UK Drugs Policy
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Lady has been speaking for 15 minutes, so I am sure that we are nearing the end of the opening speech. [Interruption.] I assure her that we are nearing the end of the speech.
Caroline Lucas
Of course I am getting near the end, Mr Deputy Speaker. With that in mind, I shall simply agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton).
The current policy is essentially putting users at greater risk by driving the creation of yet more ways to stay one step ahead of the law and by making research into the harms associated with new substances much more difficult.
Housing Supply
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I very much welcome this debate. The last two speakers have talked about their own constituencies in London. Clearly, my constituency is not in London, but it is experiencing similar house prices and many of the stories that we have heard this afternoon have resonance in Brighton, Pavilion. The failure of successive Governments over the past 30 to 40 years to build anything like enough homes is a scandal that has been ignored by those in power, who have been busy enjoying the short-term economic benefits of inflated house prices. Those prices have skyrocketed in the past year in a market that is both irresponsible and unfair.
I also welcome the motion tabled by the official Opposition. It represents a step in the right direction, but I am concerned that it is quite vague and I hope that they will fill in some of the gaps during the debate. That is why I have amended the motion, and I will say a few words about that in a moment. I want to focus on the issue of council homes, which have not been built in significant numbers for decades. Instead, hundreds of thousands of them have been sold off cheap. On the failure to build, a recent House of Commons Library note shows the long-term steep decline in house building in England over the past 35 years.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady. She might have tabled an amendment but it was not selected, and the motion has not been amended. We are dealing with the motion before us and no other.
Caroline Lucas
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can assure you that I was not speaking to the amendment—perish the thought. I was speaking to the items in the motion—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady said that she had amended the motion, and the problem is that people might therefore think that there is an amendment to the motion. That is all I am bothered about. There will be just one vote.
Caroline Lucas
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I sought to amend the motion—devastatingly unsuccessfully —and I will not mention the matter further. I do, however, want to mention the substantive issues in the Opposition motion, as well as certain things that are not in it but have nothing to do with my amendment—or rather, my proposed amendment that does not exist. It was a figment of my imagination.
On the failure to build, a recent House of Commons Library note shows the long-term steep decline in house building in England over the past 35 years. Nearly 307,000 homes were built across all tenures in England in 1969-1970, but the number fell to just 107,000 in 2012-13. There was a minor increase in housing association building over that period, although it amounted to fewer than 15,000 more dwellings being built last year than in 1969-70. What is most striking is that the steepest decline was in the building of council homes, which fell from 135,000 to 1,360 over that same period.
To their credit, the last Labour Administration did attempt to address the chronic backlog of repairs and maintenance left after 18 years of deliberate Tory neglect. It is just a shame that this was done at the expense of building the council homes that were needed. For example, only 60 council homes—a tiny number—were built nationally in 2001-2002. By 2008-9, the figure had gone up, with 490 council homes completed in that year, but that was still fewer than one per constituency. The number of housing association homes was higher, with 14,000 in 2001 and 26,500 in 2008, but the numbers were still woefully low. The current Government are clearly worse; they have cut funds for social housing by 60%. The need for strong solutions to get the council and social housing we need built is an absolute priority in our discussions this afternoon.
I see the reality of the housing crisis every day in my constituency. The chronic long-term lack of housing supply is evident everywhere in Brighton, Pavilion and I am regularly contacted by people in despair and in real housing need. Our local paper, the Brighton Argus published a housing special last Saturday entitled “Can you afford to live in the city?” This was a rhetorical question, because for most people in housing need, the answer is a very clear no: the average price in the city has been driven up to more than £367,000. We have seen a 13% increase in house prices in the last quarter alone. Therefore, it is no surprise that we have 18,000 people on the council’s housing waiting list.
The city’s housing market is fast becoming known as a “mini-London”, with average house prices in Brighton nearly twice the national average. Young Brightonians who do not have rich family backers have no hope of getting on the housing ladder. The combination of stratospheric rent and price rises and policies such as the pernicious bedroom tax—which appear to be designed to push people in need of housing benefit, particularly those with disabilities, out of desirable areas—has created a situation in which people on low incomes and those on average wages are being pushed to the margins.
The motion does not say very much about how the Opposition would achieve the aims that they are putting forward. Those aims are laudable, but where are the means? I would like the unfair restrictions on local authorities to be lifted. Housing associations are allowed to borrow against their assets to build but councils are not, despite being able to do so more cheaply. That makes no sense. We must fully lift the borrowing cap to get council homes built again. Councils suffer unnecessary restrictions. They are bound by prudential borrowing rules anyway, so the cap is arguably unnecessary; it is just stifling the building of local authority homes.
Using the Department for Communities and Local Government self-financing model, a joint report published in 2012 by the National Federation of ALMOs, the Local Government Association, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Association of Retained Council Housing and many others showed that if the borrowing cap were fully lifted and councils were able to make prudential use of their borrowing potential, they could borrow up to £20 billion over five years. That extra borrowing could enable between 170,000 and 230,000 extra homes to be built.
The main justification for the imposition of borrowing caps on local housing authorities is that the additional debt incurred by councils would add to the overall Government debt, but that need not be the case. The UK is unique in Europe for classifying a wide range of bodies as coming within the definition of “public sector” that is used to measure public debt. No other EU country treats social housing investment in the way that happens in England. There is a strong case for local authority borrowing for housing not to be counted towards the public sector debt. Local authority borrowing for housing would be largely self-financing in any case, and it is transparent and low risk.
I would be the first to admit, however, that lifting the borrowing cap will not be enough on its own to replenish our social housing stock following the giveaway of council houses under right to buy and the failure to build. A significant increase in grant funding is needed if we are to begin to reverse the chronic failure to build the housing that we need. That money would also create the benefit of a multiplier effect, generating jobs, apprenticeships, an increase in tax revenues and reduced welfare spending. Shelter has said that £1.22 billion extra, on top of the current £1 billion of Government grant spend, could be sufficient to get us building enough homes if it was combined with a package of reform. That would certainly be a good start. Serious consideration should be given to channelling some of the huge windfall increase in stamp duty revenues predicted by the Office for Budget Responsibility into building new council homes. That would be one way of using some of the tax proceeds from our distorted market to increase social housing supply.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you are looking a little fidgety, if I may say so. That indicates to me that you would like me to wind up shortly, and I will do so. However, I just want to mention one other matter, which has not been raised this afternoon. The increase in housing supply that we need must involve housing that people can afford to run, as well as buy or rent. This is an opportunity to tackle the scandal of fuel poverty and the rising cost of living. We must use house building to reverse this Government’s weakening of energy saving, water efficiency and other standards. This Government have acted to prevent local authorities from going further than minimum national standards for energy efficiency, despite those standards looking weaker by the day.
Given the scandal of fuel poverty and the hardship being caused by high energy bills, as well as the urgent need for radical cuts to carbon emissions, new homes must be built to a genuine zero carbon homes standard. The Government’s exemptions for small developments mean that around a third of all homes could be exempted altogether. If the Government were sticking to the original zero carbon homes standard, the situation would not be so bad. Under the original standard, annual energy bills for residents in new homes would be under £300, but the Government are again capitulating to big business, watering down the standards and creating loopholes, so energy bills will be around £800.
In summary, we need sufficient homes, which means lifting the borrowing cap and ensuring that imaginative sources of revenue such as stamp duty funding are properly ring-fenced. It also means ensuring that our homes are fit to live in.
Fairness and Inequality
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas
For the benefit of us all and to enable a more enlightened debate, it would be helpful if the Government stopped pretending that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)was responsible for the collapse of Lehman Brothers. I blame the Labour party for a lot, but the idea that the current economic crisis was somehow caused by that is ludicrous. It was a global economic crisis and—
Immigration Bill
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We have heard thoughtful and powerful speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I want to link my views with those of the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who made a compelling and well-informed case about the cruel, counter-productive and ill thought out nature of the Bill. I also associate myself with the views of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who spoke with his customary eloquence and reminded us that we should be under no illusion that this miserable Bill has very little to do with national security, but everything to do with out-toughing UKIP. No one would argue that our immigration system does not need fixing or that it is not blighted by inefficiency and error, yet rather than taking positive steps to fix the problems, the Government have brought forward proposals that will drive standards down, not up.
All the amendments in the group that I support would make the immigration system fairer and more accountable, such as amendment 1, which would delete clause 11. It is important that we support that amendment because the latest figures reveal that 32% of deportation decisions and 49% of entry-clearance applications were successfully appealed last year, yet the Government’s depressing response to that large margin of error is not to try to improve the quality of decision making, but to reduce the opportunities for challenge by slashing the scope for appeal.
Amendment 79 was tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who spoke movingly about it, and co-signed by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). The basis of clause 3 is utterly flawed, given that it sets out the idea that directions for removal within 14 days are somehow sufficient grounds to assume that bail should not be granted. On any common-sense analysis, there are factors that bluntly challenge that assumption. Plenty of people suffering from psychological or physical illnesses, or who have been bereaved or have caring responsibilities, should not be detained, but will not be able properly to challenge that detention.
I support amendment 60, which would retain the status quo on the use of force, not least because there are serious gaps in the training provided on the exercise of force, especially regarding the use of restraint techniques, by immigration officers and contractors. That is just one reason why it is completely unjustifiable that the Government are extending the use of force without any reference to the type of power exercised and the necessity of that force, and without parliamentary scrutiny.
I get the sense that you would like me to conclude my speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I shall oblige, but let me simply say that this is a miserable Bill and that I hope the House will take every opportunity to vote against it.
Iraq War (10th Anniversary)
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in this important and useful debate. The honesty and frankness with which Members have taken part does credit to this place: it has shown the House at its best. I note with interest that no one spoke in defence of the UK’s support for the war. Over and over again, hon. Members emphasised the heavy price paid for the invasion, not only by people in this country, but crucially by people in Iraq, where sectarian violence continues to grow.
The debate focused on looking forward as well as back, and I want quickly to underline a few of today’s conclusions. Hon. Members expressed a lot of support for having free votes—and, crucially, votes based on information—when the House debates going to war. Many hon. Members spoke about the importance of basing our decisions on information. We also heard about the importance of reforming the relationship between the Foreign Office, the military and Parliament to ensure that it works better; about the need for structural changes to the Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Intelligence and Security Committees; and about the significance of Iran and Syria.
Many Members spoke about how the war undermined Parliament’s reputation. I hope that this debate has been a step towards reinvigorating confidence in Parliament. I pay particular tribute to the contribution from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), whose comments, as everyone said, were from the heart and delivered with a frankness that made us all listen. I would like to pay tribute to other colleagues, too. The anger with which the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) spoke about the level of deception rang out across the House and, I hope, much wider. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) spoke powerfully and with an expertise that not many of us in this place have about the importance of acknowledging when we get things wrong and of being able to say that we are failing. He warned of the dangers of thinking that we can only ever succeed.
I thank the Minister for loyally sitting through just about the whole debate, although I cannot thank him for the substance of his remarks, given that he was constrained, as he explained, by the convention preventing him from speaking before Chilcot reports. Waiting for Chilcot is like waiting for Godot. It would be helpful to have that report as soon as possible. The debate lacked a contribution from a Minister made with the same degree—or any degree, frankly—of honesty and frankness about what went wrong as other speeches. [Interruption.] I wanted to give credit to all my wonderful colleagues, but I am being told that my time is up. Is that correct, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
You have had your two minutes, but I am allowing you to continue. I am sure you are coming to an end.
Caroline Lucas
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) made an important point about the conflict of interest of those on the Chilcot inquiry and about the importance of the Attorney-General’s advice being put in the public domain. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) talked about the problem of a lack of planning post-Saddam. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) catalogued many of the deceptions and reminded us that the rules of the House prohibit us from reading out names of the dead.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) shared with us his interesting perspective as a serving officer and what it felt like to be in that position. He stressed that threat is a combination of intent and capacity, which needs to be borne in mind when trying to judge what constitutes a threat. I welcomed the contribution from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), because he put it clearly on the record that there was very heavy whipping during the vote and that that day, 18 March, was a “horrible day”. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) implied that the whipping was all very nice, light and happy, but that was not the case.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) raised the crucial issue of depleted uranium, while the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) rightly reminded us that Hans Blix pleaded for more time. He did not say it was a lost cause and that war was the only option—on the contrary. Finally, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) gave us some fascinating insights into the mind of the Prime Minister. Quite how he thought the invasion would help the middle east peace process is a question that will keep me thinking for the rest of the day and beyond.
I apologise to those I have not mentioned in my brief winding-up speech, which has already stretched your kind patience, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War.
Energy Bill
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas
Caroline Lucas
Obviously, I am not deeply acquainted with the brickwork of the hon. Gentleman home, but I find it slightly surprising that the justification that he advanced would be responsible for such a dramatic reduction. I cannot believe that quite so many cavity wall insulations, down from 40,000 last year to just over 1,000 this year, could be as a result of its having been done badly in the past. There might have been an element of that, but there are some real concerns about the take-up of the green deal and the way in which it replaced some pretty good schemes instead of building on them.
New clause 3 is about community rights to priority access to local power generation and local grid ownership.
Caroline Lucas
I apologise, I thought they were all wrapped up together in one happy family.
I am delighted that amendments 42 to 46 are supported by the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley), so in recognition of that I will call them the amendments from Brighton and Hove. They are basically about decentralised energy, which was another area where the Minister said that he appreciated the direction but did not feel that action was necessary. I quote from “Power to the People—the Decentralised Energy Revolution”, a document from the Prime Minister himself:
“In other countries low carbon energy sources have led a process of decentralisation—in the Netherlands, for instance, in little more than a decade, combined heat and power (CHP) became the single largest supplier of the country’s energy needs.
I want to see a similar revolution happen in Britain.”
I want that too, but I do not see it happening unless we put the means in place. It is a real shame that that vision has gone the same way as the abandoned huskies—once hugged, now hated. Distributed generation is about producing and using energy locally.
New Nuclear Power
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. As a matter of courtesy, after walking into the Chamber Members usually sit for a little bit longer than the hon. Lady has before intervening. I know she has a keen interest in this issue and that the Secretary of State has given way, but I hope she will not intervene again.
Caroline Lucas
It is very kind of the Secretary of State to give way. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) will testify to the fact that that we were both on a late train. I apologise.
The Secretary of State is right to say that the majority of the House is in favour of nuclear power, but this motion is not about nuclear power per se; it is about public subsidies, and I am not sure that a majority is in favour of the huge subsidies that will go to nuclear power.
Fuel Duty
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On the day that the International Energy Agency has warned that two thirds of fossil fuels need to remain under the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change, does the hon. Lady not see a contradiction in arguing for lower fuel prices, especially since the cost of motoring has fallen in the past 10 years while the cost of public transport has risen? Would a more consistent position not be to seek to support struggling households directly, using the money—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Lady is testing the patience of the House. It is unfair. We are going to have to introduce a time limit already. If she wishes to speak, would she please put her name down? She cannot make a speech now. Short interventions are needed on both sides
Badger Cull
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. A lot of Members want to get in and interventions will slow us down. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will want to get to the end of her speech very quickly.
Caroline Lucas
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s reminding us that farmers are deeply concerned about the matter and feel frustration, but that frustration is because we have had years and years of inaction. Suddenly pulling a badger cull down from the shelf is the wrong way to respond to that frustration. The Government should have gone to the EU and made the case for the DIVA test so that we could get on with vaccination. All the evidence suggests that vaccination, combined with biosecurity, better hygiene and better husbandry, is a much better way of eradicating this horrible disease. No Member is complacent about the seriousness of the disease, but we differ on the most effective way of addressing it. The science is on the side of those who oppose the cull, because it shows that it is not the most effective way forward.
As I said, modern husbandry practices place chronic stress on intensively farmed animals, and a number of scientists are also pointing to the way in which cattle have been inbred for many years as a significant contributor to why cattle do not have the resistance to cope with such a disease.
I want to say a few words about vaccinating badgers. I agree that vaccinating wildlife should be given proper consideration, alongside the vaccination of cattle, yet the coalition Government have slashed funding for the badger vaccine deployment project. Only one of the six original five-year trials to learn how best to address some of the practical difficulties of vaccination is still under way. If those projects had gone ahead as planned, we would have been much further along the road towards finding a solution by now. That is exactly why farmers are frustrated. Instead, two years on, nothing more has been done.
Caroline Lucas
I will not.
That inaccuracy makes it impossible to guarantee that local extinctions will not occur. I welcome the fact that the Government and the NFU have concluded that the pilot culls cannot take place this year. They must now look again at other problems that have been identified, and abandon their culling policy altogether.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. An eight-minute limit on speeches has been imposed, but we want to try and get everybody in. Fewer interventions will ensure that everybody will be able to speak.
Academies Bill [Lords]
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas
I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 1, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
(a) the school follows the National Curriculum;’.
The Temporary Chair (Martin Caton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 25, page 2, line 2, at end insert
‘and follows the National Curriculum in science, mathematics, information technology and English;’.
Amendment 30, page 2, line 2, at end insert
‘and where appropriate section 40 of the Childcare Act 2006’.
Amendment 26, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
‘(0) the school has a curriculum which includes personal, social and health education as a statutory entitlement for all pupils;’.
Caroline Lucas
As Members will know, the amendment proposes that academies should follow the national curriculum. Under the Government’s proposals, once a state-maintained school becomes an academy, it is no longer required to follow the national curriculum. [Interruption.]
The Temporary Chair
Order. There is an awful lot of background noise in the Chamber at present. I cannot hear the speaker, and I am sure many others cannot either.
Caroline Lucas
As I was saying, under the Government’s proposals once a state-maintained school becomes an academy, it is no longer required to follow the national curriculum and that is of particular concern in respect of state-maintained faith schools that convert to become faith academies. Interestingly, a recent poll found that 75% of people agree or strongly agree that all state-funded schools should teach an objective and balanced syllabus for education about a wide range of religious and non-religious beliefs.
The Government appear to be unconcerned about the public’s view on that as they allow a significant risk that some religious authorities will use this new freedom under the Bill to pursue restrictive teaching in line with their religion. There are no specific protections in the Bill to ensure that the duty to offer this so-called balanced and broadly based curriculum cannot be neglected or evaded. That is a cause for great concern.
The previous Government introduced a change so that academies had to follow the national curriculum in English, maths and science, and the teaching of evolution was, of course, covered in that. I have tabled my amendment because the coalition Government propose that academies should be entirely free from the national curriculum. If the Bill is not amended, there will be no requirement on academies to teach evolution, and the Government do not even appear to have plans to prevent the teaching of creationism in academies.
We know that some academy sponsors want creationism to be taught. Emmanuel college in Gateshead, backed by the philanthropist Sir Peter Vardy, attracted controversy by teaching pupils about creationism, and pupils at the school reported that creationism was taught alongside evolutionary theory as being an equally valid belief. How will Ministers ensure that pupils at religious academies receive objective and evidence-based teaching and that creationism is not taught in science lessons or as fact?