Fossil Fuels: Lobbying

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

It will come as no surprise to the hon. Member that I completely agree with her. I do wonder what our own kids will think when the planet continues to heat still further, and what their kids, in turn, will think. What were we thinking of? What was the fossil fuel industry thinking of, certainly, beyond its profits? Apparently very little.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. She has been assiduous in her commitment to these issues. Indeed, I would go as far as to say the hon. Lady has, on many occasions, been the conscience of this House on these issues. Does she agree that it is essential that votes cast and actions taken in this place are influenced by facts and reasoned opinion, and never by one individual or group? While there is a place for lobbying—let us be honest: it is through lobbying that we learn more; I understand that—it should be only a part of the consideration of any issue.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Member for both his comments, with which I agree, and his kind remarks. He is right: of course, lobbying happens, but a line gets crossed when money starts to change hands. There are perceptions—never mind what the reality is—of Members and groups potentially pursuing interests that are to their own advantage, rather than for the public good.

In June 2023, after sustained further lobbying meetings, letters and statements in the press, the Government introduced the price floor that OEUK had so assiduously lobbied for—surprise, surprise. To summarise: privileged access and meetings with Ministers, an opaque, official-looking lobbying group and an oil and gas fiscal forum advising the Treasury collectively resulted in significant changes to Government plans, which, in turn, resulted in a windfall tax that raised just half of what the Government had promised and saved corporations billions. All, of course, at a time of record fossil fuel company profits and a cost of living crisis for consumers. That is what happens when we let fossil fuels into every corner of our politics.

That is only the tip of the iceberg. Last year, it was reported that Gulf states pushing fossil fuels at COP28 had hired the now Lord Hammond and Lord Maude, along with former Prime Minister Tony Blair and other former leading politicians as “consultants”. As we know, it is incredibly easy for senior British politicians and civil servants to swap Government offices for consultancy retainers; they simply have to register with the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments—a body which even its chair, the former Conservative MP and now Lord Pickles, admits is toothless—if they take up any new paid or unpaid work within two years of leaving office. For example, ACOBA’s response to Lord Hammond working for Mohammed bin Salman’s regime was to note that his inside knowledge of the UK Government could be

“perceived to offer an unfair advantage”,

and then it went ahead and approved it all the same. When, in 2021, Lord Hammond’s advisory work was deemed by ACOBA to have breached the rules, the only sanction was a strongly worded letter.

I know and accept the convention not to criticise the conduct of individual MPs or peers, so I simply want to set out facts that are already in the public domain and on the public record. It is not just former Ministers going through the revolving door between parliamentarians and the fossil fuel industry to take up lucrative consultancy roles. Second jobs, placements, internships and sabbaticals are all different sides of the same coin, and all too often a lot of coins are made or exchanged.

Members of this House can benefit financially from the fossil fuel sector in other ways, too, as the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) presumably did when she held £70,000 worth of shares in Shell for five years when she was Environment Secretary, as published in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in August 2023. I have done the courtesy of alerting any Member to whom I am referring in this Chamber, by emailing them to let them know. The right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) also did in the shape of payments from oil company clients to business advisory service Zahawi & Zahawi, pieced together in research carried out by journalists Jonathan Watts and Pamela Duncan for The Guardian, from his shareholdings in an oil and gas exploration and production company, and the £1 million worth of donations he received from fossil fuel companies, including a regular monthly payment of £30,000 that stopped only when he became a Minister.

The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—who is in this place and with whom I have had a conversation to inform him that I am about to reference some of his interests—has been a Member of this place since 1997. He served as the Energy Minister under the now Foreign Secretary, and held down a second job for BB Energy, which trades more than 33 million metric tonnes of oil every year. As a strategic adviser, he was paid £50,000 per year for the equivalent of around 11 days’ work, according to his own Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Three of the biggest donors to the Conservative party are funders or board members of the climate science sceptic think-tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation, or its spin-off Net Zero Watch. Companies from Cardiff Airport to ExxonMobil are handing out football tickets and passes for hospitality events to MPs across the political spectrum. In fact, I think I can safely say that there is probably only one UK-wide political party represented in Parliament that has not had some kind of handout from the fossil fuel industry, whether donations, expenses-paid trips, salaries or gifts. At this point, I give credit to the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) for going public about the food hamper sent to her by staff at Heathrow in the hope it would secure her support for their third runway. They obviously did not know her very well.

Financial benefit cannot be divorced from conflict of interest or perceived conflict, It is worth noting that there is no requirement on Members of this House to declare any income from dividends or any income gained from the sale of shares. Given the seemingly routine way in which shares get moved into blind trusts when MPs become Ministers, as used by the current Prime Minister and Chancellor, or the £70,000 threshold at which we are supposed to publicly declare a shareholding stake, the idea that we have transparency around conflicts of interests is laughable.

The evidence suggests that Members of the other place are just as at risk of the perception, at least, that they are influenced by dirty fossil fuel money. A total of 43 peers have a significant stake in the industry according to 2021 data. There, the declaration threshold is lower at £50,000. It is lower again at the Senedd and Holyrood, but they are certainly not immune to fossil fuel influence. A lower threshold would clearly be an improvement, but we need to do more than just tinker with the existing rules. In the vast majority of these instances, nobody is doing anything that breaks the parliamentary rules. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 only restricts about 5% of lobbyists—mostly trade unions representing workers, and charities. Meanwhile, corporations can pretty much do what they like, and consistently they do.

When we realise, as analysis by The Guardian clearly shows, that there is a direct link between fossil fuel money and the positions that MPs take in Parliament, it is self-evident that the rules cannot be fit for purpose. I believe that being an MP is about serving the public interest, not the interests of fossil fuel companies. In case anyone wants to suggest that they are working in the public interest, let me remind the House of the economic impact of continuing to extract and burn fossil fuels: public debt could rise to 289% of GDP by the end of the century if climate change is left unchecked, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility.

The climate impact is well known: if we want to be in with even a 50% chance of staying within the all-important 1.5° limit, we cannot open new fields, and we should be phasing out existing fossil fuel infrastructure in ways that will secure a just transition. That is not what these companies are using their influence to make happen, and they are frighteningly effective. Climate Action Tracker cites the Government’s doubling down on North sea oil and gas extraction as a key factor in the UK’s insufficient rating on compatibility with the Paris agreement and 1.5°. These companies’ dirty fingerprints can be seen all over our politics, and it is time to clean things up. What does that look like?

First, there would be a firewall between the industry and decision making—no lobbying meetings. If meetings are happening—for example, about the best way to secure the green transition—there must be full transparency, delivered in something approaching real time, not months after the event. At present, the Government publish details of some meetings every three months or so—often, it is every six months—but they are incomplete at best. I had to ask a series of formal parliamentary questions to expose a lunch that the then Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), had with Saudi oil company Aramco. It was missing from his official declaration. First I was told that that was because it was a “social” occasion, and then that there had been an administrative oversight. All that happened months after the event—an event that, frankly, should never have happened in the first place.

It goes without saying that the behind-closed-doors cosy dinners, drinks events and so forth have to be dragged into the sunlight. There is no convenient line between social events and political business for Ministers or Ministers-in-waiting. If they have conversations about policy, either off or on the record, with someone from the oil and gas sector, or indeed another sector that stands to benefit, they should be required to make that public pretty much immediately.

A proper firewall means no industry representation on panels, Government research bodies, or expert or advisory bodies; no fossil fuel involvement in climate negotiations; no place on Government delegations to international negotiations or trade missions; no staff exchanges between the industry and Government Departments; far greater periods between leaving a ministerial role and Parliament, and consulting for an oil and gas firm, for example, with a complete ban on any sitting parliamentarians doing that kind of work, paid or otherwise; no implicit endorsements from politicians as a result of their speaking alongside industry representatives, or at events with which the industry has any kind of association; and certainly no fossil fuel company sponsorship of political party conferences.

Last year, Chevron co-hosted an event at Conservative party conference with the tagline:

“Can fossil fuel companies play a role in the energy transition?”

We know that the only role that they want to play is one of delay and obfuscation, so why should they be able to pay to get privileged access to Ministers and potential Ministers?

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jim Shannon

Report stage
Monday 20th November 2023 Commons Chamber

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

When first announcing this Bill, the Prime Minister promised that it would clamp down on greenwashing and bring misleading environmental claims under the umbrella of consumer protection laws, but the reality seems to fall far short of that—something to which we should perhaps have become accustomed when contemplating the gap between this Government’s environmental rhetoric and their lack of concrete action. While the Bill allows for consumer redress if commercial practices result in their being misled, confused or misinformed, the measures it contains certainly do not amount to the robust action on greenwashing that the Prime Minister led us to believe would be forthcoming. I have therefore tabled two amendments that would go some way towards delivering on the promises that he made.

As a multibillion pound persuasion industry, advertising has an enormous influence on which companies we trust, on our lifestyle choices and on the purchases we all make.

We are all exposed to thousands of advertisements on a more or less daily basis. To protect consumers from misinformation and harm, advertising must be properly and fairly regulated. However, we currently have an advertising regulation system that is slow, opaque and, in short, failing. The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority is not an independent regulator; it is self-funded by the advertising industry. Any complaints that the ASA handles about misleading or harmful advertising is essentially therefore marking its own homework. The ASA’s motivation to fairly regulate is wholly undermined by its close proximity to the industry it should be holding accountable.

My amendment 208 seeks to address the regulatory gap as a matter of urgency. It would create a regulator that is independent, transparent and one that can take timely action, thus better protecting consumers from misleading messaging by polluters and other harmful commercial actors. I think consumers want action. They are increasingly concerned about the role of companies in producing waste, pollution and environmental harms, and ignoring human rights. Yet in response these same companies turn to advertising to try to clean up their image and shore up their social licence to operate. New evidence reported in the Financial Times shows that Shell, one of the world’s top polluters, is estimated to have spent £220 million on advertising in 2023. Much of that advertising is aimed at younger generations, who are perhaps more vulnerable to misleading claims.

Misleading green advertising and greenwashing is on the rise. The ASA’s response has been to update its minimal environmental guidance to advertisers and to rule against just a tiny number of adverts for Shell, HSBC and other high-carbon advertisers for making misleading green claims. Those rulings are often slow and are often made well after the damage has been done. Time-consuming complaints have largely been brought by civil society organisations concerned with the impact of advertising and greenwashing on consumer wellbeing and their rights, but it should not be left to those organisations to have to try to enforce misleading adverts and to ensure that those adverts do not go unchecked. We need a robust regulatory framework and it is disappointing that the Government did not use the opportunity afforded by the Bill to deliver one.

The ASA celebrates its slim count of investigations into polluter advertising while a whole sea of greenwash escapes its notice and seeps into consumer consciousness. Only 2.4% of adverts reported to the ASA over environmental concerns saw any formal action in 2022, while thousands go unreported and therefore see no action at all. This is a drop in the ocean. We simply cannot afford this lack of effective advertising regulation to continue. My amendment 208 is a small but essential step if we are to stop the most polluting adverts from promoting our own environmental demise.

My other amendment is 207. It is another small but essential step, this time towards tackling the way in which the adverts to which we are exposed to every day are themselves fuelling the climate crisis. The UK advertising industry was responsible for 208 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions in 2022. To put that another way, advertising is responsible for the equivalent of just under a third of the carbon footprint of every single person in the UK. No wonder that, from the World Health Organisation and the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee, to the UN’s environment programme and the Committee on Climate Change, there is universal agreement about the need to regulate the advertising of high-carbon products.

High carbon clearly means fossil fuels, flights and SUVs. I would argue that it also probably means fast fashion, most meat and dairy, and the banks funding the likes of BP and Shell. I therefore back the many campaigns for a ban on high-carbon advertising and for interim measures, such as car advertisements with mandatory content about the benefits of active travel and public travel, as has been done in France. In the meantime, and in the absence of a Government prepared to act in line with the climate science and other evidenced demands, my amendment 207 would bring consideration of net zero emissions by 2030 into the consumer protection regime envisaged by the Government. Let me say a few words about why that is 2030, rather than 2050.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear that limiting global temperatures to 1.5° requires that the whole world reaches net zero by 2050, a deadline that has been directly translated into domestic targets. But the UN Secretary-General, for example, is among many who have called for developed countries to commit to net zero much sooner, by 2040. When we look at the UK’s own historic responsibility, and indeed our financial means, that puts us into the category of richer countries that, in the interests of fairness, should be going faster and further.

Given the rate at which we are eating through our remaining carbon budget for 1.5°—according to some scientists, 1% a month—further and faster in terms of the UK translates to us achieving zero emissions by much closer to 2030 or 2035, thereby giving countries in the global south longer to cut their emissions. This idea is actually enshrined in climate law around the idea of common but differentiated responsibility, but sadly it is more respected in the avoidance rather than in the implementation.

Of course, that timeframe is undoubtedly hugely challenging. It will require a scale of social and economic transformation far surpassing what we have seen to date—hence the need for action across the board, including in relation to the advertising industry and consumer laws. Specifically, amendment 207 would signal that achieving net zero by 2030 is in the collective interests of consumers and it would help protect consumers from any detrimental effects arising from commercial practices that do not fully reflect the need to stay within that limit.

Misleading advertising is unfairly influencing consumers who want to do the right thing to protect the environment. It is delaying climate action just when we need to shift consumption patterns towards lower carbon alternatives. It is further flooding consumers with adverts that normalise and glamourise high-carbon products and ways of living, something the regulator, with its limited remit, cannot currently act upon, and which the current limited understanding of consumer collective interest does not encompass.

The scale and urgency of the climate and nature crises are such that they should be factored into every single piece of legislation. My two amendments are designed to do exactly that by delivering on the promises the Prime Minister made about greenwashing, and by delivering on what every shred of evidence tells us about the impact of that advertising on our precious environment, and therefore on consumers’ long-term collective interests.

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). She is, if I may say so, the conscience of the Chamber in relation to net zero and environmental issues. She always gives us a helpful reminder of the importance of those issues for all of us across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

It has been incredibly encouraging to hear the comments made thus far by all Members on all sides of the House. It is also great to see the intention of the Bill, which lies solely around the consumer, and consumer rights and protections. The Minister very helpfully set the scene in a way we can all adhere to and agree with. If the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) puts forward some of his amendments, maybe the Government will also support them. If they do, we will have no need to divide the House.

The new consumer protection measures in the Bill are intended to apply to the whole of the UK. Consumer protection policy is devolved to Northern Ireland, and reserved for Scotland and Wales. It is my understanding that, as a result, consent will be required for Northern Ireland. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm what discussions he will have, or has had, with Northern Ireland Departments to ensure that they can be implemented as soon as possible. Reading through the Bill and the amendments and new clauses that have been tabled, I am ever mindful that the Government do have powers. In new clause 69, for instance, sectoral enactments are in place for the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992. There seems to be a methodology whereby decisions for Northern Ireland can be made. Again, as an Northern Ireland MP, I think it is important that we understand what the implications are and how the process will work for us.

I wish to refer to new clause 4 and also to new clause 29, which was tabled by the shadow Minister and which seems to be a perfectly amenable suggestion. I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment in his opening speech to address the issue of fuel prices. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred to that matter. Clearly, there is something wrong if the fuel price on one side of Newtownards in my constituency is different from that on the other side, but it is even more wrong if one of the major stores has a price at a certain level, yet further up the road that same store has a different price. It really is quite hard to comprehend how that can happen.

I wish to highlight the subscriptions issue, which many Members have referred to today. I have been made aware of two examples that I wish to put on the record in Hansard. I believe that these issues are being addressed. The Minister referred to that in his opening speech. The fact is that we are now living in an online world. I am afraid that I am not one of those who can do that—I make that admission here in this Chamber—but most people are involved in that world. It is a world where there is almost always an opportunity for subscription payments. Even newspapers now offer an online subscription service to get premium access to certain articles. These services are good if they are used correctly.

I heard a story from one of my members of staff. One of her subscriptions was with an online clothing company, which charged £50 a month for her to get access to clothes at a significantly cheaper rate. At the start of the month, for four days only, there is an opportunity to skip the month and not pay the £50 payment. The issue, quite simply, is that if people forget to skip the month, they are charged that £50. There is something wrong with that. No reminder is sent by the company, so this is a smart way for companies to make more money, as being forgetful is a human error. Again, I am keen to get the Minister’s ideas on whether this legislation address that issue.

Renters (Reform) Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jim Shannon

2nd reading
Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

Solar Rooftop Installations

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of solar rooftop installations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Sharma. I am glad to have secured this debate about solar rooftop installations. Monday’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change left us in no doubt about the urgency of tackling the accelerating climate emergency, and one of the fastest, most effective ways of doing so here in the UK is to step up plans to decarbonise our housing stock. In this short debate, I want to focus on rooftop solar in particular.

There is no doubt that the number of solar rooftop installations has soared in the last decade or so, and I applaud that achievement. I am also happy to applaud this Government’s ambition to increase solar from its current capacity of around 15 GW all the way up to 50 GW by 2030 and then 70 GW by 2035. I am sure we are all united in recognising that achieving and, indeed, surpassing that target is vital.

Solar Energy UK estimates that, of the 15 GW of solar power capacity currently in place, around two thirds is on the ground, and the remainder is on residential and commercial roofs. This morning, I want to make the case for the installation of solar panels on all suitable new-build homes to be made mandatory and to explore how to overcome some of the obstacles to domestic solar.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for raising this issue. In my constituency, we are very keen to endorse this. Does she agree that solar roof panels can enhance the value of a property and that, for large families who use lots of hot water, the savings generated and the benefit to the environment can make the up-front cost worth while?

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Member makes my point beautifully. This is a win-win policy: it is good for householders and good for the environment, and it is good to get people’s bills down too. I thank him for that intervention, with which I entirely agree.

Some 80% of the buildings that we will have in 2050 have already been built, and we must work hard to retrofit them with renewables, but the remaining 20% have still to be built, and maximising the deployment of on-site solar generation in new-build homes could be a real game changer. If we are serious about continuing and accelerating what has been achieved to date and generating a successful rooftop revolution, we should be mandating that all suitable new homes come with solar panels as standard. The Government have an opportunity to do that with the new future homes standard.

I echo the recommendation made by the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) in his net zero review that things be put in train to ensure that there are no delays to delivery by 2025. However, I would go further and argue that we do not need another consultation on whether to introduce a requirement for new homes to be built with solar, because we know that the British public are already behind the idea. A YouGov poll just a few months ago found that 80% of people across the UK would support the Government in making regulations to ensure that solar panels are the default on appropriate new-build houses. Only 9% were against that idea.

Action on Climate Change and Decarbonisation

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

COP26: Limiting Global Temperature Rises

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jim Shannon

Thursday 21st October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I have no problem in praising the Government’s targets. What I have problems with is looking at the fact that there is a dearth of actual actions to meet those targets. That is what we see again and again. The Climate Change Committee has itself said that there are no real plans to deliver the targets that are set. Frankly, the climate cares very little for targets. What it wants are the concrete policies to meet them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for everything she has done in bringing these issues to the House for our attention. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as host of this year’s conference, must be vocal and committed in relation to our net zero emissions, and thereby pose as role models for others to follow. Does the hon. Lady agree?

[Caroline Lucas]

Absolutely. Leading by example is crucial: we have to walk the talk.

Support for Self-employed and Freelance Workers

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jim Shannon

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for the self-employed and freelance workers during the covid-19 outbreak.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate, which affects so many of our constituents. The job retention and self-employment income support schemes have provided a lifeline for many, and they have undoubtedly provided a degree of security for those who were eligible. But there’s the rub: far too many people have been ruled ineligible.

Today’s debate takes place just as the six-month period that the self-employment scheme was intended to cover draws to a close. I intend to make the case that the scheme should be continued where it is needed and, crucially, that it should be extended and backdated for all those people who have been unfairly left without support over the last six months through absolutely no fault of their own, and who have endured intense hardship as a result.

Many cannot pay their bills. They are losing their homes, they are drowning in debt and they need our support. Today’s debate is a sorely needed opportunity to set out how the self-employment scheme has fallen short. It has fallen short by failing to recognise the reality of what self-employment looks like in Britain today—by failing to understand that self-employment is significant across the breadth and depth of our economy. The self-employed are beauticians and barristers; charity and construction workers; dentists and decorators; many in marketing, events, arts and hospitality, and many more. This is a chance for us to explain loudly and clearly why self-employed people need justice and why they need support as we go forward.

As it stands, as I am sure all hon. Members know—although, frankly, I am less sure that Treasury Ministers know—the Government scheme penalises a wide range of people. They include those who combine self-employment with pay-as-you-earn work, or PAYE freelancers. They include new start-ups and the recently self-employed. They include women who have taken time out for maternity leave and childcare. They include anyone earning over £50,000. They include those earning less than 50% of their income from self-employment. They include limited company directors who take their income in the form of dividends.

There have been endless requests for the Treasury to meet MPs and those affected by the scheme’s failings to discuss those gaps. Frankly, the exchange between the Chancellor and the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) during Treasury oral questions earlier this week underscored how urgently such a meeting is needed. I am not sure whether the Chancellor just does not understand his own scheme or whether he was deliberately being economical with the truth, but when he asserted that the only group of people excluded from the self-employment scheme is those earning more than £50,000, and that their average median salary is apparently £200,000, I did not know whether to laugh or cry. He is completely and utterly wrong. He does not understand his own policy, and we urge him again to meet us so that we can set out the problem.

At this point, I would like to pay tribute to the brilliant campaigns, including ExcludedUK, ForgottenPAYE, ForgottenLtd and many others, and individuals such as Amanda Evans and Ellie Phillips who have helped the self-employed find such a powerful and united voice. I also thank the various hon. Members from right across the House who joined me, campaigners and the money saving expert Martin Lewis at the end of July to symbolically deliver petitions to the Treasury. They were signed by more than 348,000 people and demanded that the gaps in the scheme be urgently closed.

Those campaigns and many individuals have sent copious correspondence to the Chancellor, detailing the various groups of people who are not eligible for income support. His refusal to honestly engage with those suffering as a result of his policies is frankly shameful. The Treasury has met all requests for dialogue with either deafening silence or meaningless stock responses. I am sorry, but that is not good enough.

It is not good enough for my Brighton constituent who was working full time with the BBC as a PAYE freelancer, so he is ineligible for either furlough or self-employment support and, having come relatively recently from Ireland especially to take on the role at the BBC, he is not eligible for universal credit either. He says that how he has been treated during this crisis has financially ruined him. It is not good enough for Deniz Turan, a sole trader who has gone, in her own words, from being a successful businesswoman to being homeless and feeling suicidal every day in the blink of an eye, simply because she was a start-up who took her income in dividend payments. And it is not good enough for Mark, another small limited company director, who says that the strain of getting no income support on his marriage, his household, his mental health, his physical health and his finances is literally unbearable.

The self-employed have been failed by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, and it is not just me making that argument. As hon. Members will know, an all-party parliamentary group has recently been formed. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for setting up the APPG, which represents those who have not been protected by the various Government packages. It is I think one of the fastest growing APPGs in parliamentary history. It currently has around 260 MPs from all sides of the House, including 79 from the Government Benches, while 15 Conservative MPs added their names to the application for this debate to take place.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One of the forgotten sectors is music teachers who teach our young people. Many of them—including some in my constituency, as well as throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—do not have any income whatever. They are one of the forgotten groups as well.

Economic Growth and Environmental Limits

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered economic growth and environmental limits.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate economic growth and environmental limits. It is, of course, a huge subject, covering why and how our current economic model, which puts GDP growth above everything else, must change fundamentally, fast. I will focus on the environmental imperatives for that, especially the climate and biodiversity crises, and set out practical steps that I hope the Treasury will adopt.

It is crucial to note, however, before going into the environmental detail, that the Treasury’s obsession with GDP growth is also undermining social and economic progress for the vast majority of UK citizens. GDP is an incredibly poor metric for measuring wellbeing or social cohesion. For example, people becoming unhealthy can actually have a positive effect overall on GDP, as revenue from associated healthcare boosts growth. Similarly, the extraction of oil and gas pushes GDP up, while pushing us closer to the precipice of climate breakdown.

I, of course, acknowledge that Government Departments have goals other than economic output. The Office for National Statistics in particular is doing some important work on wellbeing statistics as part of their “Beyond GDP” programme. There is also the ONS/Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs project that seeks to incorporate UK natural capital into the UK environmental accounts by 2020. All of that is welcome, but it is all at the margins. The ONS website is unequivocal about the priority. It says quite clearly:

“Gross domestic product (GDP) growth is the main indicator of economic performance.”

GDP therefore still trumps everything, remaining the primary objective across Government, especially for the Treasury.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on introducing the debate, and on her hard work in this House on the environment and climate change. Although I certainly like to check on GDP and other financial aims, does she agree that the measure of success cannot be GDP alone? It must equally be based on the happiness and health of our constituents.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and kind words. As he says, the purpose of Government should surely be to promote happiness and health, yet we have a perverse obsession with GDP growth, which can often go up even when happiness and health are going down. That obsession must end if we are to secure a safe space for humanity, and if we are to live within environmental limits, or planetary boundaries, to use an alternative term.

I will not be surprised if the Minister takes issue with me on that, arguing that the UK has embraced so-called green growth, perhaps citing the clean growth strategy. Leaving aside the fact that there is nothing clean or green about the Government’s support for rampant airport expansion, road building or fossil fuel subsidies, the essential point is that even so-called green growth rests on the assumption that economic growth can be decoupled from environmental harm fully and fast enough. I will make the case this afternoon that that is a false assumption.

Just yesterday, a new report from the European Environmental Bureau exploded the myth of absolute decoupling. The study looked at a range of factors—materials, energy, water, greenhouse gases and so on—and found that there is no empirical evidence for an absolute, permanent, global, substantial or sufficiently rapid decoupling of economic growth from environmental pressures, either now or in the future. In other words, it is time to move from efficiency to sufficiency. As the report concludes,

“Although decoupling is useful and necessary, and has occurred at certain times and places, ‘green growth’ cannot reduce resource use on anywhere near the scale required to deal with global environmental breakdown and to keep global warming below the target of 1.5°C”.

The transgression of environmental limits has dangerous consequences for all humanity. That was pushed into the spotlight by the UN global assessment of nature—the so-called Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. If ever there was a mouthful that was designed to make it hard to know what anyone was talking about, that is it; we should call it a report on nature.

Regardless, it found that 75% of all land and almost half of all marine and water ecosystems have been seriously altered by human activity. It found that 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction. That is a horrendous number—significantly greater than at any other time in human history—and poses a severe and direct threat to not only those species but human wellbeing in all regions of the world, especially those least responsible for the damage that is causing it.

The report identifies the growth of the global economy, and specifically the growth of material consumption in affluent nations, as one of the major driving forces behind those trends. It is unambiguous about the need to move away from endless consumption and GDP as a key measure of economic success, stating that we must steer

“away from the current limited paradigm of economic growth”

and

“shift beyond standard economic indicators such as gross domestic product”.

I am keen to emphasise that, although Greens have long been leading the political debate on the environmental and social case for ditching GDP growth as a measure of progress, that argument is finally moving into the mainstream. Cross-party collaboration is incredibly important too, and I am delighted that 20 MPs have signed my early-day motion on the report from the intergovernmental panel. My early-day motion calls on the Government to

“urgently show global leadership in developing and advocating alternatives to GDP and in the transition to economies that, rather than being divisive and degenerative by default, are distributive and regenerative by design.”

DMB Solutions: Liquidation

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jim Shannon

Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I agree entirely. It is a point to which I will return shortly. As he says, the company must have known six days before it chose to go into liquidation that it was about to do that. I would have thought that to seek tens of thousands of pounds just days before was criminal—I would have thought it was fraud—but we are having great difficulty prosecuting the case.

I want to share one last story from a constituent who told me:

“My partner and I started a project with DMB Solutions in May last year. The project – to rearrange rooms in the loft extension, and create an extension housing a large open plan family room downstairs – was intended to take four weeks and cost about £95,000. We did some research on the company and were unable to find anything concerning. We had seen several boards outside houses and were impressed by the website and by the promises of the design consultant. However, in early January this year, we found ourselves in the position of having an upstairs with no heating, water or Building Control approval, and a downstairs with holes in the ceilings, unattached electrical cables hanging through ceilings, damage to rooms which were outside the scope of works, and a water system which does not provide enough hot water for a bath. We had paid all the money in accordance with the staged payment plan we had signed, so we are £60,000 out of pocket, and our lovely home has been ruined. These events have rocked me to the core and I still cannot quite believe this awful thing has happened to us. In my opinion, DMB Solutions have acted incompetently, immorally and illegally. What I find so distressing is that various bodies and organisations that exist partly to protect the public in these situations seem to have been ineffectual, enabling the company and Directors to continue to operate.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Today it is DMB Solutions and Brighton Pavilion; tomorrow it will be another company in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast—this is a problem across the whole United Kingdom. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is essential that subcontractors be able to continue with and be paid for work that has been started and that this be a priority for the liquidators, because sometimes small contractors are able to finish the job for a small price?

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a very important issue. It is not just individual householders who are suffering; many companies are also suffering, and the smaller ones may face bankruptcy as a result of not being paid by the other companies. The ripple effect of these actions extends very far, and of course it is by no means limited to one part of the country. This is happening in all the nations of the United Kingdom.

My constituent went on to say:

“I understand that Trading Standards and the Federation of Master Builders had been aware of complaints about this company for more than a year. I also understand that DMB Solutions owed…half a million pounds in taxes.

How can it be that they were still allowed to be operating, and taking money from new customers for work that it was likely they had no intention of completing satisfactorily? I am sure that had I personally owed a proportional amount of money in taxes, someone in authority would have been having a stern conversation with me about it.”

I think that my constituent was entirely right.

One of the striking features of the many cases brought to my attention is the fact that—as we heard from the hon. Member for Hove—the office of DMB Solutions was sending out invoices to customers for work yet to be undertaken, right up until a few days before the directors of the company called in the liquidators on 29 December. For example, Mandy Stewart, a teacher, contracted with DMB Solutions last summer to do a loft conversion at her home. Her partner’s daughter and granddaughter were moving in with them, and work began in mid-October. The project was never completed. Mandy was left with a partially finished and uninhabitable loft conversion, damage to her neighbour’s roof, and damage to her ceilings and light fittings because a tarpaulin had been badly fitted by DMB’s workers during wet and windy weather.

Having paid some £41,000 to DMB Solutions, Mandy is now faced with finding further funds to have the work completed. She also needs to pay for inspection by a structural surveyor to ensure that what has been done so far is safe, to engage building control representatives to sign off the work and to have scaffolding re-erected because the previous company took theirs down when they had not been paid by DMB Solutions.

Furthermore, on 21 December, Mandy received an invoice for almost £10,000 for the next stage of the project. It was not actually due until January, but the covering e-mail from DMB Solutions stated that it was being sent early because the DMB offices would be closed during the Christmas break. As by then Mandy had serious concerns about the work that had been done, she did not pay, but, as she says,

“it is extremely hard to believe that the DMB directors did not know that the company was insolvent on 21 December 2017, barely four working days before they called in the administrators.”

From the accounts that I have been given, it is clear that Mandy is far from alone in having been invoiced by DMB Solutions for a large sum of money, by email on or about 21 December, when the directors must have known that the company faced imminent insolvency. In fact, it is clear that the company was signing up new customers as late as mid-December. Charlotte Preston paid £11,000 to DMB Solutions for an extension to her home on 15 December, but no work was ever started. Even more disturbingly, it is clear that disgruntled customers of DMB Solutions were reporting serious concerns about the company to trading standards as far back as early 2016.

According to accounts filed with Companies House on 11 December, by the time the company went into liquidation on 2 January this year, it owed no less than £542,000 to HMRC in unpaid VAT. Indeed, it seems that it may have been trading unlawfully for a considerable time before its collapse. One member of the Facebook victim support group, Andrew Painton, first raised concerns with trading standards that DMB Solutions was trading fraudulently, rather than just incompetently, in March 2017, and has done so many times since then. In January this year, Andrew told me:

“To say that the performance of Trading Standards has been lamentable would, in my view, be over praising them. They could have done so much more to protect the customers who became victims of this company during the latter nine months of 2017.”

He continued:

“In the Autumn of 2017, a fellow member of the Facebook victim support group submitted a Freedom of Information request to Trading Standards, and this revealed the escalating number of complaints in recent years about DMB Solutions. This did galvanise Trading Standards into action…but it was too little too late.”

I recognise, of course, that Ministers are not responsible for the collapse of private sector businesses, but I hope that the Minister will be able to help this evening by providing clarity about what my constituents can do. Specifically, they want to know how to try to obtain financial recompense and how to ensure that the directors of DMB Solutions cannot simply walk away from their debts—both to their unfortunate customers and to the taxpayer—and start all over again by forming a new company. I can find no adequate Government guidance on either of those points. If there is no comfort under existing legal frameworks, perhaps the Minister can point me to the changes that would be required to company law, or any other laws, that would allow my constituents to be recompensed for their suffering.

Since December, the local trading standards office has been collecting evidence from those affected by the collapse of DMB Solutions. It has also advised them to make a complaint to the Action Fraud line, which reports to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau, based in the City of London police service. Trading standards in Brighton also says that it plans to submit a report to the economic crime unit of Sussex police. However, the Action Fraud line appears to focus on cyber-crime, rather than incompetently run or even unlawfully run building companies, and the House of Commons Library has been emphatic in advising me that there is nothing that trading standards will now be able to do for those of my constituents who have lost out as a result of the collapse of DMB Solutions. The Library tells me that the appropriate body, at least in terms of seeking to get the directors of DMB Solutions disqualified from acting as company directors in future—something my constituents are understandably keen to see happen—is the Insolvency Service.

My office has consulted a local lawyer specialising in consumer rights, who similarly suggested that the Insolvency Service, not trading standards, is the appropriate body for my constituents to complain to about DMB Solutions. However, the Insolvency Service phone line no longer exists, and its website has a small amount of hard-to-find information on it, stating that it can carry out a confidential investigation or pass complaints on to another public body if they are serious enough, and that if it finds anything wrong and has enough evidence it might ask a court to close a company down or disqualify the company’s directors. It might also carry out a criminal investigation if it finds the company has committed an offence.

However, Andrew Painton of the Facebook victim support group tells me that he has twice complained to the Insolvency Service about DMB Solutions, but on each occasion received only a standard response saying that the service was not considering an investigation against the company. Moreover, the Insolvency Service advises that if a company has already gone into administration, into receivership or is being liquidated, complaints need to be directed to the official receiver or insolvency practitioner. I have emailed them myself, but to date have not had a response.

Trading standards—which appears to have done nothing when it had the chance to do so—is now acting as if it is responsible. It is doing so in concert with Action Fraud and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau, which does not appear to me to have any obvious role in such a situation. My constituents are confused and they need clarity about who is responsible for ensuring enforcement of the law against the directors of DMB Solutions. In short, it is all about as clear as mud.

While I do not, of course, expect the Minister to accept any responsibility for the collapse of DMB Solutions, I do hope he will be able to set out, clearly and authoritatively, which public body or bodies are now responsible for gathering evidence from my constituents and considering what action needs to be taken against the directors of the company. I would also like to know whether the Minister agrees that the Department should do more to ensure that members of the public have access to reliable, accurate information when such problems arise. People need to know which body to turn to, and what they can expect that body to do, first, when they experience such shockingly poor service by a private sector business—as numerous customers of DMB Solutions clearly did for at least a year before the company collapsed—and, secondly, when, as in this case, a business goes into liquidation and the directors apparently disappear.

More particularly, on behalf of my constituents, I would like the Minister to answer the following questions. If the Insolvency Service is responsible, is it good enough to have a few sparse paragraphs of so-called guidance for members of the public hidden away on a corner of its website? I do not think it is. Could there not be a single, well signposted and advertised point of contact—a one-stop shop—for members of the public who fall victim to the poor business practices and eventual collapse of a limited company like DMB Solutions? Is there perhaps a role for the Citizens Advice consumer helpline here? Currently, the helpline appears to refer only to trading standards, but what if trading standards is not the appropriate enforcement body, as we have been told it is not in this case? Could the appropriate enforcement body, whichever it is, be facilitated and resourced to take a more proactive approach to ensuring that, in such a situation, directors of a failed company are disqualified from acting as directors in future if there are grounds for such disqualification?

I appreciate that there are a number of questions, but I greatly look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, not least because many families and individuals in my constituency are depending on it.

NHS Provision (Brighton and Hove)

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jim Shannon

Monday 24th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention—someone who knows a great deal about these issues. I absolutely agree. Once the service has been outsourced, the ability to do a convenient U-turn is taken away. That is failing patients in Brighton and Hove.

The Department has said that allegations of ambulances operating illegally warrant investigation by the CQC. I have written to the Department of Health to demand that that happens and I have written to the CQC as well. Will the Minister go further tonight than admitting the severity of the problem, and let us know what he thinks he can do about it? Specifically, will he provide assurances that the Department of Health is no longer content to leave patient safety in the hands of private companies such as Coperforma, and that it intends to step in, bring the service back in-house and at the very least check that the sub-contractors’ contracts meet the requirements?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On the privatisation of the ambulance service, were there health and safety criteria that the contractor had to meet, in the same way as the NHS does? Were there ever occasions when the contractor’s work fell below the required level of service?

[Caroline Lucas]

That is a good question. When I have asked the CCG that very question, the answer has not been clear. I have been told that the performance of the company was not such that the contract was breached, but one of the difficulties is that so much of the contract is not in the public domain. For example, if the CCG wants to see the sub-contracts between Coperforma and the various companies to which it is subcontracting, the CCG does not have access to those contracts so it cannot assure us what is in them. We have a very opaque system that makes it extremely difficult to say where accountability lies. That is why I say that this is a failed model.

I said earlier that the Coperforma example goes some way to illustrating some of the underlying causes of the NHS crisis that we are experiencing. Trying to get to the bottom of the contracts, sub-contracts and who is responsible for which bit of what is like grappling with a Gordian knot. The CCG admits that one of the biggest challenges is identifying responsibility when things go wrong. When, for example, people providing the service are not being paid, it is not clear where responsibility lies. Was it with Coperforma or with the sub-contracting companies?

That lack of transparency is deeply concerning. It is also a serious example of the problems and risks associated with this outsourcing of so many of our key NHS services.

As we know, the driving force behind all this is commercialisation—commercialisation made worse by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which has not only exposed patients to unacceptable risks but engendered structures and terms and conditions that appear to protect profit-led companies at all costs. I do not think that is the NHS the public want or deserve; it is not even an NHS that is effective. The model is failing. Contracts such as the one with Coperforma do not work and need to be brought back in-house. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who has done very good work on this issue, on which I think there is cross-party agreement. He has rightly asserted that, in this instance, private contracting has not worked and the local ambulance service would be better operated within the NHS family.

I would go further still, because it is not just our patient transport services that are in trouble. Coperforma is, as I say, just one example of the fragmentation and marketisation damaging the NHS. Fragmentation matters because the healthcare picture is made up of parts that ought to be interconnected, yet it is hard at the moment for one part to influence the other. For example, ambulance handover times at the Royal Sussex County hospital have apparently risen 16% this year, but that is largely because of the ongoing flow issue caused by a lack of places to discharge people to. The whole system gets blocked when there is no overview. A&E, especially in winter, is all too often the pinch point for failures elsewhere, most notably insufficient capacity in local community social care.

However, fragmentation is an inevitable part of a system that is designed to give private providers as many opportunities as possible to compete for services through a continuous cycle of bidding and contracting out, despite that being hugely inefficient and counterproductive. There are local fears that Brighton and Hove’s children and young people’s community nursing might be taken over by a private company such as Virgin Care. Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust has preferred bidder status to continue delivering children’s services, but the city council is still forced to undertake a procurement process in the name of market competition. I would argue that that process is a waste of time, effort and money, and increases the risk of a private company stepping in and undercutting a highly valued, effective provider such as Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust—a risk that is exacerbated by the Government’s mind-bogglingly short-sighted decision to cut public health spending by 3.9% each year until 2021. That equates to £1 million less for our city over the same three years, and it has resulted in some important services being decommissioned. Those include the Family Nurse Partnership, which provides regular visits for teenage mums during pregnancy and until their babies are two years old. That makes no sense, but it is what happens when we do not have a coherent, publicly planned and publicly provided NHS or a model that puts health needs before private profit—one that is based on co-operation, not competition.

That is the model that has been set out in the NHS reinstatement Bill, of which I am a sponsor. I tried to bring it to the House in the last legislative term as a private Member’s Bill, and it is currently before the House in the name of the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood). That is the kind of NHS I think my constituents want, and it has to go hand in hand, crucially, with adequate levels of funding. According to the King’s Fund chief economist, the annual average real increase in UK NHS spending over the last Parliament was 0.84%. That is the smallest increase in spending for any political party’s period in office since the second world war.

From local ambulance drivers caught up in the Coperforma debacle to junior doctors, NHS staff are universally respected—except, it seems, by this Government. Our nurses should not have to fight for a measly 1% pay rise after years of pay freezes. That does not only have consequences for the individuals involved. Healthwatch Brighton and Hove points out that staff retention is a specific problem in the city, with poor morale and high housing costs as contributory factors. I am particularly worried about the impact of the EU referendum on NHS staffing.

Brighton and Hove is set to benefit hugely from a major new county hospital redevelopment thanks to capital investment secured as a result of a long-standing cross-party campaign, and I am grateful for that. However, I would like to extend the logic of public provision to the services that will be based in the new hospital. In the meantime, as Ministers know well, the big issue is running costs, with the NHS funding settlement during the last Parliament the most austere in its history—that is according to the House of Commons Library.

UNHCR: Admission Pathways for Syrian Refugees

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is shameful that a country with such a huge amount of resources locally is not taking its fair share of refugees. Elsewhere, in comparison, Jordan is hosting more than 600,000 Syrians, while Iraq and Egypt are supporting 245,000 and 118,000 refugees from the conflict respectively.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I have had the opportunity in the last few months to go to Jordan, which has an interesting system of integrating people. They are not in refugee camps; they are integrated into society. Jordan should be an example to the rest of the world of how to look after refugees.

[Caroline Lucas]

That sounds like an interesting model. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for interjecting that into the debate, and I would be interested to look at it in more detail.

The point is that, despite the continuing hospitality of those countries and the considerable financial support that has been provided by other countries—and, to be fair, that does include the UK—as the conflict has escalated and the number of people fleeing has increased, the living conditions for refugees have come under ever more pressure. As a result, as we know, some Syrians are seeking safety in Europe. About half of the 1.1 million people who put their lives in the hands of smugglers attempting to cross the Mediterranean last year were Syrian.

The high-level meeting on 30 March has been arranged at the request of Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the UN, with the aim of securing pledges from countries around the world to create so-called pathways for admission—safe and legal routes—for Syrian refugees. The creation of those safe and legal routes for refugees to reach safety is a vital part of the response to the Syrian crisis. It is precisely the lack of such routes that forces refugees to risk their lives trying to reach Europe and that creates the demand for the unscrupulous people smugglers.

I believe that the answer categorically does not lie in attempts to contain the crisis in those countries that are already providing some kind of refuge to refugees, the vast majority of whom are Syrians. Yet, sadly, I would say that that is exactly what is being attempted through the proposed EU-Turkey deal. The apparent one in, one out element of that deal has been described by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles as being

“as Kafkaesque as it is legally and morally wrong”.

I agree with that assessment.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I want to say a few words about the contributions from the hon. Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), and I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) because he made such an eloquent case. In a way, we should be oddly grateful for the contributions from the hon. Members for North East Somerset and for Dover, because they showed the nasty agenda behind this Bill. There is a real risk that someone might be taken in by the sanitised version that we hear from the Minister, who tells us that there is nothing to worry about. However, when we hear the kinds of ideas that those hon. Gentlemen have about the activities of charities and other organisations, we are right to be worried about the Bill.

I want to challenge the overall presumption of what amendment 101 is about. I disagree with the essential premise that just because someone receives public funds, they should be neutered for a whole year in what they can say. I worked for a development organisation for 10 years, and we did a lot of advocacy on trade, aid and debt. Our advocacy was based on our experience in the field, working alongside people living in poverty. Yes, we received Government money towards that programme in the field, but if that were somehow to mean that we were not able to speak out about what we saw and the conclusions of our experience, that would be a travesty of the public debate for which this country used to be famous.

I am deeply worried. The hon. Gentlemen confuse engaging in public debate during an election period, which amendment 101 states is a whole year, with electioneering. There is a big difference between the two. The idea that we cannot tell the difference is foolish, and in any case, laws govern involvement in electioneering, so we do not need the amendment.

I shall spend just two minutes on the clause 27 stand part debate, so the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) can make a speech. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). Again and again, Opposition Members and some Government Members have challenged the Government and asked, “What problem are you trying to fix?” but we never hear an answer. The hon. Member for Dover eventually came up with one charity but, I must say, gave no evidence—he cited Shelter with no evidence. We cannot make policy on the basis of prejudice, which the hon. Gentleman appears to want to do. We should make policy on the basis of evidence, which is what I sought to do in a previous amendment.

If we get rid of clause 27, we can start again and think about what we want the Bill to do. I do not think we want the Bill to shut down legitimate public and policy debate and engagement in such debates from the wider public. Other people would not expect hon. Members to do that, which is why I join the hon. Member for Nottingham North in saying that we need to get rid of clause 27.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for giving me the last few minutes in the debate. I concur with the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen)—he described exactly my feelings.

Charities and the Christian organisations tell me that the Bill will reduce the financial threshold at which a third-party campaigner must register with the Electoral Commission. Under the newly broadened range of activities, if a third party plans to spend £2,000 or more in the year leading up to the general election, it must register with the Electoral Commission. The Christian Institute and the Royal British Legion are concerned about that—the hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of charities that have the same concerns.

That is a unique problem for charities, many of which hold events at the Long Gallery in Stormont in the Northern Ireland Assembly for, for example, children in care, cancer awareness-raising or women’s rights, to name three of dozens of important issues. The events are costly to hold—it is highly possible that a charity will spend £2,000 or more in the year before an election without purposely seeking to enhance one candidate over the other. The charities set out to achieve a goal, but the Bill will disadvantage them greatly. I do not believe that the Government have acknowledged or understood the key issues Opposition Members have described.

Registering with the Electoral Commission at the low threshold will create disproportionate administrative burdens on charities and regulatory bodies. One point that has not been made in the Chamber is that the limit will apply to partnership working. For example, if two charities work together on a single-issue campaign and spend £2,500 each, they must both report expenditure of £5,000, which is nearly half of the limit of £11,000 in Northern Ireland.

The awful part of the measure is that, significantly, it will become a criminal offence to exceed the spending limit. The charities will not only be stopped from campaigning; they will be criminalised, which must be wrong. I cannot understand how the Government can say that that is not the case.

Other hon. Members have indicated that there will be changes to the Bill in the House of Lords. Let us pray for those changes. If those changes are made before we debate the Bill again in the House, we will have got what we wanted, but it is a pity that the Government cannot acknowledge that point.

Under the Bill, there is a significant possibility that the legitimate campaigning efforts of community and voluntary organisations will be unduly curtailed, and perhaps even criminalised, which undermines the efforts of charitable organisations to advocate for the most disadvantaged in our society. It could also prevent politicians from hearing those voices. Would it not be a terrible tragedy if we the politicians did not hear the voice of the charitable organisations that want us to campaign on their behalf to make life better for our constituents?

The Bill must not unduly impact the vital work of the community and the voluntary circle. I support hon. Members who are trying to do away with clause 27. I ask the Government to realise they are heading the wrong way.

RSPCA (Prosecutions)

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the Minister for his intervention, but the evidence and experience that we have is that the CPS does not prosecute in the number of ways in which the RSPCA would. I am sorry that he disagrees, but that is our experience in the area.

Eighty per cent. of people in Great Britain feel that, where there is evidence of people hunting illegally with dogs, such people should be prosecuted. In addition, 70% support animal welfare charities bringing private prosecutions against those whom they believe to have been hunting illegally, provided there is strong evidence and if the police or CPS, for whatever reason, do not proceed. In other words, the public want the RSPCA to prosecute in cases such as that of the Heythrop hunt; to do so is justified by their charitable aims.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree—she may not, of course—that the RSPCA is in danger of being not only a charity and a campaigning organisation, but an investigatory and prosecuting body that is pursuing a militant animal rights agenda? That is a concern that we have.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is probably not surprised that I do not agree. That was an extraordinary statement. I return to the words of Richard Martin, a founder of the RSPCA, quoted at the beginning of the debate:

“If legislation to protect animals is to be effective, it must be adequately enforced.”

The evidence is available, and I have quoted from the police and other authorities that if the RSPCA did not prosecute, it would not be done.