Ukraine, Middle East, North Africa and Security
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Martin Horwood(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas
I absolutely believe that that is at the heart of the problems that we are facing. The association agreement requires Ukraine to steadily approximate its legislation to that of the EU, a process to be monitored and even enforced by the EU. It sets up a political dialogue designed explicitly to
“promote gradual convergence on foreign and security matters with the aim of Ukraine’s ever-deeper involvement in the European security area.”
That is not compatible with what my hon. Friend has just described, namely the understanding and settlement for Ukraine in the past. I believe that at a time of such heightened tension, this agreement is inflammatory and divisive.
Martin Horwood
Does the hon. Lady accept that there are neutral countries in the European Union, including Ireland, and that that does not imply any kind of military threat to Russia? Does she accept that the Budapest memorandum was actually about the giving up of nuclear weapons—it did not particularly mention any alliances—in return for the guarantee of the respecting of Ukraine’s existing borders and its independence, which Russia has clearly breached?
Caroline Lucas
There is no doubt that Russia has clearly breached that, and I absolutely condemn Russia as much as anyone else in the House, but I also think that the EU has been particularly provocative in the actions that it has taken and in the language in the association agreement. In my view, to suggest that Ukraine has a chance of joining the EU or NATO undermines the agreement that was made in the past.
In Washington, hawks in Congress are shouting about appeasement, and demanding action such as a NATO rapid reaction force to be deployed across eastern Europe to deter Moscow. Meanwhile, Britain is planning to send troops to Ukraine for exercises. I seriously question whether those actions will have the desired effect. The best instrument for co-operation and peace must be the UN Security Council. By definition, that must include Russian involvement, and must take account of Russia's interests and fears in its own backyard. I share the view that we should declare that Ukrainian membership of either the EU or NATO is not on the cards, and never will be. That might help to calm the situation, and it would be no more than a recognition of geopolitical reality. At the same time, Russia must stop seeing the world in zero-sum terms, and must stop seeing Ukraine as an extension of Russia.
There are many reasons why it is in Europe’s best interests to re-engage with Russia, and not the least of those is the rise of the vicious and barbaric terrorism in the middle east. That is why I believe that we should be very concerned about what is happening in the context of the rise of ISIL. On Monday, the Prime Minister rightly said:
“Britain is clear that we need to oppose not only violent extremists, but the extremist narrative.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 660.]
If we are to halt the influence of ISIL’s vile narrative, we would do well to try to better understand it, and to understand why it appeals to some disenchanted and marginalised young men. Professor Paul Rogers of Bradford university’s peace studies department, who is a specialist in international security and politics, points out that ISIL and others like it make effective use of western foreign policy to advance their warped message of a western expansionist “far enemy” intent on destroying Islam. ISIL does not care about consistency, justice, human rights or international law, but it has been very adept at exploiting any double standards on our part—such as the illegal invasion of Iraq, and such as continuing support for the Israeli Government despite ongoing breaches of international law, repeated horrific and disproportionate attacks on Gaza, and, now, the biggest land grab in the occupied territories for 30 years.
Double standards are wrong in themselves, but the fact they are exploited by ISIL is another reason, if it were needed, to ensure that we have a foreign policy with—dare I say—an ethical dimension. I do not believe that there is a “quick fix” military response that will defeat the likes of ISIL. Its ideology and influence need to be undermined, and airstrikes will do the opposite. That is precisely why ISIL is goading us to invade with its terrible, barbaric beheadings. That analysis is backed up by Richard Barrett, the former head of counter-terrorism at MI6, who warns that western military action would precisely play into IS hands and would, in a sense, be a recruiting sergeant for it. Airstrikes are sometimes promoted as some kind of intervention-light, whereas we know there is really no such thing—that precision accuracy is in reality all too often not precise. As ISIL well knows, those bombs often result in civilian deaths, which would greatly assist the extremists’ long-term recruitment drive. I completely understand the desire to do something, as people are being murdered, starved and raped, but we must not make things worse.
In the short term, the Red Cross principle of impartial aid to all victims of armed conflict must now dominate as our model for humanitarian intervention, not the doctrine that we must pick one side and help it. Moreover, our diplomatic efforts must intensify, and I want to know what progress has been made on working with Turkey, given the major concerns that ISIL is selling stolen oil through the Turkish border. What pressure are we putting on the Gulf regimes like Saudi Arabia—and surely that is compromised when, as I discovered in an answer received just today to a parliamentary question, it transpires that we have more than 200 civil servants from the MOD working for the Saudi Government?
Then there is Qatar, from which funds are often channelled to extremist groups, yet this is the same Qatar to whom we also sell millions of pounds-worth of weaponry. Surely we have more leverage than just calling Qatar “unwise” as the Prime Minister did on Monday—not forgetting that Qataris own a large portion of Sainsbury’s, a chunk of the London Stock Exchange, and London’s iconic Shard. We must continue to work with Iran, too.
Then, as I have said, there is also Russia. Unless we change our stance on what is happening in Russia and Ukraine, the possibility of working with Russia to try to stem extremism in the middle east will be massively undermined.
Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Martin Horwood(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. As he rightly highlights, we have an opportunity now with the new regime in Iran and we should be responding to a more moderate leader there, yet by going ahead and giving a signal that military action is the direction in which we are heading, we absolutely undermine the authority of that new leader in Iran.
I was making the case that we should have seen the Attorney-General’s full legal opinion and that this one-and-a-half-side summary is simply unacceptable. While I am on the subject of further pieces of information that could have usefully informed this debate, I wish to refer hon. Members again to the Chilcot report—that missing report which has gone absent without leave. It is unacceptable that, yet again, many people are talking about the importance of the legacy of Iraq and we do not have that document, which would have given us the lessons to be learnt.
Martin Horwood
The hon. Lady seems to be making a reasonably powerful case against any use of military force whatsoever. Faced with one motion that does not rule it in and a Labour motion that does not rule it out, is not the logic for all those who have spoken against military action today, including those on the Labour Benches, to vote against them both?
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Gentleman’s point is, unfortunately, a very strong one—[Interruption.] He knows what I mean.
I remain to be convinced that a military attack would deter, rather than escalate, conflict in the region, which is why I agree with what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) just said. I have yet to hear what the strategy would be for Syria and the wider region in the event of an attack. I listened carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister on the radio this morning. It was put to him that Assad could well retaliate against an attack, but when he was asked what we would do in the face of such an escalation, answer came there none. I remain concerned as well about the impact of flouting international law. To intervene without the due resolution would send a message to everyone else that international law can be ignored when it is inconvenient.
As the law of the jungle takes hold, it will be increasingly difficult to condemn similar actions by others. I am increasingly convinced, therefore, that only a political and diplomatic solution will solve the war raging in Syria and by extension hold its spread beyond the region. That is why I will not support the Government’s motion and why I tabled my own amendment setting out that the case for military action had not been made. I am sorry that we will not have an opportunity to put that amendment to the vote, because it would have addressed the issue raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. Had it been accepted, we would have had a genuine choice tonight.
We need to strain every sinew to get all relevant parties around the table for peace talks. On so many levels, as others have said, this is a proxy war, which is why we need China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and many others involved as well. We also absolutely need to redouble our efforts to support refugees. We are hearing from many of the development agencies, including Oxfam, that the situation facing those refugees, both in Syria and the wider region, is appalling. More than 8 million people are now in desperate need of supplies. That is why people who say, “If we don’t have military action, it is equivalent to doing nothing”, are so misguided. There is much we can do on refugees and a political solution.
Energy Bill
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Martin Horwood
Martin Horwood
I did not say 10, I said 100, and figures as high as 165 have been discussed and contract times as long as 40 years speculated about. The Minister has been unable to reassure us about that in the debate. It is true that high prices are talked about for offshore wind, but that is an emerging and quite competitive technology that deserves support. It is not a 56-year-old technology that has already proved to have a massive record of cost and time overruns. I am happy with supporting offshore wind but unhappy with supporting nuclear.
The effect of new clause 5 and a panel of expert scrutiny would be to ensure that all technologies negotiating contracts for difference were subject to scrutiny, including offshore wind and other renewables. New clause 5 and new schedule 1 are not specifically anti-nuclear, but they are anti-unearned subsidies. The Energy and Climate Change Committee called for that in its report, and Which? addressed it in the drafting of these provisions—I am grateful for that. Such scrutiny and transparency are particularly relevant when, as the Committee pointed out, a mature technology dominated by a single large supplier means there is little competitive pressure and the strike price naturally tends to rise in such a situation—even more so, as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) pointed out, if one side has almost conceded that it needs to sign the contract at the end of the process.
Alternatives have been discussed, such as scrutiny by the National Audit Office and others, and in a parliamentary debate some months ago it was suggested that the Public Accounts Committee play a role in this kind of scrutiny. The problem with all these suggestions, however, is that they investigate after the event. As I said in my intervention on the Minister, if we are talking about a contract of 20 or 30 years, it is practically useless to investigate whether it is good value after the event because we are locked into it for a whole generation. Right now, negotiations are under way with EDF for this contract.
New clause 5 and new schedule 1 would establish an independent expert panel, which would differ from the expert panel that the Government have already established. As the affordable energy campaign by Which? pointed out:
“A panel of technical experts has been established by the Government to scrutinise the evidence National Grid presents for the setting of CfD strike prices. However this panel does not have a sufficiently broad role. For example, it does not have value for money as part of its remit. The panel must have a clearly defined oversight role set out in the Bill”.
If the Government support the concept of an expert panel, why on earth can they not put it in the Bill, as defined in new clause 5 and new schedule 1? I would have thought they would have absolutely nothing to fear from that.
New clause 5 and new schedule 1 are in the same spirit as amendment 162, although I do not buy everything the hon. Member for Daventry said in support of his proposals. However, energy bills are a major cause for concern among consumers—all hon. Members know that. Whether we are proposing renewables or nuclear, a strong case needs to be made, and transparency and accountability need to be at the forefront. Consumers need a good deal as well as a green deal. The Bill does not guarantee to deliver that, which is why I shall press new clause 5 to a Division.
Caroline Lucas
I rise to speak to my proposals and give notice that I will press amendment 24 to a Division.
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who made a compelling case, demonstrating that, even if the word “subsidy” does not appear in the document, we are talking about a public subsidy for nuclear, which goes against the coalition agreement. The bulk of my proposals on new nuclear simply seek to return us to the coalition agreement, which said that new nuclear should receive no public subsidy. Many people are hugely disappointed that Ministers are ditching their commitment so shamelessly.
A Government who genuinely want to tackle high electricity bills would not sign taxpayers and bill payers up to a 35 or 40-year contract—we do not know how long the contract will be for, but that is the ballpark figure out there. The contract would also involve paying around twice the current market price for power. As has been said, that money will line the coffers of French nuclear corporations.
If we were serious about tackling fuel poverty, we would not be going down that route, yet that is precisely what the complex mechanisms for providing financial support for nuclear in the Bill do. We should add the liability cap, underwriting, and indirect subsidies such as for decommissioning and for the unsolved waste problem. Essentially, we are writing a blank cheque for an expensive, inflexible old technology that we cannot afford and simply do not need.
A Government who were serious about tackling fuel poverty and high energy costs would instead pursue more effective ways of meeting our energy needs and decarbonising our power sector, namely through renewable energy, energy efficiency, demand reduction, and demand-side measures such as energy storage, genuinely smart grids and interconnectors.
The UK has the potential to be a massive industrial leader in renewables and efficiency—solutions that could deliver huge cost reductions and a substantial boost to the UK economic recovery, manufacturing and jobs, yet the Bill goes in the opposite direction. Moreover, the secrecy of the Department of Energy and Climate Change negotiations with EDF further undermines confidence in the credibility of the Government’s claims that the deal represents value for money for consumers.
Even if hon. Members are happy for the coalition to break its promise of no public subsidy for nuclear, one would hope that they had some interest in the Minister’s claim that any deal reached would be fair, affordable and value for money. Nuclear costs more than the alternatives and does not represent value for money. We have the opportunity to test that via the expert panel, or by giving the National Audit Office a role in ascertaining value for money, which one of my amendments would do, but Ministers do not look favourably on those proposals.
The truth is that nuclear is a mature technology that has enjoyed nearly 60 years of support. Despite that, the price tag keeps going up. The hon. Member for Cheltenham mentioned the price of nuclear in Finland and France. We should compare that with the fact that the costs of renewables are falling across the board. Last month, Citi Investment Research and Analysis highlighted that, in many cases, renewables are at cost parity with established forms of electricity generation. Recent analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that the levelised cost of onshore wind had fallen dramatically in recent years, that the best onshore wind farms in the world currently produce power as economically as coal, gas and nuclear generators, and that the average onshore wind farm will reach grid parity by 2016.
That is the point of my first three proposals. They are not anti-nuclear; they would simply ensure that Minister’s warm words on cost-effectiveness and value for money for bill payers were kept. They would also introduce transparency to a shockingly opaque process. If nuclear power is as cost-effective as we are told, I can see no reason why hon. Members would not support my proposals to ensure it. Amendment 24, which has cross-party support, would simply ensure that payments under a CFD for nuclear electricity are not greater than payments for any form of renewable generation, in terms of price per megawatt-hour and taking into account the length of the contract provided.
Amendments 26 and 27 deal with transparency and parliamentary scrutiny of investment contracts and CFDs. They are essential if the public and the House are to have any hope of deciding for themselves whether the terms provide anywhere near value for money compared with alternatives. They would require the Secretary of State to ask the NAO and Parliament to examine whether the contracts represent value for money, in line with the motion debated in a Backbench Business Committee debate on 7 February, and a letter sent recently to the NAO by a cross-party group of MPs and academics.
Badger Cull
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Martin Horwood(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. In fact, a vaccine is a lot closer to being developed than he and others suggest, so there are alternatives to culling. Earlier in the week, the Secretary of State made much of saying that there no alternatives. The tragedy is that there are alternatives but this Government seem extremely reluctant to bring them forward.
On tackling cattle-to-cattle transmission of the disease, the ISG report states:
“Movement of cattle from infected herds in the periods between routine herd tests has long been recognised as a cause of new herd breakdowns, and it is generally accepted that most of the sporadic herd breakdowns in relatively disease-free areas of the country result from movement of infected animals.”
The evidence suggests that focusing on the role of badgers in the spread of bovine TB is a distraction and that priority should instead be given to preventing the spread of the disease between cattle. That is why the motion calls on the Government to introduce a programme of vaccination, which eminent scientist and former Government scientific adviser Lord Robert May points to as an important tool in tackling TB. He says:
“What is particularly irritating is that we have the vaccines in the pipeline, but the commitment to really go in and test them is…not there”.
DEFRA confirms that. A statement on its own website reads:
“BCG…is the most suitable cattle TB vaccine candidate in the short term. Experimental studies show that BCG vaccination reduces the progression, severity and excretion of TB in cattle…and field studies show that it can reduce transmission of disease between animals.”
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that farmers’ voices are not unanimous on this issue? I have been contacted by Gloucestershire dairy farmers who support the vaccination model being developed by the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust and, in the short term, the model of meticulous biosecurity that has been advanced successfully by Gloucestershire farmer Steve Jones, who has managed to contain bovine TB despite the fact that his farm is in the very centre of the bovine TB area.
Caroline Lucas
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He is absolutely right that farmers are not speaking with one voice on this issue. Many of them recognise that we need an effective strategy but that culling is a costly distraction from achieving that.
Rio+20 Summit
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Martin Horwood(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am very grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate, and, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I too want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) for her commitment to do more and more work on the environment across the whole House.
I want to focus in particular on recommendations 1 and 9 of the EAC report and the Government’s response to them. Recommendation 1 rightly observes that
“there has been inadequate progress on sustainable development since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.”
Sadly, I think that that is something of a grave understatement. Although there has certainly been some progress, it has been very slow and incremental, whereas the science demands an urgent paradigm shift. No wonder our report states:
“There is still far to travel. Some ‘planetary boundaries’ having been breached, and others approaching, make the task more urgent than ever.”
I agree very strongly with that. There is enormous urgency behind the agenda as planetary boundaries are indeed being breached. If everybody in the world lived as we do in the rich north, we would need another three planets to provide the resources and absorb the waste. I hardly need to say that we do not have three planets; we have one, and it is already looking pretty degraded.
Recommendation 9, however, claims:
“It would be unrealistic to expect the imperative for economic growth not to be high on the agenda of many countries going to Rio+20, developing and developed.”
My case is that as far as the developed countries are concerned, we need a different imperative high on our agenda. Indeed, the recommendation goes on to state:
“The Government should resist any moves there might be to use the financial situation to dilute the extent of the environmental and social aspects of the green economy discussed at Rio+20. Rather, it should emphasise…that environmental planetary boundaries will ultimately limit the room for growth.”
It is important to state in black and white that there are limits to growth. I know that that is not a popular perception or idea, but it is very clear that on a planet of finite resources with a rising population and rising expectations, infinite economic growth simply is not possible.
Martin Horwood
Does the hon. Lady agree with the economist Kenneth Boulding, who said:
“Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist”?
Caroline Lucas
I will forgive the hon. Gentleman for taking one of my best lines, but I think that that is a very important point. I am glad to see that our sources are moving in the same direction.
The source to which I want to refer is a film, “The Age of Stupid”. I do not know whether many hon. Members will have seen it, but it features Pete Postlethwaite as the sole survivor of a climate catastrophe. It is based in 2050 and he is looking back to today. He looks through all the newsreels—real, genuine newsreels with all the evidence that we have around us that climate change is happening—and he says, in words that still make the hairs on the back of my neck go up in a shiver, “Why is it, knowing what we knew then, we didn’t act when there was still time?” To me, that is just about the most important question that we could ask. Given that we have all this evidence that we must act, what is stopping us?
Part of it is to do with the fact that for too long, a shift to a green economy has been portrayed as though we were talking about shivering around a candle in a cave. It has been portrayed too often as being about hair shirts and we have assumed that if we scare the life out of people sufficiently with the terrible stories of what will happen—and it will happen if we do not get off the collision course with climate change—that, on its own, will be enough to motivate people to change their behaviour. Yet, as we have seen, the evidence shows that that is not what will motivate behaviour change.
Such change would be motivated by our painting a much better picture—a much greener, more compelling vision—of what a zero-carbon economy would look like and by our making the point that it is about a better quality of life. We should also make the point that the current economic model is not even working on its own terms, and we need look no further than the financial crash to see that. Not only that—it is not actually making those of us in the rich countries any happier beyond a certain point. There is a lot of evidence that once basic needs are met, beyond a certain point more and more economic growth does not make us happier. The stress on turbo-consumerism is not increasing our well-being. I could not put it better than Professor Tim Jackson, a professor at the university of Surrey who wrote the wonderful report, “Prosperity without growth?” He has said that we
“spend money we don’t have on things we don’t need to create impressions that won’t last on people we don’t care about.”
To me, that sums up more or less what we are doing wrong.
We need real change. We need to recognise that the economy is a subset of the wider ecology and the environment—not the other way around. We need to recognise that, although technology and efficiency have their parts to play, they are not going to get us there on their own. In a planet with a rising population and rising expectations, to think that efficiency gains and technology alone will get us off the collision course we are on is to be in fantasy land. We need behaviour change as well and more education on population growth—an issue that no one has put on the table yet this evening. Population is a controversial issue but it has to be part of our discussions about a sustainable future. I am talking not about anything coercive, but about education and the provision of family planning for those women who still need and want it in developing countries. I am talking about recognising that the impact of different populations is different in different places. The impact of our fewer numbers in the north is far greater than that of higher numbers in the south, but population still has to be part of the discussion.
Social justice also has to be part of the discussion. The aim of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs does not apply only to the rich or those in the global north—it has to apply to every citizen. Under current trends, it looks as though there will be 9 billion people by 2050, and the real challenge we face if we are serious about a green economy is how future populations will be able to consume equally on a per capita basis and still remain within resource constraints. I suggest that that could only be feasible if we in the rich north significantly reduced our consumption patterns and our impact on the planet.
We have started to make some policies based on recognising the need for constraint, starting with the Climate Change Act 2008. I believe, and the science suggests, that we in the developed countries need to be reducing our emissions by something like 90% by 2030, so I do not agree with the targets in that Act, but the architecture in it is incredibly important. The Government could do much worse than to mark the 20th anniversary of the Rio summit by amending the Act, first, to set targets that are in line with the science and, secondly, to include traded or embedded carbon. For too long it has been too easy to outsource our responsibility for much of the carbon that is produced in order to make the products that we consume. The fact that the production happily happens over in China, with the impact going on to its balance sheet rather than on to ours, seems grossly unfair to me. If we are importing products from other countries, the carbon that is embedded in those products should be part of our calculations and audits.
There are also biodiversity constraints. Our consumption of resources has a knock-on effect for habitats, so that needs to be strictly regulated to prevent further loss of biodiversity and, where possible, to reverse the losses that have already happened.
Other hon. Members have talked about our current fixation with economic growth, which means that we over-emphasise the measure of that growth—gross domestic product—to the detriment of other measures of success. Really, our policy on growth is no more or less than a policy to increase GDP by a certain percentage each year, but as others have said, GDP measures do not differentiate the social value of different forms of economic activity or revenue and capital. A Government who use up their capital—the country’s natural resources—and treat it as national income, can boast of having delivered growth and increased GDP. We have seen that on a vast scale with the billions of pounds-worth of oil and gas from the North sea that has been treated as revenue with no thought to the fact that that income is a one-off boost to the economy. For 30 years it has made the UK economy look much healthier than it actually has been, and instead of the proceeds being invested wisely in the future—for example, on renewable energy facilities that we can use when the oil and gas run out—it has been used to fund consumer booms that have led to the inevitable busts.
Perhaps worst of all, the use of GDP as a measure does not count the full costs of production, such as the impact on our natural world and on people’s quality of life. DEFRA’s natural environment White Paper suggests that we can produce metrics of natural environmental value for transactions, but we need to be clear that simply saying that the natural environment has a value is not, in itself, sufficient to ensure that it is internalised in decision-making processes. I would also argue, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) was in some senses, that it is impossible to put a value on some resources. What value do we put on a liveable atmosphere? That is a public good, not a private good. Relying on the markets to offer protection is therefore insufficient. We need regulation as well.
Businesses need to be hugely involved in the project, and in some respects are far more advanced in their thinking on this agenda than Ministers. We could learn from some of the businesses that are already beginning to think about what it would mean for them to live in a steady state economy, rather than one that was based on more and more production and consumption. As others have said, it is incredibly important that we send a very clear message about the importance of the Rio Earth summit, and we would do that by ensuring that our own Secretary of State is there, but I join other hon. Members who have said strongly that the Prime Minister also needs to be there to send a strong message that this matters, that this is urgent. The time that we have in this Parliament—the next three or four years—will be critical as to whether we invest properly in getting off the collision course that we are on with the climate crisis. It falls on our generation to do that. It is a huge responsibility, but it is also an awesome opportunity.
Energy Efficiency
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Martin Horwood(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his statement. He was absolutely right to highlight our collective failure to address energy efficiency adequately, but he seems so keen to do something about it that I could almost mistake him for a Lib Dem—[Interruption.] Not quite, perhaps. On the green deal, the ministerial team has imaginatively built on proposals. Obviously, I shall claim that the Lib Dems were the very first to produce such a scheme, but the Conservatives did, too, and towards the end the Labour Government were—[Interruption.] We will check whether the Green party was ahead of the Lib Dems.
Martin Horwood
Not on that one; I am sorry.
All the parties, and even the Labour Government in the end, were working on variations on that scheme, but the one that the ministerial team has come up with is truly imaginative, and its unique financing raises the ambition for energy efficiency in this country in a way that, if successful, will represent a step change in energy efficiency. As the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) pointed out, it is not guaranteed to be successful, and we do not know exactly how many people will take it up. The point, however, is to wish it well and for all Members to promote it, support private companies, communicate the scheme’s success and hope that it achieves the step change that we are looking for. I congratulate the ministerial team on coming up with that proposal.