Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is quite right to raise this. Full details of the help available to consumers can be found on the Government’s Help for Households website, which people can get to from the gov.uk website. That covers my Department’s extensive energy support package and the additional help available, including through the Department for Work and Pensions, such as income support. In addition to the Help for Households site, we are communicating information on the support available to help with energy bills through suppliers, consumer groups and charities—and, it has to be said, through first-class MPs running events in their constituencies, who ensure that this happens—as well as through the media and

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

When Chancellor, our new Prime Minister spent precious months dragging his heels on energy efficiency, and now our fourth Chancellor this year scrambles with a Treasury-led review of the issue. We do not need more reviews to conclude that a paltry £1 billion extension to the energy company obligation falls far short of what is needed. Will the Secretary of State accept that to keep the UK’s homes warm and bills affordable for the long term, we need at the very least a further emergency investment of £3.6 billion over the rest of this Parliament, to kick-start the hugely needed nationwide home insulation programme that people are calling for?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There are focused and targeted schemes to help with energy insulation. The hon. Lady pooh-poohs £1 billion, but £1 billion is serious money, and it is going to help the households in the greatest need. A lot of work is being done with social housing landlords, but there are things people can do that lower the cost of their energy without causing any lack of warmth, such as turning down the boiler flow temperature, which almost all households can do. That will be a saving for them on the cost of energy and will make their heating more affordable; it will save energy but also reduce bills.

Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who puts his thoughts with classic cogency.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Not at the moment.

The Government remain committed to net zero by 2050. It is how we reach that without putting our energy security at risk.

Energy Prices Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jacob Rees-Mogg

2nd reading
Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, indeed. This is a temporary measure. The legislation runs out; there are various sunset clauses that will affect it. We need more of our own supply. Some will be renewable, and some will be oil and gas. We need to ensure that cheap energy flows in this country for the good of the economy.

The legislation will enable the Government to provide support to consumers across the UK who are not on the main gas grid. This will benefit consumers who use alternative fuels to heat their homes, such as heating oil, as well as those who live on heat networks. Eligible households will receive a £100 payment this winter through alternative fuel payment powers, which are introduced under the Bill. The Government will be setting out the support available for non-domestic consumers on the same basis.

The important point on the £100 payment is that it is designed with reference to changes in the price of heating oil from September 2021 to September 2022 and aims to provide support which is equivalent to that received by people who heat their homes using mains gas. I know right hon. and hon. Members are interested in how those figures have been calculated, so I will place more information in the House of Commons Library detailing the basis of our calculation.

In addition, measures in the Bill will extend the energy bills support scheme to UK households that would otherwise miss out on the automatic £400 payment as they do not have a domestic electricity contract. That may be because they receive their energy through an intermediary with a commercial connection, or because they are otherwise off the electricity grid. The Bill will also ensure that in cases where intermediaries receive support from the schemes, they are required to pass it on to the end users as appropriate.

For example, the legislation will provide powers so that landlords are required to pass on support to tenants. His Majesty’s Government are taking action to provide equivalent support to heat network customers. This includes measures that will ensure heat network suppliers pass on the support they receive to their customers. In addition, the Bill provides for the appointment of an alternative dispute resolution body, which will handle complaints raised by consumers against their heat network if it has not passed through the benefit.

Let me turn to non-domestic schemes. As well as helping households, the Government are taking action to provide support to businesses, charities and public sector organisations through the energy bill relief scheme. We will provide support to non-domestic consumers as soon as possible to help businesses and other organisations with their energy bills this winter. The Bill is vital for the implementation of the scheme, which will provide a price reduction to ensure businesses are protected from excessively high bills. Initially, the price reduction will run for six months, covering energy use from 1 October. After three months, the Government will publish a review, which will consider how best to offer further support. It will focus in particular on non-domestic energy users who are most at risk to energy price increases. Additional support for those deemed eligible will begin immediately after the initial six-month support scheme.

In addition to those unprecedented support schemes, the Bill will contain measures that will allow us to protect consumers from paying excessively high prices for low-carbon electricity. The provisions will limit the effect of soaring global gas prices by breaking the link between gas prices and lower cost renewables. This will help to ease the pressure on consumer bills in the short term, while ensuring energy firms are not unduly gaining from the energy crisis. In addition, the Bill will enable the Government to offer a contract for difference to existing generators not already covered by the Government’s contract for difference scheme. This voluntary contract would grant generators longer-term revenue certainty and safeguard consumers from further price rises.

Taken as a whole, the Bill will ensure that families, businesses, charities, schools, hospitals, care homes and all users of energy, receive the urgent support they require owing to the rising costs of global energy prices. In addition, the legislation takes important steps to decouple the link between high gas and electricity prices, which will ensure consumers pay a fair price for their energy. I hope that Members, right hon. and hon. Members alike, will agree that this is a vital and timely piece of legislation.

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

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am within a moment of finishing, and I had better finish because time is so short.

This is a crucial package of measures that meets the challenges posed by sky-high global energy prices and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Without the launch of the schemes I have outlined, many individuals and businesses would be left facing growing financial turmoil in the face of increasing energy costs. Now is the time to act and the Bill delivers the support that is required. I therefore commend the Bill to the House

Energy Prices: Support for Business

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is a very important point for ceramics, steel and other energy-intensive industries: they want to move to more efficient means of production, and that may require some investment. It is important that the Government help to work on the schemes to ensure that we have vibrant, efficient, profitable and, most importantly of all, globally competitive industries.

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

The Secretary of State’s announcements may have finally put a temporary brake on further terrifying price hikes, but they leave huge questions unanswered, including: what is the Government’s exit strategy? We need a proper solution to get us out of this crisis, by reducing our dependence on gas and upgrading buildings for the long term. Just yesterday, more than 100 top businesses wrote to the Government begging them for support for energy-efficiency and large-scale industrial decarbonisation. Can he explain why these businesses were so conspicuous by their absence in the measures he announced today, and will he remedy that now?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The businesses that write can implement their own energy-efficiency measures—that is what businesses do. It is a sensible investment for them, because if they become more energy-efficient, they will save cash on their energy bills. We also need more secure and cheaper supplies of gas, which is why we are going to issue more licences and why we are looking at shale gas. It is really important that people have confidence that gas will flow through the pipes and into their boilers so that they can heat their homes during this and succeeding winters.

Shale Gas Extraction

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think we discussed that in the last urgent question, so I will ask my hon. Friend to look at Hansard.

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

I must say that I am fascinated that the Secretary of State thinks that he knows more about the geology of the UK than the geologist who founded Cuadrilla, who said quite clearly that the UK is unsuited to widespread fracking.

My question comes back to the issue of consent. The Prime Minister said that fracking will go ahead only in places where there is support from the local community. That begs the question why on earth the Secretary of State is even pursuing this idea, as there is no support from local communities, but how is he going to measure that, particularly given that this terrible and deeply unpopular decision coincides with the Government’s draconian new anti-protest laws?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

In relation to Cuadrilla, the gentleman in question I believe left the company 10 years ago, so he is somewhat out of date in terms of the company that he purports to represent. The current management of Cuadrilla are in favour of this.

I think local support is important, and one of the things that companies that want to drill for shale gas will have to do is come up with packages that are attractive to local communities. That will ensure that people get some financial reward from shale gas being extracted near them.

Business of the House

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 27th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is on to something here. It is a pity that the House does not have guest gins as well, but why leave it at a gin and tonic? Why not have a gin martini, a gin and it, a pink gin, or a whole variety of gin cocktails? We could even put gin into sweets and have a gin Opal Fruit or something like that, to give people a little taster—a little sampler—of gin. I am all in favour of Ruddy Fine gin: perhaps I should provide a tincture to visitors to my office in future. If it is not in the bars of the House of Commons, perhaps the Leader of the Home Secretary should get a small supply for people who need to see him on important business.

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

Yesterday, a colliery in south Wales was given permission to mine a further 40 million tonnes of coal. The Government appear to have abdicated responsibility for the decision, although in reply to my written questions I have learned of discussions and correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Welsh Government about the licence. A promised copy of that correspondence has still not found its way into the Library nine days after it was promised. Real climate leaders do not issue new fossil fuel licences, nor do they pass the buck if someone else is trying to do that on their watch. Will the Leader of the House use his best offices to ensure a copy of that correspondence is put into the Library as soon as possible, and can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of leaving new fossil fuels in the ground, as the science demands?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Of course, the Government will follow the normal requirements of business, and if a document has been referred to at the Dispatch Box by a Minister it will be put in the Library in due course—that is routine—but I do not know the status of the document she refers to. Net zero is by 2050. We are not at 2050 yet. We are going to need to have fossil fuels for the interim period and we are going to need coal for things like heritage railways and so on. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that we take some coal out of the ground. I cannot see why it is better to import it from abroad, rather than to get it from our own green and pleasant land.

Committee on Standards

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend has already intervened. Let me continue, because I am conscious of time.

The Committee noted that the commissioner has, since March 2020, routinely conducted an initiation interview with a Member concerned in investigations that involve serious allegations to assure herself that the Member is fully appraised in detail of the allegations and the process at the earliest possible stage. That postdates this case, but it is worth noting that my right hon. Friend suggested a meeting in his letter to the commissioner on 16 January 2020. These are welcome steps, and a Select Committee appointed by the House could look further at how the system might be approved.

I will now move on to the aggravating factors that the Standards Committee refers to in a number of its reports. A consistent theme has been that Members’ refusal to admit wrongdoing in contentious cases has been considered an aggravating factor leading to greater punishment, but we do not want to encourage a system in which a person has to admit fault in order to receive a reasonable response from the Standards Committee. Members who believe that they are innocent must be able to continue to assert that from the beginning to the end without that being considered an aggravating factor.

Plea bargaining is not part of our system. Expectation of self-denunciation is not where we want to get to. We do not want struggle sessions, though the Opposition may like struggle sessions, in order to receive more lenient sanctions. We saw examples of that recently where a Member was considered to have a higher degree of culpability because he did not accept the judgment of the Committee and commissioner on his correspondence with the judiciary. There was also the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), whose punishment, for the arguably innocuous and legitimate act of writing to Michel Barnier after his request for the views of MPs, was shortened and not brought to the Floor of the House on the condition that he admitted wrongdoing. This is a concerning theme in these investigations that clearly warrants greater review.

Perhaps the most critical point to emerge on concerns expressed by Members is the question of a right to appeal. I consider that right to be fundamental to the provision of justice, which is regrettably not genuinely provided by the matter coming to the Floor of this House—a regrettableness that has been reinforced by the conduct of this debate so far.

I observe that, in the House of Lords, there is an appeal process that provides that the noble lord concerned has a right of appeal to the Conduct Committee against the commissioner’s findings and any recommended sanction. Having considered any appeal, the Conduct Committee, having agreed an appropriate sanction, reports its conclusions to the House, which has the final decision on the sanction. That is why I support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. It proposes setting up a Select Committee to review the standards process and consider whether Members should be afforded the same or similar rights as apply to those subject to investigations of alleged misconduct in other workplaces and professions, including the right of appeal, and to make recommendations for reform. The Committee will, therefore, be able to recommend setting up an appeals mechanism and recommend other changes to increase confidence. It will also be able to consider whether the case against my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire should be reviewed with the benefit of any new appeals mechanism, or whether the Standards Committee report should be considered by the House. It will be a method by which we can reset a process that has lost the confidence of many Members of this House.

Let me be clear: the new Committee will not be the judge, jury and executioner in this case. It will be time-limited and established for the particular purpose of recommending improvements to the standards system for the House to consider. For example, following the Committee’s work in relation to this report, it is entirely possible that a reformed process, including any new appeal mechanism, may conclude that this initial report and sanction was entirely correct. This complex case still demands proper consideration, and the Select Committee would in no way pre-determine that.

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

Can the Leader of the House explain why it is appropriate that this new Select Committee should have an in-built Government majority, while the Standards Committee with its lay members does not. If this is about trying to improve our processes, why is he running the risk of making it look to anybody looking in from the outside that, essentially, this is like someone who has been found guilty of a crime, but instead of serving a sentence, his mates come together to try to change the judicial system? It looks really bad.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Sometimes, to do the right thing, one has to accept a degree of opprobrium, but it is more important to do the right thing to ensure that there is fairness.

Business of the House

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government absolutely recognise the devastating impact that flooding can have on communities across the country; it is very tough on those affected. The Government are acting to drive down flood risk and announced a £5.2 billion expenditure programme of taxpayers’ money to build 2,000 new flood defences over the next six years. However, the point that my hon. Friend makes about the lack of co-ordination is important, and I am happy to take that up with Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on his behalf to get him a fuller answer as to why these engagements are not taking place.

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

Last year’s “State of Nature” report found that 41% of UK species are in decline, with one in 10 threatened with extinction, and just this week a new report from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds noted that we have seen a “lost decade for nature”, with the Government failing to reach 17 out of 20 biodiversity targets they signed up to 10 years ago. May we therefore have an urgent debate on how the Government plan to turn that around, including by introducing legally binding targets to restore nature by scrapping the reckless £27 billion road building plan, which is already subject to judicial review, and by restoring the funding to organisations such as the Environment Agency and Natural England, whose budgets have been slashed by 30% in the past 10 years alone?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is very important that we have roads and that people can get about the country. The road building plan will help the economy. It will be a boost to the economy and a boost to jobs. The last thing we should be doing in the current crisis is making it harder for people to get jobs and for the economy to grow. However, the Government have a very good record on dealing with environmental matters. They have committed to the net zero target by 2050. Perhaps most importantly, we will take back control of our agricultural policy from 1 January and will be able to ensure that expenditure in that area goes towards protecting diversity and the environment, rather than being squandered on EU-sponsored schemes we are not in favour of and burdening our farmers with bureaucracy. Things are getting very much better thanks to the Conservatives and Brexit.

Business of the House

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the indication that we will move to more virtual ways of working, but may I ask that that also incorporates electronic voting as soon as possible? It is ridiculous that we will all be cooped up in the Lobbies.

Secondly, I reinforce the importance of action for the self-employed. In particular, the insurance companies need to be pressed: they are saying that, because coronavirus was not listed as a disease, they will not pay up. The insurance bodies clearly need to be brought to heel.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I record my gratitude to the Opposition for deciding not to divide the House last week. We have become aware that politicians in this country can act in the interests of the nation and of us all by coming together to do this, and we have shown that with surprising speed. I reiterate the thanks given by my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to his shadow, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), who has been particularly helpful in this difficult period.

The issue regarding the self-employed is of great importance and has been widely raised.

Business of the House

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am afraid that that reminds me of the joke about the time that one should go to visit the dentist, which is, of course, at two thirty. But the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Somebody laughed. Thank you so much. These sort of jokes amuse my children. We cannot possibly want to remove the teeth of Prime Ministers unless they are rotten, but the Prime Minister has a fine set of gnashers with which to bite through these difficult problems.

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

I hope that hon. Members will oppose this dangerous and cynical manoeuvre, not least because no deal remains a real possibility until the trapdoor is closed in the withdrawal Bill that currently allows us to crash out if no future relationship is agreed at the end of the implementation period at the end of December next year. That is dangerous.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That tells you all need to know, Mr Speaker. The leader figure of the Green party says that an election is dangerous and cynical—dangerous and cynical to trust the people, dangerous and cynical to go back to our voters, dangerous and cynical to report to our employers. That is contempt for democracy.

Business of the House

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend’s grasp of detail is so great that it explains why Baroness Hale thought he was the Chief Whip; he is clearly completely on top of the subject, and that was an entirely understandable error to have made. He is of course absolutely right, and there is a very serious point in this: people who do not vote for the programme motion will be voting not to have Brexit on 31 October. They will need to understand that clearly, and they will not be able to persuade one set of people that they voted for Second Reading and therefore were in favour and another set that they voted against the timetable and were against; that won’t work.

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

This Government proposal is, frankly, outrageous given the length and complexity of the Bill. I understand the Leader of the House to have indicated that we would have to table amendments for Committee stage before we have even finished Second Reading, and the complexity of the Bill seems to have confused the Prime Minister himself, who on Saturday for example said there would be no tariffs on goods going between Northern Ireland and Great Britain when in actual fact article 5 of the new Northern Ireland protocol shows that goods at risk of entering the EU could indeed face tariffs. Is that not precisely the sort of detail we expect the Government to get right, and does that not provide more evidence that we need the time to scrutinise this Bill properly?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There will not be tariffs on goods that are ending up in Northern Ireland; if they are going into the European Union there may be, but there will not be on goods that are destined for Northern Ireland and not for onward transmission. So what the Prime Minister said was correct. Those who voted for the Benn Act and the Cooper-Boles Act are on pretty thin ice when they complain about rushing Acts through—and, Mr Speaker, goose and gander, sauce.

Capital Gains Tax (Rates)

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but if the then Government had not done that our situation would have been an awful lot worse. Many commentators are saying that this is a time to be investing, not taking money out of the economy. Our current situation would have been much worse if we had not had that stimulus at that time.

Despite what the Government say, we are not all in this together. Some people had more responsibility for the crisis than others and some benefited more from the boom that preceded it. It seems to me that those who enjoyed the largest benefits should pay the highest price. We need progressive tax reform. Increasing the tax take from those most able to pay it and helping lower earners by reintroducing the 10% tax band now would be a good start, both in raising revenue and in addressing inequality.

If we are looking for ways to find more revenue, let us bear in mind the huge extent of tax avoidance, tax evasion and unpaid tax in the UK. The figures are truly staggering. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs admits that tax evasion and avoidance together come to almost £40 billion a year, and in November 2009 it admitted that £28 billion of unpaid tax was owing. Shocking as those figures are, some experts out there suggest that the total target for necessary action to collect tax due and owing could be more than £100 billion a year. Why do we not see more efforts to go after that kind of money?

There are a range of options for changing the UK tax rules progressively so that more than £40 billion of additional taxes could be raised each year by the end of the life of this Parliament. With tax-collecting efficiency savings, that would deliver more than £60 billion of tax revenues for the UK, thus preventing any need for cuts to public services.

I say that not because I think we should introduce all those tax measures—certainly not straight away—but to prove that we have a choice. Spending cuts are not the only way to address the deficit. Fairer taxation has never even been put to the public as an option. That is a betrayal.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Is the hon. Lady aware that if the tax rises she proposes were introduced, we would have the highest ratio of tax to GDP that this country has had in 40 years—7% higher than the record achieved under Margaret Thatcher’s Government?

[Caroline Lucas]

We also have a country that is at its most unequal at any time since the second world war. If someone asked me whether I would like either progressive tax reform or a much more equal society, I know which I would choose, because so much evidence suggests that unequal societies are not just incredibly damaging for those at the bottom of the heap, which is fairly clear; they are corrosive for everybody in society. Books such as “The Spirit Level” have demonstrated just how corrosive inequality is for everybody in terms of health outcomes and general well-being. I am happy to say here and now that I would much rather see an equal society. Of course, that is something the coalition Government told us the Budget was all about. It was supposed to be a fair Budget.

What choices were made? Let us be clear again that they were political choices; they were not inevitabilities. It was a political choice to make effective cuts to child benefit, the child tax credit and child tax funds that, together, cost £2.5 billion. Those cuts could have been avoided if, for example, the Chancellor had chosen not to cut corporation tax. It was also a political choice to increase VAT—a tax that hits the poorest hardest and that both Government parties said they were not in favour of increasing.

Raising the income tax threshold as some kind of compensation does nothing for the poorest households that do not pay income tax anyway, since in any given year about one in four families contains no income taxpayer at all. Uprating future benefits and tax credits only in line with consumer price inflation, rather than retail price inflation, will have a dramatic effect in increasing inequality in society. If we add to that the severe cuts in housing benefit, which will have a devastating impact on areas where significant numbers of people depend on it, such as my constituency of Brighton Pavilion, we can see that the menu we are being served up is very damaging indeed.

Let us remember that the vast majority of people who claim housing benefit are pensioners, people with disabilities or who care for relatives, or hard-working people on low incomes. As the director of Shelter has said,

“If this support is ripped out suddenly from under their feet it will push many households over the edge, triggering a spiral of debt, eviction and homelessness.”

If we add to that—if that were not enough—the impact of swingeing public spending cuts, we see a hugely bleak picture. Unemployment will grow, and anyone who leaves school or college in the next five years faces a grim future.

Of course, meanwhile, the rich have been largely let off. That is why we have seen the coverage we have seen in the Financial Times and everywhere else, with people saying that they are breathing a sigh of relief because the Budget did not hit them as hard as they thought it might. The rich will hardly notice the VAT increase. The bank levy is puny—less than half the £5 billion to £8 billion originally predicted—and is a fraction of City bonuses. That is not unavoidable; it is a political choice. The Government could have introduced a Robin Hood tax to raise billions—they did not. That was another political choice.

Unprotected departmental budgets will be savaged. Local government will need to slash services if it is to freeze council tax. Public servants, who did nothing to cause the slump, are being asked to bear an unfair share of the burden. Again, one thing we can say for sure is that we are definitely not all in this together. People on middle and low incomes have done much worse than expected, and the rich have been let off much of what they feared, but we will all suffer from an economy that now has a very real risk of going into a double-dip recession.

Many Opposition Members have talked about the importance of listening to commentators, such as Noble prize winner Joseph Stiglitz or David Blanchflower, about the real dangers of that double dip. David Blanchflower is one of the very few people who saw the recession coming. We should listen to his warnings now. The economy is still fragile. Today’s measures will certainly slow recovery and could well stop it in its tracks. Even Martin Wolf says in today’s Financial Times that we should be printing more money, rather than taking it out of the economy.

I should like to suggest that the real way out of the crisis, as well as fairer taxation, is through a major Government investment in the green infrastructure that this country so urgently needs if we are to emerge stronger from the recession than we were when we went into it. My party has called for the introduction of a green new deal—a massive and sustained investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation, which would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, as well as cutting carbon emissions and making our economy more sustainable.

Let me give an example. Greens on a council in the north of the country brought an idea to the table that was accepted by the council and is being rolled out. Essentially, they leveraged some money from the energy companies and matched it with some council funding, and they are now rolling out free insulation for 40,000 homes in that area. That is not only cutting emissions, but saving average families about £150 a year on their fuel bills and creating 200 jobs. That sort of programme needs to be rolled out country-wide.

What about green measures in the Budget—or, better, where are the green measures in the Budget? Let us remember what the coalition manifesto promised. It said that it was promising

“a full programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for a low carbon and eco-friendly economy”.

Those ambitions cannot have been very high.

The coalition’s first Budget offered little more than a passing reference to the green investment bank, just a few lines about future reforms to the price of carbon dioxide and a renewed promise on energy efficiency, so where exactly is this famous full programme of measures? I searched in vain, but instead I saw old style, big picture macro-economics, with a 4% cut in corporation tax over the Parliament and a regional growth fund for new businesses from next April that will provide

“a stable economic foundation for private sector growth”.

I am not against that, but what kind of growth are we talking about? Where is any commitment to sustainability in the vision for growth? What about the commitment to the green investment bank, which is urgently needed to drive £2 billion into clean energy by 2020? Apparently, we are going to have to wait, as there was no particular urgency on the green agenda in the Budget.

We were told instead that the Government will put forward

“detailed proposals on the creation of a Green Investment Bank”

after the spending review, but we have heard that before. We are told that the Government are considering a wide range of options, but there is no confirmation of legislation and no mention of capitalisation. With nothing in the Budget on the green deal for households, we must wait for this autumn’s energy security and green economy Bill. The low-carbon industrial strategy already appears to have lost urgency and direction.

The Chancellor talked a great deal yesterday about the crisis of national debt, but he barely mentioned the much bigger and more dangerous crisis of climate change. When the coalition Government were formed, Ministers said they would be the greenest Government ever. As I pointed out at the time, that, sadly, would not be very difficult, given Labour’s lamentable record, but it does not look as though serious steps are being taken to make this a green Government either.

The Budget is economically dangerous, socially divisive and completely lacking in any kind of vision for sustainability. Tragically, an opportunity has been missed to introduce something genuinely progressive, such as a Robin Hood tax on financial transactions, measures to increase employment and cut emissions through a green new deal, and measures to introduce fairer taxation—in other words, measures to take us closer to the fairer, greener Britain that the coalition says it wants to achieve, but from which, after the Budget, we are further than ever before.