The Lords failed to stick to its guns and amend the Article 50 Bill to allow a meaningful vote on the final outcome of negotiations and also to secure the rights of 3 million EU nationals who have made this country their home. I voted for both amendments, but unfortunately, only a few brave Labour peers ignored the Labour whip and voted. All others abstained. Continue reading “A sad day for Parliament”
Employment and equality protections
This amendment, which was drafted in collaboration with the Women’s Equality Party, would ensure that, once the UK has withdrawn from the EU, any changes to workers’ rights or equality legislation derived from EU law would be subject to full Parliamentary scrutiny. Continue reading “My ’employment and equality’ amendment to Article 50”
Environmental Regulators
This amendment would ensure that, following withdrawal from the EU, the UK’s environmental regulators and enforcement agencies – namely the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs – are adequately funded and authorised to effectively perform the regulatory functions currently undertaken by EU institutions. We need powerful regulators and courts to ensure that breaches of the law are challenged. Continue reading “My ‘super regulators’ amendment to Article 50”
This amendment would ensure that, in relation to EU-derived environmental protections, the UK judicial system would be ready, following departure from the EU, to effectively perform the enforcement duties currently undertaken by institutions of the EU. Currently, the Commission acts as the guardian of the law and responds to legitimate complaints. Serious breaches are referred to the European Court of Justice, which has the power to sanction, including fines of many hundreds of millions of pounds. Continue reading “My environmental enforcement amendment to Article 50”
Transitional arrangements
This amendment would require the Government to set out, prior to triggering Article 50, a detailed plan for a transitional arrangement with the EU, covering the period between the end of the two-year Article 50 negotiation period, and the coming into force of a final Treaty on the UK’s new relationship with the EU. And it would further require that that plan be approved by Parliament. Continue reading “My ‘safety net’ amendment to Article 50 Bill”
As someone who has advocated leaving the EU for over two decades, I resent people saying I am out to ‘wreck’ the Brexit bill by seeking to amend it. Many of us have huge concerns that we will lose environmental and social protections because of the way the Prime Minister is approaching these negotiations. I am concerned that the Cabinet will attempt to dump protections for everything from wildlife and countryside to workers rights and climate change, by using a combination of exit negotiations and secondary legislation. It is wrong to use the referendum result as cover for by-passing proper Parliamentary scrutiny and the Lords has the job of ensuring that a democratic process is followed throughout the different stages of the negotiations. As for the threats of Lords abolition and replacing it with a democratically elected second chamber, that would be a welcome bonus.
It seems obvious to me that the police shouldn’t be spying on people who are key witnesses at the Pitchford inquiry into police spying. Those witnesses are gathering together a history of activism and campaigning to present their evidence, via a Barrister, to the inquiry judge. You would think it would be easy to get a reassurance from the government that these witnesses are not being spied upon by the police, as the police would clearly gain an advantage from knowing what those witnesses have prepared, but no, it is not.
I have written to every member of the Lords outlining the reasons why they should support the transformation to a democratically elected second chamber. This would use proportional representation to elect a new house, but keep many existing peers as non-voting experts.
This is the first Bill to come from the Lords with this mix of proposals. I’m not the only Lord who wants to abolish their right to vote in the second chamber, but I’m aiming to be one of the most energetic peers in making it happen. I’m relatively new to the Lords and I hope my fresh approach will help fast track the various discussions about Lords reform. Continue reading “Brexit makes Lords reform essential and urgent”
I am proud to be working with Liberty and Alf Dubbs in the Lords to put an amendment to the Higher Education Bill that would drop Prevent. This won’t stop lecturers doing their professional duty of safeguarding any students who might be at risk of being drawn towards violent ideologies, but it will end the dangerous Government imposition of authorised snooping on anyone having so-called ‘extreme’ ideas, even if those ‘extreme’ ideas are non-violent and part of the democratic debate. I do this as someone who was on the Met Police’s domestic extremism database for over 10 years, along with senior journalists and many non-violent campaigners. The government definition of ‘extremism’ is drawn deliberately broad so that it allows the authorities to target anyone they see as challenging the status quo.
Prevent is having the effect of censoring free speech and debate in higher education with student events cancelled and lecturers being expected to report on views that might be considered ‘extremist’.
While many institutions have worked hard to uphold a commitment to the free and vibrant exchange of ideas, they are fighting against the tide of law and policy. This battle is not always won. Some institutions have yielded to the pressure created by the statutory Prevent structure, seriously compromising freedom of expression and discriminating against Muslim students and associations in the process.
A lot of good work is done under the banner of Prevent and this work should continue but alongside the range of existing laws on hate speech and safeguarding people being drawn into terrorism. Prevent is both discredited and a huge danger to democratic freedoms. I hope that the Lords can pass this amendment and start the process of dismantling the Stasi-like structure that has free speech in its grip.
The London Mayor has issued a health warning to millions of Londoners today about air pollution, but the government continues to do nothing to alert people except tweet from its specialist @DefraUKAir account. The official Defra alert page says that there are no alerts at this time, while its forecast for tomorrow is mostly moderate…
“with local areas possibly reaching High levels. These locations will be mainly near busy roads and in urban centres of the Midlands, Yorkshire and Northwest England.”
Jenny Jones commented,
“The Mayor of London clearly cares about the health impacts of bad air on people living and working in the capital, but this government is letting everyone else suffer without any warning whats so ever. When air pollution episodes are capable of triggering an extra 300 deaths as well as hundreds of emergency admissions to hospitals around the country, I think that we have to consider emergency measures to discourage driving, encourage a switch away from diesel and promote less polluting alternatives.”
“The government’s sole aim is to downplay the whole thing. No press release. It doesn’t even make the main DEFRA twitter feed or use the NHS to reach out to vulnerable people. They want to tick the smallest of boxes by putting out the minimum of information. It is then up to those who are vulnerable to respiratory diseases and heart conditions to find that information. It is criminal neglect by a government that has lost two court cases over its inadequate plans.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb 