Iraq War (10th Anniversary)

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Andrew George

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman and I will come to other quotes from Hans Blix, who made it clear that to a great extent Saddam Hussein was co-operating and that with more time we could have avoided the war.

We as parliamentarians have the role and the job of scrutinising the available evidence that was in the public domain. I entirely take the point that hindsight is a wonderful thing. The point I want to make is that plenty of information was in the public domain.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady not only on securing this debate, but on the manner in which she is presenting the case. Following on from what the former loyal Minister of the previous Government in the Ministry of Defence said, it is not a question of the benefit of hindsight. Many Members of the House, both on the Opposition Benches and, in some honourable cases, on the Government Benches, scrutinised the evidence at that time and came to the conclusion that it was unwise in those circumstances to proceed with engaging in military action in Iraq.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because I will shortly pay tribute to those hon. Members who did stand up in this place, who did scrutinise and who did ask the right questions. The fact that they came to the conclusions that they did demonstrates that the evidence was there. Unfortunately, there was a will not to look at some of it.

Energy Generation

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Andrew George

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I have raised the issue on the Floor of the House with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that, in advancing this policy, we should stick to the Government’s stated aim of ensuring no public subsidy for nuclear power. Hon. Members know that the Liberal Democrats have made it clear that their stated policy is to oppose nuclear power, but in coalition compromises and concessions must often be made. The concession on nuclear power, which is shared by both coalition parties, is that it is vital to ensure that no back-door public subsidy underwrites the future costs of nuclear power.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley), with whom I do not often agree, but on nuclear, I certainly do.

Does the hon. Member for St Ives agree that, although there seems to be widespread consensus, one of the fastest, cheapest and most effective ways to reduce our emissions is through energy efficiency and conservation and that we are still not putting enough into that? There is a lot of talk about energy sources, but not enough about demand reduction and energy efficiency. Does he also agree that one way to put in more resources would be to ring-fence the taxes from, for example, a new carbon floor price or the EU emissions trading system and to invest that money in energy efficiency?

[Andrew George]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. This debate is primarily about the decarbonisation of energy supply; conservation and reducing energy demand is a separate debate. To be fair, the Government have established a strong case through the green deal and the establishment of the green investment bank, which will support many measures to address energy conservation. The hon. Lady makes an excellent point, but this debate is about energy generation and supply, and I do not want it to stray too far.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the Government have made a commitment to be the greenest Government ever, which does not set the bar very high. However, beyond that, as they said in the coalition agreement, they believe

“that climate change is one of the gravest threats we face”

and that

“We need to use a wide range of levers to cut carbon emissions, decarbonise the economy and support the creation of new green jobs and technologies. We will implement a full programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for a low carbon and eco-friendly economy.”

The coalition agreement then sets out how the Government intend to do so, but I will not have time to go through that.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Andrew George

Monday 21st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his attempt, but it was a bit feeble. All the evidence from Deutsche bank, the International Energy Agency and many other places tells us that rising fuel bills are a result of rising gas prices, and the percentage extra on people’s fuel bills that is coming from renewable energy, which, sadly, he is not a fan of, is very much smaller. I do not agree with his premise.

If our priority is fairness, we should be seeking savings from those who can afford it, not penalising the poorest and pushing them into ever more precarious misery. Without this very basic link to RPI, what exactly are we saying to people on benefits? We are giving them a message of punishment that says, “You’ve done something wrong. It’s your fault that you don’t have a job and the state is going to make life hard for you.” Frankly, that is despicable. Oxfam says that it is Dickensian and rightly points out that slashing the incomes of those at the bottom is not just cold-hearted but wrong-headed, because it will depress the economy further.

I said earlier that most people want to work, and I could cite very many examples from my own constituency of people who have come to my surgeries who are desperate for work but have been unable to find it. The link to RPI, as I have said, is essential. It is the absolute minimum acceptable. The Government have already taken from the poorest by switching to CPI and now they want to heap even more misery on people who simply cannot absorb it. Amendment 7 seeks to provide the most basic protection for benefits from the accumulative erosion of value that severing the historic link to prices will create. I commend the amendment, and hope to press it to a vote.

[Andrew George]

Amendment 10 stands in my name and in those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) and my hon. Friends the Members for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech), for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and for Ceredigion (Mr Williams). Its purpose is to address the oft-repeated key concern of the Secretary of State and the Government—it has been repeated today by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and others—that in certain circumstances and, admittedly, over selected periods, benefits have risen at a rate higher than wages, and that in straitened times such as these, a principle should be established whereby that should not happen and that average wages should be the marker against which future benefit rises are set.

A further weakness in the Government’s proposals, to repeat an earlier intervention of mine on the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), relates to their intention to enshrine in future policy the blunt and inflexible instrument of a 1% rise beyond the next general election—up until 2016—and whether we can foretell with confidence what is likely to happen during that time.

Badger Cull

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Andrew George

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

Were we to eradicate every single badger, we would certainly eradicate bovine TB, but we would also eradicate a very important species.

The ISG concluded that

“badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain.”

That is the conclusion of what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs itself says is the most scientifically robust trial that has ever taken place in the UK. We want policy to be based on the science, which is why we should be looking at what the ISG says.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

If we are to talk about eradicating bovine TB, it is important that we go back to the science and try to put emotions aside, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) mentioned a moment ago. The trials clearly showed that the best possible outcome would be a 16% reduction, but that is a reduction in the context of an increasing incidence of TB. Indeed, the Secretary of State has talked about the incidence of bovine TB doubling in 10 years. In those circumstances, all a cull would do is reduce the increase. It will not result in a reduction in bovine TB.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think that it is worth reading what Lord Krebs said in the House of Lords, because it is exactly the point the hon. Gentleman identifies. He said that

“the long-term, large-scale culling of badgers is estimated to reduce the incidence of TB in cattle by 16% after nine years. In other words, 84% of the problem is still there. To reflect on what that means, this is not a reduction in absolute terms”,

as the hon. Gentleman rightly said,

“but actually a 16% reduction from the trend increase. So after nine years there is still more TB around than there was at the beginning”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 2012; Vol. 740, c. 148.]

That is the key point that Government Members are not taking on board.

Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Andrew George

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George]

On that basis, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will end that part of the conversation and move on, acknowledging that my hon. Friend has made a point that is worth considering.

Amendment 1224 would restore the duty to provide or secure provision of health services. Although that is seen as the headline proposal, it is consequential on new clauses 16 and 17, hence my intention to draw attention to the likelihood of my seeking to divide the House on those issues.

Amendments 1222 and 1223 seek to establish why the Bill has never provided for the Secretary of State to provide or secure a comprehensive health service rather than promote a comprehensive health service. This is an either/or situation, but I draw attention to the possibility that instead of pressing new clause 16, I may, in discussion with others, seek to divide the House on amendment 1222.

Amendment 1183 would beef up a duty of the Secretary of State—a theme that runs through a number of amendments. The purpose of amendments 1183 and 1194 is to address the conflict between having regard to reducing inequalities and placing above that duty the other duties that apply—for example, on choice. Amendment 1183 seeks to ensure that it is the duty of the Secretary of State, in reducing inequalities, to

“act with a view to”

rather than merely “have regard to”. Otherwise, the responsibility, and the duty, on the Secretary of State is rather weak. That applies to amendment 1194 in the same manner.

New clause 18 would impose a new duty on the CQC, the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups not to undermine existing NHS services in an unplanned way through the operation of competition. Rather than extending my description of this issue, it might be worth referring to the debate that we had yesterday about the regulations surrounding the functions and duties of Monitor, as the same question arises. We have to look at the impact that competition is likely to have on the provision of essential services such as major trauma and accident and emergency, where its existence may destabilise emergency services through the loss of, for example, important underpinning elective services provided by the hospital.

New clause 20 would ban the wholesale outsourcing of commissioning work with regard to clinical commissioning groups. That was demanded in a Liberal Democrat conference motion but has still not been delivered. The commissioning process is a public function, not a private function. The amendment therefore seeks to change schedule 2 in different ways to prevent private entities on clinical commissioning group committees and sub-committees from commissioning and making other decisions. This also applies to amendments 1224, 1245, 1244 and 1249.

The Minister said that the work of the Neurological Alliance is important to preserve. I hope he will recognise that new clause 20 talks only about commissioning work being

“predominantly retained as a function by staff directly employed by the clinical commissioning group.”

There is nothing in the Bill that prevents the bulk of the commissioning work—not the decision, but the work—of a clinical commissioning group from being done by a private company and thus, potentially, in secret. I hope he will accept that under the current wording of schedule 2, private entities will be able to sit on clinical commissioning committees and sub-committees and make commissioning decisions.

Amendments 1184 to 1188 and 1195 would demote choice to a subsidiary duty of commissioners to tackle fair access and inequality of outcomes. They relate to page 17 of the Bill. The priority of choice over inequity and inequality was introduced by the Government after the pause and the NHS Future Forum report as a way of promoting competition in ways other than through the role of Monitor. The amendments would reverse that priority for the NHS commissioning board.

Amendment 1211 provides that clinical commissioning groups should be more coterminous with local authorities than is the case under the Bill. The Minister said that there is no intention that clinical commissioning group boundaries will cross local authority boundaries. However, we all know that district councils do not cross local authority boundaries. In Cornwall, for example, we are likely to move from one PCT to three clinical commissioning groups, which will make the streamlining of the pathways between health and social care a lot more difficult. The purpose of amendment 1211 is to enforce that point.

I am aware of time and I hope that the House will appreciate that I will not explain every aspect of the many other amendments I have tabled. I am aware that there are significant issues that other people wish to raise. I simply emphasise that what the Minister said about health and wellbeing boards being able to refer matters to the Secretary of State is once again something that we have always argued for. Local authorities should of course be given a far greater say in commissioning decisions and in setting the strategy for health services in their area. As a back-stop, it is important that matters can be referred to the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has tabled some important amendments in respect of public health, some of which I have supported, and I hope that the Minister will consider them. I apologise for the amount of time I have taken, but I hope that the Minister will address the important issues advanced by the amendments.

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

I apologise for not being present for the first half hour of this debate. I was in the Environmental Audit Committee, where I had specifically asked for certain witnesses to be invited, and I have not yet worked out how to be in two places at once, although it is on my list.

I will make a few general points about this part of the Bill before turning to a couple of the amendments that are in my name. I echo the many concerns that have been expressed around the Chamber this afternoon. Many of us argue that there is no legal duty on the Government to provide health services. The new hands-off clause limits the Government’s ability to intervene should health care provision be deemed inadequate, because it says that clinical commissioning groups, the new agents of health provision that can include private companies, must be free to exercise powers and duties without “unnecessary burdens”. I am equally concerned that the powers and duties of a commissioning group, including its ability to award contracts and charge for commercial activities, could be exercised by a private health care company. The Bill opens the way for private companies to determine much of English health care and takes away the Government’s duties and powers, which is why I believe it should be opposed.