, you do not understand the facts as we clever people do, so, sorry, Brexit is off”. If you want to change the policy and say that and do that to the British people, change the Government. That is the proper way to proceed.

It is indicative of the state of the Labour Party—the consistent deliverer, as I said the other day, of 220 votes in Division after Division in the other place—that instead of taking that open and honest course, challenging the Government in a vote of no confidence, it footles around in the small print of a Northern Ireland Bill, shuffling courageously sideways under the genial cloak provided by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and into the arms of the Liberal Democrats, who, given half a chance, would snuff Labour out.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I would like to make two points. First, I voted for Brexit, not for a no-deal Brexit, and that must be true for a lot of other people. Can the noble Lord please stop dividing us into these two camps? Secondly—I am sure that this is unparliamentary—I cannot see the point of what the noble Lord is saying. He is ranging so far across this debate that he is losing sight of the very simple amendment before us, and he is not taking the House with him. I can think only that he is doing this for the newspapers or for—I do not know; do we have constituents?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I admitted at the outset that I am unlikely to take this House with me. However, there are certain things that someone who has the privilege, right and duty to be in Parliament and come to this place has the right and duty to say. While I may be saying things that are not congenial to many in this House, they are not disagreed with by some people in this country.

It is germane to point out certain facts about the Labour Party—a party that will campaign to remain in any election or referendum provoked by a Conservative Government, but which will campaign to leave in the unlikely event that it ever forms a Government. Brexit on Monday, remain on Tuesday, Brexit on Wednesday, will not say on Thursday, does not have a clue on Friday—that is the official policy of that apology of an Opposition on this great question of our times.

The third strand of my argument against this amendment is that by floating claims that only use of the royal prerogative could secure Brexit and that Mr Johnson wants to do that, it is not him but the peddlers of that canard who risk dragging the monarchy into political controversy. Prorogation is perfectly normal after a Session so long, a new gracious Speech is normal, with the formation of a new ministry, and, heaven knows, we can surely do better than the ragbag of legislation and off home before dinner that has been the staple of both Houses lately. At some point, a new Prime Minister must be able to seek a Prorogation and a gracious Speech. That is the right and proper routine of our parliamentary life, and why should Mr Johnson be asked to deny himself that right? It does no service to that incontestable fact to besmirch the act of Prorogation as if it was some kind of shabby and little-known political manoeuvre. All of us, on every side of the argument, have a duty to show restraint in relation to the role of the Crown. As I said in Committee, I cannot conceive how the courts could, or wisely should, construe the motive for the advice given by a Prime Minister to a Sovereign in a private audience. I would rather we did not go there. We have the right to do many things in life, but we have the duty to ask ourselves sometimes, “Is it wise?”.

Here is the fourth and final strand of why I object to these amendments—the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, put his finger on it on Monday. What on earth are we doing here, discussing all this on a Bill that relates narrowly to the future of the Northern Ireland Executive? Only last week Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, to which I have the honour to belong, restated our concern—we all assented to the report, including the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is not in his place—about the persistent fast-tracking of legislation on Northern Ireland. Yet here we are, not only fast-tracking a Northern Ireland Bill but trying to festoon it like a Christmas tree with barely related measures which have never properly been considered. That is a bad way to treat Parliament—

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 15th July 2019 Lords Chamber

I do not know what has happened to it, but in the Royal Gallery there used to be a display cabinet containing a copy of Charles I’s death warrant. On it were the names of all the people who thought they were putting their names to the execution of Charles I. In fact, they were signing their own death warrants, because after the restoration every one of them was hunted down and executed. Sometimes the behaviour of your Lordships’ House, in seeking to frustrate the democratic wishes of the people, has a similarity. People in this country are tired of people who—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am so sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he may know that I voted to leave the EU—and, if asked again, I would do the same thing—but I did not vote to leave with no deal. There are thousands and thousands of people like me, so it is only right that Parliament gets another say on this. A no-deal option is not what a lot of us voted for.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the support she has given to what the majority of people in this country wanted to see happen, but I point her to the opinion polls, which show that hers is a minority view. Most people in our country now want this matter finished, so that we can get on with attending to the biggest issues we face—whether social care, education, taxation or anything else—and that is what we should be getting on with.

I make one last point, which arises from what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said when he wrongly implied that my noble friend was attacking a particular individual; he mentioned Gina Miller. I pay tribute to Gina Miller; she has done a brilliant job. Had it not been for Gina Miller, we would not have been forced into passing the legislation that, by law, requires us to leave on 31 October. I say to the noble Lord moving this amendment: beware of Gina Miller and the law of unintended consequences. By seeking to frustrate the wishes of the people, you will put the reputation of Parliament and the standing of this House in jeopardy.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, I speak not as a lawyer—I find it difficult to follow some of these legal arguments—but as a grandfather to seven grandchildren, each of whom was born into European citizenship after the treaty of Maastricht. They are just representative of the more than 18 million others who were born since that treaty was signed. If the Bill were to go through unamended, we would withdraw rights and hopes given to them during the past 25 years. What moral right do we have to do this?

If I spoke today in favour of this Bill, what would I say to Haf, Osian, Manon, Megan, Reuben—I am trying to remember their names—Ianto and Aiden? They would say, “Taid”—which is Welsh for grandfather—“why did you not oppose this? Why did you not oppose the loss of all these freedoms and the availability we had in the previous time? You didn’t do a thing”. I am not the only grandfather in this room; I am not the only grandparent in this room. If a grandparent can vote to withdraw rights that have been cherished by their grandchildren, they are doing a tremendous disservice. To the various concessions in travel, in education and in so many other ways that we get as members of the European Union there will now be barriers, and it will be because we went along with the Bill—I would nearly call it an insane Bill—to withdraw these rights from those who have cherished them and used them during the past 25 years. We were able to choose to be members of the European Union; they were not. They were born into British citizenship; they were born into European citizenship, and, as my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, they were born into Welsh citizenship. We cannot withdraw these things. It is a blind way of treating the future generation.

That is all that I will say at this point. Seriously, we have no right. How will the Minister defend the withdrawal of such rights from 18 million citizens? We should remember that only 17 million people voted to leave; we are talking here about 18 million. How on earth can the Minister defend such a move?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support the amendments. I speak not as a grandmother, although I am one, but as somebody who not only voted for Brexit but campaigned for it. Therefore, I carry quite a heavy burden to help ensure that we get the best outcomes for people living in our country.

When voting to leave, no one voted to lose their rights. The amendments would ensure that the Government safeguarded the rights and protections of people as we negotiate leaving the EU. It has been hard to get much sense out of the Government about their plans for Brexit. The default message is to refer to the Prime Minister's Florence speech or Lancaster House speech, but platitudes about “getting the best deal” or “making Brexit a success” simply are not enough to guarantee that our Government do not risk undermining our basic rights and protections during the Brexit negotiations.

The Government seem unable to agree on many of the big issues and it is unclear who is in charge. In the absence of principled, clear leadership, Parliament must take the reins and do what is right for the majority of people. The amendments would protect both British citizens and EU citizens, people who have built their lives around the opportunities given to them by EU membership. They would force the Government to stop abusing our rights as a political bargaining chip. There should never have been any question over the rights of EU citizens living in this country, but our Government insisted on using our basic rights as part of their struggle to gain bargaining power in negotiations.

It is often conceived by supporters of remaining in the EU that the main motivation for Brexit is a narrow-minded, nasty little racist attitude which blames all our country’s problems on foreigners. I could not be further away from that world view, although I believe that some of the Brexiteers—I have some names here but will not read them out—and others have a lot to answer for in the way that they used migrants as scapegoats for the very real destruction that our own Government have cast upon our society with their slash-and-burn austerity measures. The Government sowed the seeds for a lot of the division and anger that prevail in our country.

I celebrate migrants and migration. Humans have always moved around as we seek opportunities and form new communities. It is an essential part of what it means to be human and without migration we would probably be stuck in isolated little groups, still using flint tools and eating with our fingers. Instead, humans have done the most astonishing things and we have all gained enormously from the massive cultural and technological growth that results from humans meeting humans and sharing ideas, cultures, stories and lifestyles. These amendments would do what is absolutely right and fair. They are about breaking Brexit away from those who espouse anti-immigrant views and saying that Brexit is about being more open, tolerant and diverse than ever before. A Brexit that cannot achieve that is not a Brexit worth having and not one that I will support.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, if there is to be a commitment to the highest standards of protection of citizens’ rights—I go back to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel—this would presumably include the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. But the Bill suggests that we omit that charter, so can the Minister say what would be the mechanism by which those charter rights would be guaranteed for EU citizens who remain resident in the UK?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 5th March 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

30: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“EU Protocol on animal sentience
The obligation on Ministers of the Crown and the devolved administrations to pay regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings when formulating law and policy, contained within the EU Protocol on animal sentience as set out in Article 13 of Title II of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, shall be recognised and available in domestic law on and after exit day.”

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, this very amendment has been debated in the other House and was voted down by 18 votes. I think the Government were shocked by the public outcry at the amendment being lost.

EU law puts an obligation on the Government and devolved Administrations to “pay full regard” to the welfare requirements of animals when Ministers make decisions and implement policies. This means that Ministers have to think carefully about how their decisions might harm animals.

The British Government played a key role in making this law during our term of EU presidency. It has influenced more than 20 pieces of EU law, including the ban on conventional battery cages for chickens and the ban on cosmetics testing on animals. Certain lobby groups claim that protecting the animal sentience laws will be disastrous; for example, that farmers will not be able to control agricultural pests or to go out and shoot pigeons. This simply cannot be true. If it is not the case with the law as exists today, then nothing will change tomorrow if we retain it.

The Government’s stated intention in the White Paper was for the withdrawal Bill to bring all EU law into UK law and then only amend retained EU law in future legislation. I have raised this issue previously and find it rather offensive that the Government would make such a promise and then not honour it.

Ministers have admitted that these animal protections will be lost as the Bill is currently worded. I understand that it is unfortunate to have to make “single issue” amendments to the Bill, but unless and until we are able to fix the Bill properly to retain all EU law, I have little option but to propose this amendment.

As a compromise when the amendment was proposed in the other place, the Government said that a new Bill would be created to include protections relating to animal sentience—I am sure that they will claim today that my amendment is not needed because of that new Bill. However, the Government’s proposals are weaker than the EU law. They have changed the wording in the draft Bill and included a much broader list of exceptions. Ministers would have only to have “regard” rather than “full regard” for animal welfare, and there is a massive loophole whereby a Minister can make decisions harmful to animal welfare whenever there are other matters of public interest.

A legal opinion commissioned by Friends of the Earth concluded that the Government’s proposals make it far too easy for Ministers to ignore animals, and their decisions would be subject to legal challenge only where they were so irrational that no reasonable authority could have come to them. That is a rather broad exception. The Government’s proposals do a very good job of appearing to protect animal rights, while actually reducing them to near zero.

The House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee looked at the Government’s draft animal sentience legislation and tore it to shreds. It basically said that it should be removed from the animal welfare Bill and kicked into the long grass. So it looks likely that, despite the Government’s best intentions, their draft legislation on animal sentience might never see the light of day, let alone reach the statute book. We need to keep this in the withdrawal Bill: it is essential that we retain the existing provisions of EU law. We cannot allow a gap in protections between Brexit day and the point at which the Government are able to provide a suitable animal protection Bill. Ministers have been telling various people that animal sentience is already protected in UK law and that we do not need my amendment. If so, why have the Government drafted their own proposal on the issue? The situation is very simple: this protection does not exist in UK law, it stems from EU law.

Without this amendment to retain Article 13, animals will lose these protections, there being only the vague hope that the Government might one day bring forward a Bill. Once it is retained, we can always go back to it and change it with a future Bill—I would be happy to work with the Government to improve these animal protections—but in the meantime my amendment will keep these animal protections once we leave the EU. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness—I am sure we will have another opportunity to consider the contents of her amendment—and to speak to my own Amendment 212, which inserts a new clause. I hope that I am not responsible for the typo in subsection (3), which refers to, “the Untied Kingdom”. It is not in my interest or that of the country to untie all the arrangements that we have in the United Kingdom.

The purpose of this amendment is to consider,

“border arrangements relating to animal welfare”,

and broaden it out to other themes as well. I am delighted to see my noble friends the Minister for Exiting the European Union and the Minister with responsibility for agriculture in their place to hear these concerns. As of 11 pm on 29 March 2019 the UK becomes a third country and will be treated as such until the new relationship and other arrangements are in place. In her speech on Friday the Prime Minister set out five tests, one of which is that any agreement on our future relationship must protect people’s jobs and security. I wish to consider these remarks in the context, specifically, of the border between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland.

In our debates on Amendment 18 in Committee last week we were told, including by the Minister, that the Bill represents a snapshot. That snapshot would mean that there are no checks at borders between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland because of the common travel area. Indeed, the first scenario that exists today is that the Belfast agreement of 1998 setting up the common travel area means that there are currently no checks on the border between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. The second scenario assumes that there will have to be a border if we have either a free trade area or, worse still, WTO rules, in which case there will be border checks. I reminded the Committee that that border is 300 miles long.

In preparing for today I came across a rather useful piece which I found, I regret to say, on Twitter, and which I bring to the attention of the Committee. It is by Katy Hayward, whom I believe teaches and lectures at Queen’s University Belfast. She looks at the case of Britain being outside the single market and the customs union, either in a free trade agreement with the EU or under no deal, and it appears that agricultural products would have to be checked at the border. Assuming that animals are moving across the Irish border, I put to the Committee that this cannot be done by technology, either for this category or indeed for food, farming and agricultural products. Instead, there will have to be physical checks and inspections by veterinary surgeons and other enforcement officers. This will also be because we have very high standards of animal welfare, animal health and animal hygiene in this country—which I am immensely proud of—which mean that goods passing across the border will have to meet EU requirements going into Ireland and our requirements coming into the United Kingdom from Ireland.

I draw the Committee’s attention to what Article 5.1 of the draft protocol published by the European Commission last Wednesday, 28 April, says about agricultural trade:

“The provisions of Union law on sanitary and phytosanitary rules”—


please do not ask me what phytosanitary rules are because I have not had time to find out—

“listed in Annex 2.5 to this Protocol shall apply to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland”.

For the other 27 European Union member states, food and other agricultural products coming into Ireland from the UK, whether from Northern Ireland or Great Britain, will be in free circulation within the remaining single market. The remaining 27 member states will demand reassurance on standards, not least because some may seek economic and competitive opportunities from the Irish authorities in these circumstances.

The purpose of the amendment is to seek reassurance from the Minister that the Food Standards Agency will have the staff and resources it needs to ensure that these cross-border arrangements, when in place, will be policed properly.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope I have provided assurance to the noble Baroness and that she will feel content to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I would like to offer them all a hug but I fear I might be infringing HR regulations. I am aware that the Whips have been looking anxiously at the clock and I shall try to be brief.

The amendment would not change anything that exists in the UK at the moment—it is merely a safeguard. If the Government bring forth a Bill I will be incredibly supportive. I am not saying this is the best option for animal protection but it is as good as it gets. It is the best we have at the moment and I certainly do not want to see any worse protections.

Chickens have already been mentioned. I would like to add that mastitis is common in the States—it is an infection of the udder, which means that the milk produced has a high level of pus in it. Americans consume a lot of pus in their milk because of the way their animals are farmed. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, might have seen cows with sore udders in Texas. We cannot have this in our country and the British public would not allow the Government to drop our welfare standards. If the Government are going to bring forth a Bill, fantastic—but in the meantime let us have the amendment to keep things as safe as possible.

I hope the Government do not come back to your Lordships’ House with a fudge. Many noble Lords are more knowledgeable about this issue than I am, and it would not be accepted. It is a mistake for the Government not to say, “We will have this until we can do better”. If they did, I would support them. I would love to not withdraw the amendment but, with your Lordships’ permission, I will.

Amendment 30 withdrawn.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 26th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

I hear what the noble Baroness says. All I would say is that by ensuring that we incorporate things into UK law, we then have an opportunity, democratically and in an accountable fashion, to make modifications as may be necessary. The danger is that we will throw out babies with bathwater.

Again, the Government have stated that the removal of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights from UK law,

“will not affect the substantive rights from which individuals already benefit in the UK”.

The White Paper notes that many of the rights protected in the charter are also found in UN and other international treaties that the UK has ratified, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, in a centralised context there is no specific statutory provision requiring respect for children’s rights in lawmaking, nor a general requirement to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK.

Furthermore, this particular argument has a specific Welsh angle. Stronger protection for children’s rights exists in the devolved nations, specifically in Wales. The Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011 imposes a duty on Ministers to have due regard to children’s rights as expressed in the UNCRC when exercising any of their functions. To achieve that obligation, since 2012 the Welsh Government routinely undertake child rights impact assessments on proposals for Welsh law or policy that will affect children directly or indirectly.

The withdrawal Bill will limit the scope of the devolved nations to alter law within the current devolution settlement and brings competence on matters that have been arranged under EU law back to Westminster. This would prevent the devolved nations from exercising their powers to withstand or amend legislation from Westminster, even where this contradicts their own commitments to children’s rights. I submit the amendment to the Committee as a contribution to the debate on these most important considerations.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I rise as a co-signatory to Amendment 35. I usually come to these debates feeling that I understand all the issues involved and, within minutes, I am confused by contradictory legal opinions and by arguments from across the House on issues that are not even relevant to the Bill. So can we go back to basics? I feel like the woman on the Clapham omnibus who is just seeing common sense. The fact is that the Government promised to bring over all EU law and are choosing to exempt this aspect of it. I do not understand that; they break a promise at their peril, because people out there will not understand.

I could not do better than repeat some of the things said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, about the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Let me read again what it says:

“The simplest and best way of achieving the Government’s intention that substantive rights should remain unchanged and ensuring legal certainty is to retain the Charter rights in UK law”.


I do not understand why the Government do not see that as well. The legal opinion produced for the Equality and Human Rights Commission by Jason Coppel QC, which we have heard of already, states that failing to keep the charter will result in,

“a significant weakening of the current system of human rights protection in the UK”.

Why is that not accepted? It is a legal argument. Have the Government read that opinion? If so, will they re-read it and give us a considered response to it? It clearly has a validity that I doubt the Government’s position has.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, spoke about being on the centre ground, which I did not entirely agree with. I feel that I am on the centre ground; I feel that I, here, can at least express things that I hear out on the street. Out on the street, people think that the Government are going to keep all EU law and then amend it when it comes. That was the promise, so why are the Government refusing to fulfil it?

[Lord Kerslake (CB)]

My Lords, I want to speak in favour of Amendment 34 and in support of the other amendments in this group that seek to retain the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in UK domestic law. I did not speak at Second Reading, in good part out of recognition of a long list of speakers. I hope that the Committee will accept my apologies and my contribution this evening.

The key question here is not whether one was for or against leaving the European Union, nor is it whether one agrees with every aspect of the charter; neither of those points is relevant to this debate. It is whether there are sufficient grounds to exclude the charter from being transposed into UK law in exception to every other law being so transposed. In my view, there is no argument that, if we exclude it, we will see a weakening of our rights. That is very clear from the analysis that we have had from the commission and others.

There is no doubt that excluding the charter will lead to confusion and uncertainty in the law—that, too, is made clear in the analysis by other lawyers. So the question one has to ask is: are the grounds for excluding the charter compelling? I have not been persuaded that they are.

When Ministers say that something is not necessary, I get nervous. It usually means that it really is necessary but they do not want truly to state the reasons why. That is the reality here. The hard truth is that people speaking against the charter’s inclusion do not like it. That is a perfectly reasonable position to take but, if they do not like the charter, that is a debate for further legislative change in the future; it is not a reason for accepting it now.

The public expect us to act with integrity and to do what it says on the tin in relation to this Bill. The two things that have been very clear right from the off on this Bill are that it will not see a diminution of rights and it will not try to change legislation from the EU but will transpose it, followed by a proper debate in this House about where change is needed. Unless those advocating the charter’s exception can come up with compelling reasons why it cannot be incorporated, the balance of argument must be for it to stay and be transposed into UK law.

I say to the Government: when you are in a hole, stop digging. This should be agreed; it is a straightforward amendment that we can make in this Parliament. It does not, mercifully, await the outcome of the deal or anything related to it; it is a simple matter of integrity in the process that we are carrying out through the Bill. We should support the amendment.

Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2017

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

My Lords, I am delighted to explain that. In many cases our charities are the voice of the public and constitute the way in which the public organise themselves to have a voice in environmental challenges. As a nation we are blessed with a rich range of charities in the environmental field, which have operated for many years in hugely responsible ways to hold government to account on behalf of the communities in which they operate. I have much experience on both sides of this equation, having taken cases on behalf of charities such as the RSPB and having been on the receiving end of cases when I was chief executive of the Environment Agency. I value the role of charities, as do local communities.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on bringing this regret Motion. I am always conflicted by regret Motions, because they are extremely weak, which of course infuriates somebody like me. However, at the same time they do two things. First, they send a message to the Government—they have to sit and listen and, perhaps, do something good for a change; but secondly, they allow people like me to get up and rant, and I would like to rant for a minute, because I am furious about this. I cannot see how any Government can reduce justice for all, and that is the principle at stake here. The principle is that justice is for everybody, however rich or poor. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, raised a case where a political party wanted to bring an environmental case and did not have the money for it. This will happen more and more.

We can look at some of the things that the Government are doing at the moment—for example, HS2, which is the most incredibly wasteful, stupid, unnecessary piece of infrastructure they could possibly have devised. That will raise all sorts of issues. It is already steaming through sites of scientific interest, and there will be huge environmental problems. By removing the cap, the Government are reducing the hassle they will experience in pushing this through. I therefore urge the Lords to vote for this Motion and show the Government that what they are doing is completely wrong. This Chamber has a real opportunity to make life better for people—and of course, people who are on a low income, and charity and community groups who do not have the money, will suffer because of this.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I will continue with the issue of community and talk about my community, Gresford, where I live. Many years ago, I was involved in a judicial review. There was an application for opencast mining at Gresford colliery. Members may recall that that was the scene of a terrible mining disaster in 1934, when 266 men lost their lives underground and only 12 bodies were ever recovered—the rest remain there. Therefore, the issue of opencast mining was clearly one of considerable concern. The county council, in considering a planning permission, did not adequately advertise it, and there was not proper consultation.

I appeared pro bono for the Gresford amenity society to take the county council to court to challenge its decision. The court of two judges decided that I was quite right—it had not been properly advertised and there had not been proper consultation. However, one judge was prepared to give us a remedy, which was to quash the decision, while the other judge was not. It is a question of discretion for each judge as to what remedy should be given, even if you are successful on the facts. When this small group, who were not wealthy, had to decide whether to pursue the matter and ask for a second hearing—with, of course, counsel involved on the side of the county council and possible liability for costs—they were not prepared to take the matter further. However, the county council properly readvertised and there was proper consultation, and as a result of submissions made by that group and others, proper safeguards were put into consent to the planning application. Today, one can see that at Gresford colliery the workings have all been renewed and it looks very pleasant. However, that was the limitation of judicial review as it was then.

Therefore, when in 2005 the United Kingdom ratified the Aarhus convention, I felt a sense of relief. As appears from the declaration made by the UK Government upon signature and confirmed on ratification, the United Kingdom recognised the right of every person to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being. The United Kingdom guaranteed the right of access to justice in environmental matters by the declaration it made on ratification, yet only five years later, in 2010, the European Commission took the United Kingdom to the European Court of Justice to determine whether it was fulfilling its obligations under the convention, specifically on the obligation that its judicial proceedings must not be prohibitively expensive.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 31st October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I support these amendments and I strongly support my noble friend Lord Rooker in everything that he has said. This Bill is a classic example of how a Bill should come through this place. The way in which it has been built up across Parliament has been remarkable. It meets all the requirements for our security and for personal liberty, and we should be very proud of it.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I was going to speak later but I will speak now, as I am driven to do so by the comments of previous speakers.

The Bill is undoubtedly better than it was at the start. It could not help but be because of all the effort that people have put into making it better, but it is still a most appalling piece of legislation and I should like to read something to noble Lords:

“Today, an ordinary person can’t pick up the phone, email a friend or order a book without comprehensive records of their activities being created, archived, and analysed by people with the authority to put you in jail or worse. I know: I sat at that desk. I typed in the names. When we know we’re being watched, we impose restraints on our behaviour—even clearly innocent activities—just as surely as if we were ordered to do so. The mass surveillance systems of today, systems that pre-emptively automate the indiscriminate seizure of”,

private records, constitute a sort of surveillance time machine”,

“—a machine that simply cannot operate without violating our liberty on the broadest scale. And it permits governments to go back and scrutinise every decision you’ve ever made, every friend you’ve ever spoken to, and derive suspicion from an innocent life. Even a well-intentioned mistake can turn a life upside down. To preserve our free societies, we have to defend not just against distant enemies, but against dangerous policies at home. If we allow scarce resources to be squandered on surveillance programmes that violate the very rights they purport to defend, we haven’t protected our liberty at all: we have paid to lose it”.

That sums this Bill up. It was written by Edward Snowden, who, as he said, sat at that desk. It was written for Liberty.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that Edward Snowden, by releasing millions of bits of classified material, has actually made all of us less safe than we were? It is a certain fact that he has done that. He is hardly someone to quote as a great and noble person.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

I think that we will find in the future that this legislation will return again and again to bite us, and many of us here will regret having passed it.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. She played an important role in the course of this Bill in reminding your Lordships of the need to deal with the liberty of the citizen. But the greatest threat to the liberty of the citizen is the threat to life. This Bill, which is now in its final stage, is extremely important in ensuring that in future our citizens are protected against terrorism and the threats that face this country and beyond.

Of course, there were and are still issues that need to be taken very seriously with regard to the liberty of the subject. But in all the years that I have been in Parliament, I have not seen as much scrutiny of a Bill as this one. Not only did the Joint Committee, which I had the honour to chair, go through all the details of the Bill over a number of months, the other committees in Parliament also dealt with it, not least the Intelligence and Security Committee.

I commend the Government—not something that I usually do, but I will on this occasion—on accepting a great number of amendments to the Bill, which have improved it in the sense of ensuring that our liberties are safeguarded but that the basic thrust of the Bill remains the same. This has been a tremendous exercise in parliamentary scrutiny. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, it is Parliament’s Bill as much as it is the Government’s.