Point of Order
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Caroline Lucas
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, this morning a Home Office-commissioned report from Lord Walney was presented in Parliament using the motion for unopposed return procedure, effectively protecting it from any kind of legal challenge. However, the report reads as a highly political document and includes proposals, for example, for very serious restrictions on civil liberties and human rights. I understand it is not in order for Members to criticise a member of the House of Lords in the Chamber, and Lord Walney’s interests as a paid adviser for the arms and oil industry are registered in the Register of Lords’ Interests. However, could you advise the House on whether, when a report is given legal cover by this House, it would be at least healthy for scrutiny to have an additional requirement for any relevant interest by a report’s author to be specifically flagged to this House as well?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I can confirm that the effect of this morning’s motion is that the report was published by order of the House. She asks about the financial interests of members of the House of Lords, which of course is not a matter for the Chair of the House of Commons, but I appreciate that she makes a serious and valid point about the way in which the matter has been presented to this House. If she has concerns about the content of the report, I would advise her to discuss with the Table Office how she might pursue the matter further. There are various lines of action open to her.
Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Caroline Lucas(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the hon. Lady gives way, I did ask for five minutes and she has taken nine. She may wish to consider whether she is giving way or might be concluding soon.
Caroline Lucas
Madam Deputy Speaker, on that note, I will not give way. I had not realised it was nine minutes and I will bring my comments to a close. Simply to say again, this matter could not be more important, and that is why it matters so much that the motion is passed later today.
Russian Oil Import Ban
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Caroline Lucas(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I think I said quite clearly no more shouting from people who are sitting down.
COP26
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Caroline Lucas(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Hon. Members must not shout at the Prime Minister. Everyone will have a chance to ask their question—
Environment Bill
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Caroline LucasTuesday 26th January 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 January 2021 - (26 Jan 2021)
Caroline Lucas [V]
My new clause 13, on the application of pesticides in rural areas, follows a very similar amendment made to the Agriculture Bill in the other place. Although it was later removed by the Government during the final stages, it enjoyed wide cross-party support, as I hope this new clause will.
As it stands, the Environment Bill lists air quality, water and biodiversity as priority areas for long-term target setting, alongside waste, but it does not recognise the environmental harm caused by the use of pesticides, and the need to protect human health is omitted entirely. My new clause seeks to remedy that by requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations prohibiting the use of chemical pesticides near buildings and open spaces used by rural residents and members of the public, whether hospitals, schools or homes. That is crucial for improving air quality and protecting human health and the environment.
It is important to recognise that this is about not the misuse or illegal use of pesticides, but the approved use of crop pesticides in the locality where rural communities are present, yet there are still no specific restrictions on the contamination and pollution of the air from widespread spraying of pesticides in rural areas. Indeed, the UK’s regulatory system assesses the safety of only one chemical at a time, yet rural residents are exposed to a cocktail of harmful pesticides spread on nearby farms. Furthermore, although operators generally have protection when using agricultural pesticides, residents have absolutely no protection at all.
We cannot restore and enhance our environment while continuing to ignore the damage caused by pesticides in our intensive food and farming system. In that light, the Government should be standing up for rural residents and communities and protecting them from harm. That is what my new clause 13 seeks to do.
My new clause 18 would require the setting of targets for the reduction and replacement of animal testing under REACH regulations. It has been estimated that, by mid-2019, tests had been performed on about 2.4 million animals. In the last reporting period, the UK used the highest number of animals in experiments of any country in Europe. Although the Government have protected animal testing as a last resort principle from REACH in the Bill, this is an opportunity to go further and demonstrate real leadership by setting targets to replace animal testing.
Tests on animals are notoriously unreliable and are increasingly being questioned by the science. The scientific advancement of non-animal tests and approaches allows us better to predict hazard and manage risk while avoiding or significantly reducing the use of tests on animals—all in a shorter timeframe, with fewer resources used. That is better for human health and animals. I therefore urge the Minister to look again at this important issue and support the new clause.
Covid-19: Support for UK Industries
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Caroline Lucas(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Many of my constituents have signed the petitions triggering this debate and, in particular, are calling for a dedicated programme of support for our events, cultural and creative industries. Anyone who knows Brighton and Hove cannot fail to be aware that we are home to some of the country’s most vibrant, creative and successful festivals. We lead the way nationally as well in widening access to the arts and unleashing the creative lives as yet unlived in excluded communities. Failing to directly support the creative sector puts 16,000 jobs at risk in our city alone and £1.5 billion in turnover. The consequences for the UK as a whole will be equally devastating, including for our sense of identity as a nation, which is inextricably bound up with cultural innovation from Chaucer to Banksy.
I call on Ministers to introduce urgent life support measures as other European countries have done. Germany, for example, has invested in a €50 billion rescue package. We need a similar cultural sector hardship relief fund to save live music venues, grassroots theatres, arts centres, community pubs, and any space that is a vital hub of culture and social interaction in our communities. Live music venues in my constituency are particularly at risk, and face a cliff edge when furlough ends. As one, Komedia, wrote to me,
“A world without grassroots venues is a world where the future’s talent never get the opportunity they deserve”.
I urge Ministers not to stand by and watch them go to the wall.
Those working in the events and creative industries are often self-employed and need their incomes protecting, too. Yet the self-employed scheme falls far short, failing to recognise the reality of self-employment today, penalising those who combine self-employment with PAYE work, PAYE freelancers, new start-ups and the recently self-employed, women who have taken time out for maternity leave and childcare, and anyone earning £50,000 and over. It is also a kick in the teeth for the nation’s small limited companies whose directors take all or part of their income in dividends. Therefore, as well as expanding access to the self-employed scheme, the Government must immediately extend its duration. The self-employed are still only protected until August, and that is not equivalent to the job retention scheme and it is not enough.
This must also be a green recovery in more than name, because of the accelerating climate emergency—it is currently 45 degrees in the Arctic—and because it makes economic sense as well. Plenty of evidence shows that green projects create more jobs, deliver higher returns on investment and lead to increased long-term cost savings. A green new deal recovery should invest only in industries willing and prepared to adapt to the net zero imperative. If public money is being used to bail out a company, there should be green and social conditions attached. We should not be handing over £600 million to easyJet with no questions asked. We should not be bailing out BA when it is treating its workers so appallingly.
Finally, a green recovery requires rethinking our entire economy, so that its primary purpose is human and planetary wellbeing, rather than the endless pursuit of indiscriminate GDP growth, which is destroying our planet and undermining the livelihoods of millions of people.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It should be obvious to the House that we do not have very long left. I estimate that eight more people will be called to speak. As you all have the speaking list, you will be able to work out who those eight are. If you are not among them, it is only fair that I warn you now.
Climate Change
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Caroline Lucas(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
This is the most ambitious target for emissions reductions that the UK has ever had, but it is still not enough: 2050 is too late. Christiana Figueres, the former United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change chief, described the prospect of the net zero target as not even a stretch. The UK is one of the world’s richest countries and has caused more historical emissions than most. We have both the means and the responsibility to go faster, so we need a new kind of mobilisation of the kind that we do not normally see except in wartime. We need a transformation of our economy, with a green new deal bringing secure, cleaner jobs and genuinely sustainable industry. Not only is 2050 too late, but there remain huge loopholes in the target. First, the Government have avoided the chance to include legally in our carbon targets international shipping and aviation, despite advice from the Committee on Climate Change to do so. Warm words about whole economy strategies for net zero are welcome, but they must be given legal backing in order to be taken seriously.
The second door that has been left open is to the offshoring of our remaining emissions using international carbon credits. When I asked the Business Secretary to close that loophole earlier this month, he attempted to reassure me by saying that the Government would not be making use of these credits, but I am not reassured simply by those words. This Government might have no intention of using international carbon credits, but who can say whether a new Administration in five years’ time—or, dare I say it, five weeks’ time—will share such scruples?
Ultimately, Governments are judged by their actions not their words, and behind the warm words on climate leadership, distant targets and reassurances, the actions of this Government tell a different story. It is one of forcing fracking on local communities, blocking onshore wind, flogging off the Green Investment Bank, undermining solar power, building new roads and runways and the Heathrow expansion. We are in a climate emergency, so let’s act like it. No one calls 999 and requests a fire engine for 30 years’ time. We need to drop everything and put the fire out, as Greta Thunberg said. Let us take the far-reaching action now that we need to turn this crisis around, because in doing so we will not only save lives and livelihoods across the world but create a better life for people here in the UK.
There is a message of hope at the heart of this agenda. We can have improved public transport, cleaner air, thriving nature, warmer homes and much cleaner jobs. I welcome the new commitment, but I urge the Government to make their warm words mean something—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Lady is under time pressure, but if she wishes to take an intervention, there is time for her to do so.
Caroline Lucas
Ah! I am sorry. I did not see the right hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon).
Universal Credit Roll-out
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Caroline Lucas(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hear that political journalists are tweeting that the Government do not plan to take part in the vote later. That would be a show of contempt for the Chamber and our constituents throughout the country. Is there nothing you can do to prevent the Government from opting out of the Chamber’s democratic procedures?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The tweets of political journalists are certainly not a matter for the Chair. I class that as rumour, which is not a matter for the Chair. What the Government decide to do is a matter for them, but we have several hours of debate ahead. That is the important point for the Chamber to note.
Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education (Statutory Requirement) Bill
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Caroline LucasFriday 20th January 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education (Statutory Requirement) Bill 2016-17 View all Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education (Statutory Requirement) Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text
Caroline Lucas
There is absolutely no way I am giving way to Government Members, who have spent so many hours filibustering a perfectly serious Bill. [Interruption.] There is no way I am going to give way.
To expand on the last example, I should say that the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners tells us that statutory status is needed because police and crime commissioners across the country—[Interruption.]
Caroline Lucas
Hon. Members will recall the freedom of information requests to the police made by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) last year. They showed a 1,200% increase in sexting among under-16s—sharing explicit images or texts—and an increasing number using the dating app Tinder. It is clear that children are being pushed into adult territory well before they are ready.
Some of the most powerful calls for action come from the young people themselves. A Terrence Higgins Trust report, which involved a survey of 900 young people aged 16 to 24, found that SRE is inadequate or absent from many schools. Some 99% of the young people surveyed thought that SRE should be mandatory in all schools and more than 60% received SRE just once a year or less. Three quarters were not taught about consent and half the young people surveyed rated the SRE that they received in school as either poor or terrible.
However, we should take heart from young campaigners for statutory PSHE because they are doing excellent work. As well as having tremendous support from groups such as Girlguiding, this year I have also had the privilege of forming links with an exciting group in my Brighton, Pavilion constituency called PSHE Matters. It is made up of students from the Dorothy Stringer School in Brighton who have got together under their own steam to campaign actively for PSHE to be mandatory. They recognise the value of the proactive PSHE provision at their school, and they want to ensure that all students across the country have access to similar high-quality teaching. Their work on PSHE is a testament to the success of the subject.
The students’ call to action comes in a context where one third of young people aged between 11 and 14 have watched online porn on a tablet or mobile phone, and half of 11 to 14-year-olds who had viewed pornography said it had affected their relationships. SRE is desperately needed to offset these messages with age-appropriate information about consent and healthy relationships.
Members will be well aware—
Protection of Family Homes (Enforcement and Permitted Development) Bill
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Caroline Lucas
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, members of some organisations that have been working on the ground in Calais came to Parliament to express their deep concern about the chaos that is unfolding in the camp at this moment and the complete lack of safeguarding, which is leaving children in a dangerous situation. At least 40 children spent last night under a bridge, and their only security was provided by some volunteers from those grassroots organisations, who were prepared to spend the night alongside them. We were also told that the process of bringing children in under the Dubs amendment had apparently been “paused”.
I wonder whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, could use your best offices to call on the Home Secretary to come to the Chamber and make a statement now. She could then reassure us that she is doing all that she can to hold the French authorities to the commitments that they made earlier today to remove children safely, and to ensure that British officials who are able to work alongside the volunteers and French authorities in the camps are actually in those camps and making sure that the children are safe.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I understand why the hon. Lady has brought that information to the House immediately. The situation in Calais is, of course, tragic, and we are all concerned for the welfare of the children who are there, especially those who are on their own.
The hon. Lady asked me whether I could use my good offices—the offices of the Chair—to bring the Home Secretary to the House now. She would have had to submit a request for an urgent question earlier this morning to allow Mr Speaker to require the Home Secretary to come to the Chamber today. Clearly, now that the House is on the point of adjourning, I have no offices that I can use to require the Home Secretary to come to the House.
However, I will say two things of importance to the hon. Lady. First, I am sure that the Home Secretary and her Ministers will be aware of the situation that she has described. I expect that they will take action in the way in which they have taken action over several weeks, and I expect that the Home Secretary will take action on these issues regardless of whether the House is sitting. Secondly, when the House next sits, at 2.30 pm on Monday—three days from now—the Home Secretary will be here to answer questions. I am sure that the hon. Lady and other Members will be able to raise this matter with her then, and that she will be fully able to respond.
Tax Avoidance
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Caroline Lucas(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government have allowed a derisory amount of time for consideration of all aspects of the Infrastructure Bill, particularly given that issues around fracking are so controversial. Is there any way of allowing us to speak for at least two hours, rather than the one hour designated for consideration of Lords amendments, not least because there are now substantive new amendments from the other place, and we ought to do them justice by having proper time to discuss them?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I can certainly give the hon. Lady advice on that matter. I am about to put the programme motion to the House, and I do not know whether it will agree to it or not. If the House agrees to the programme motion, the amount of time available will be one hour. If it does not agree, there will be another procedure.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords]
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Caroline Lucas(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas
I am confused by Labour’s great love of yet more road building. We had a welcome article from Ed Miliband yesterday in which he talked about the importance of climate change. Some 25% of—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady must refer to the Leader of the Opposition as the Leader of the Opposition or by his constituency. This is not a tabloid newspaper; it is the Chamber of the House of Commons.
Caroline Lucas
I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right nomenclature momentarily went from my mind, but I am very happy to refer to the Leader of the Opposition—the honourable Leader of the Opposition. [Hon. Members: “Right honourable.”] The right hon. Leader of the Opposition. The point is that what he wrote about climate change is not in harmony with what we are hearing now, which is the Labour party saying that we need more roads. Roads are responsible for more and more CO2 emissions, which cause climate change.