Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Nigel Evans

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Commons Chamber

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

It is hard to know what more can be said about this farcical and unnecessary Bill. It feels as if we are running out of adjectives. Taking part in this debate, listening to the ridiculous heckles from the Government Front Bench, almost legitimises this desperate and dangerous attempt to create yet another culture war out of something as serious as the climate emergency, but I put on record my deep disappointment that the Government are playing such dangerous games.

Ever since the Climate Change Act 2008 was first introduced, there has more or less been a consensus of a kind, with a recognition on both sides of the House that the climate crisis was real and that we needed to act fast to address it. Of course, there were differences on some of the detail, but not on that substantial issue. Now, however, it feels as if we have a Government who are putting all that at risk and that the legislation is all of a piece with Ministers rolling back pledges on home insulation, the boiler replacement scheme, electric vehicles and so on—the ludicrous list we had from the Prime Minister about all sorts of things he was going to scrap that were never Government policy in the first place.

I will add one further argument to those we have heard over the past few hours: projects such as Rosebank will not enhance our security, not just because the oil is mainly exported, but because public opposition to such projects and their unlawfulness mean that developments are subject to lengthy legal battles. That is a very real risk. Would it therefore not be better to accelerate the roll-out of cleaner energy, which is much more popular with the public, and not give, in this case, Rosebank’s owner Equinor nearly £3 billion in tax breaks? Lawfulness is particularly topical today, with a law case going on right now about whether the Government are meeting their climate objectives and whether the reports they have produced contain enough policy detail to persuade the population that we are on track to meet our climate targets. That also demonstrates, frankly, that the boosterism we have heard from the Minister is entirely misplaced. Complacency does not address the climate crisis or the fact that while the UK once had a leadership position on climate, it has one no longer.

When I listen to some of the voices on the Conservative Benches, I sometimes feel as if this place is on another planet from the one that is overheating. It is undeniable that we are living through what many are calling the sixth mass extinction. We are living through a risk of earth’s systems collapse. Scientists are running out of words to describe the seriousness and to try to wake up policymakers to exactly what is at stake. We have just heard that there is a risk of a total loss of late summer sea ice in the Arctic. That is now baked in and could happen as early as the 2030s. That, in turn, is likely to trigger even more extreme weather events in the northern hemisphere, through the weakening of the jet stream. In the Antarctic, melting of the sea ice has accelerated dramatically, which could lead to cascading collapses of the fresh water ice shelves, with catastrophic results for rises in global sea levels. New research in the Amazon has found what scientists call precursor signals of an approaching critical transition. Deforestation and climate breakdown could now cut off circulating rainfall in the basin, triggering a rapid flip from rainforest to savannah. This is what we are talking about here. Future generations will look back to this time—they may even look back, who knows, to this debate—and wonder what on earth we were thinking by giving a green light to more oil and gas licences.

When we ask ourselves why that is happening, we might also reflect on the role of the fossil fuel lobbyists. A few weeks ago, when I held an Adjournment debate on the subject of the fossil fuel lobbying that goes on in this place, I noted that Offshore Energies UK and its members, including BP and Shell, had

“met UK Government Ministers more than 210 times in the year following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—that is nearly once every working day.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 833.]

The combined profits of Shell and BP alone have reached £75 billion, and I would suggest that that is not unrelated to the direction of the Government’s discussion today.

Let me end by quoting from a letter from more than 700 UK scientists who wrote to the Prime Minister last year urging him to halt the licensing of new oil and gas. They included Chris Rapley, a former head of the Science Museum and a professor at University College London, and Mark Maslin, a world-famous professor of earth system science at UCL, and they all warned against any new development of oil and gas. They wrote:

“if the UK allows any new development of oil and gas fields, it will severely undermine…claims of leadership by contributing to further oversupply of fossil fuels, and making it more difficult for the world to limit warming to 1.5°C. Therefore, the UK should commit to preventing any new oil and gas field development, and the Government should state this commitment clearly… There are those who might claim that stopping new developments of oil and gas fields would raise concerns about the affordability and security of future energy supplies, but there is now overwhelming evidence that the UK is far better served by a rapid transition to domestic clean energy sources, particularly renewables, and decarbonisation of our economy. Doubling down on fossil fuels will not lower energy bills or enhance our energy security… The IPCC report stated: ‘The choices and actions implemented in this decade’”—

now, at a time when we are all in decision-making positions—

“will have impacts now and for thousands of years’.”

The moment for political leadership is here and now, and I beg Ministers to rise to the occasion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There are about 18 minutes left. I call Wera Hobhouse.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Caroline Lucas, you have one minute.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Lords amendment 42B is a critical amendment to rein in what is quite simply an Executive power grab, with the Bill handing Ministers enormous powers to review legislation with little to no scrutiny and replace it with provisions that they consider to be “appropriate”. I think we can all agree that that word is open to wildly different interpretations.

Government Members should remember that the Bill will give powers not just to this Government but to any future Government, which they may not agree with. Indeed, a legal opinion on the likely constitutional, legal and practical effects of the Bill found that Ministers would be given

“largely unfettered…discretion for…substantive policy changes.”

Lords amendment 42B really matters.

Lords amendment 15B is about ensuring that we have safeguards for environmental protections. If the Government really are serious about saying that they want to protect the environment, why would they not put that into statute and on the face of the Bill?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Minister, I will interrupt you at 4.39 pm.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Nigel Evans

Report stage
Wednesday 7th December 2022 Commons Chamber

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

The Bank of England’s climate stress test, published in May, showed that banks need to take climate action immediately or face a hit to annual profits of up to 15%. This is not just about airy-fairy words about the transition, but about banks that, as we have just heard, are bankrolling the fossil fuel industry, which will bring real risks to the finance sector as well as to the rest of the world. Can the Minister say whether he will support new clause 25?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before the Minister does, I will just say that he has been speaking for three quarters of an hour now. A lot of people want to contribute to the debate.

Anonymity of Suspects Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Nigel Evans

Friday 28th October 2022 Commons Chamber

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

The hon. Gentleman invites me to respond. I simply point out that I made it clear when speaking in favour of my Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Amendment) Bill that I was talking about increasing the access from 8% of English land to 30%. I am sure that there will be plenty of space for all that wonderful nature to flourish, as it should.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Pass on.

Public Order Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Nigel Evans

Report stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I advise the House that I will be calling Anne McLaughlin to start the wind-ups no later than 4.12 pm, but she can be called earlier. The debate on Report must finish at 4.37 pm.

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

Frankly, there is so much wrong with the Bill that it is difficult to know where to start. It basically needs a line striking through the vast majority of it, and I am therefore pleased to support the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) and for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) seeking to do exactly that.

Peaceful protest is a fundamental right protected in international law, and this Bill is just the latest in a concerted attack on our rights by this dangerous and populist Government. It is a draconian rehash of measures resoundingly voted down just months ago. As I have said previously in this House, the Government are pursuing policies and legislation that are deeply dangerous in the threat they pose to our fundamental and universally acknowledged human rights. People who vote in favour of this Bill tonight need to be fully aware and honest about what they are endorsing and what is occurring on our watch.

Defending the right to peaceful protest matters, especially to me, because it is one of the time-honoured ways in which people from all walks of life have sought to protect our natural world, and it is particularly critical right now. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) spoke eloquently about the wider context of austerity and economic suffering that so many of our constituents are facing. I want to widen that context and talk about the attack, frankly, that Ministers are unleashing on policies to protect nature, from issuing new oil and gas licences and lifting the moratorium on fracking to scrapping 570 laws that make up the bedrock of environmental regulation in the UK, covering water quality, wildlife havens, clean air and much else.

Ministers may hide behind endless repetitions of their promise to halt the decline of nature by 2030, but their actions are taking us in precisely the opposite direction. Those who oppose this direction of travel must have the right to take action themselves, and they must have the right to protest. Rather than plunging more and more people into the criminal justice system, the Home Office could be doing all manner of much more useful things, including properly supporting and resourcing community policing.

We should not be giving the Government the ability to create new public order offences as and when they choose, yet that is precisely the combined effect of new clauses 7 and 8. As colleagues will know, injunctions may usually be applied for only by affected parties. New clause 7, however, allows the Secretary of State to apply for a so-called precautionary injunction against people who might go on a protest or who might carry out protest-related activities. This might occur if there is reasonable belief that particular activities are likely to cause serious disruption to key national infrastructure or access to essential goods and services.

Business without Debate

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I can notify the House that we are not expecting further consideration of any Lords messages this evening. On that basis, we can proceed with the petitions, but before that Caroline Lucas has a point of order.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At Prime Minister’s questions today, I said that 56 MPs were “under investigation” over allegations of sexual misconduct. I should like to correct the record. I realise now that I should have said that according to a report in The Sunday Times 56 MPs are facing claims. There is a difference between a complaint being investigated and an investigation of the MP in question. I wanted to make that distinction clear.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am extremely grateful for that point of order and for forward notice of it. The hon. Lady’s correction will now stand on the record and I am grateful to her for making it in such a speedy manner. I thank her very much.

Environment Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Nigel Evans

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 5—State of nature target—

‘(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to set a target to halt and begin to reverse the decline in the state of nature in England as soon as reasonably practicable and no later than 2030.

(2) The target in subsection (1) shall be known as the state of nature target.

(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that the state of nature target is met.

(4) A draft statutory instrument containing regulations that make provision for how progress toward the state of nature target will be measured must be laid before Parliament at least one month before the fifteenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

(5) Before laying before Parliament a draft of a statutory instrument under this section, the Secretary of State must obtain, publish and take into account the advice of relevant experts, including—

(a) The Environment Agency;

(b) Natural England;

(c) The Office for Environment Protection; and

(d) The Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

(6) In this section—

(a) the abundance and distribution of species;

(b) the risk of extinction; and

(c) the extent and condition of priority habitats.’

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to set and meet a target to begin to reverse the loss of biodiversity in England no later than 2030. This timetable would align with the new Convention on Biological Diversity goals that are due to be agreed in 2021.

New clause 9—Environmental objective and commitments—

‘(1) In interpreting and applying this Act, any party with duties, responsibilities, obligations or discretions under or relating to it must comply with—

(a) the environmental objective in subsection (2); and

(b) the commitments in subsection (3).

(2) The environmental objective is to achieve and maintain—

(a) a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment;

(b) an environment that supports human health and well-being for everyone; and

(c) sustainable use of resources.

(3) The commitments are—

(a) all commitments given by Her Majesty’s Government in the United Nations Leaders’ Pledge for Nature of 28 September 2020, including, but not limited to, the urgent actions committed to be taken by it over the period of ten years from the date of that pledge;

(b) any enhanced commitments given by Her Majesty’s Government pursuant to that pledge, any other pledge, and any international agreement; and

(c) all relevant domestic legislation, including, but not limited to, the Climate Change Act 2008, as amended from time to time.

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of the requirement in subsection (1), that requirement applies to—

(a) the Secretary of State in setting, amending and ensuring compliance with the environmental targets; preparing, amending and implementing environmental improvement plans; and performing all their obligations and exercising all their discretions under this Act;

(b) the Office for Environmental Protection and the Upper Tribunal in performing their respective obligations and exercising any applicable discretions; and

(c) all other persons and bodies with obligations and discretions under, or in connection with, the subject matter of this Act.’

New clause 11—Environmental targets: plastic pollution—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations set targets (“the plastics reduction targets”) in respect of the reduction of plastic pollution and to reduce the volume of non-essential single-use plastic products sold.

(2) The plastics reduction targets may, but need not, be long-term.

(3) The duty in subsection (1) is in addition to (and does not discharge) the duty in section 1(2) to set a long-term target in relation to resource efficiency and waste reduction.

(4) Section 1(4) to (9) applies to the plastics reduction targets and to regulations under this section as it applies to targets set under section 1 and to regulations under that section.

(5) In this section—

(a) the term “plastics pollution” means the introduction of plastic materials or plastic-containing products into the environment, and

(b) the term “non-essential single-use plastic products” means products intended to be used once then disposed of where their use is not essential for medical, environmental, health and safety, national security or other essential purposes as defined by the Secretary of State.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set targets to reduce plastic pollution and reduce the volume of non-essential single-use plastic products sold.

New clause 14—OEP function to consider housing targets—

‘(1) The OEP will have the power to consider appeals on housing targets set by public authorities in England.

(2) An individual affected by the targets in subsection (1) will have the right of appeal to the OEP.

(3) In determining an appeal under subsection (1) the OEP may either—

(a) reject; or

(b) reduce the housing target set by the public authority.

(4) In dealing with the appeal set out in subsection (1) the OEP must have regard to the impacts the housing targets will have on compliance with the UK’s environmental targets.’

New clause 15—Net zero carbon target as condition of planning permission—

‘(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as set out in section (2).

(2) After section 70(2), insert—

“(2A) Any grants of planning permission for residential development in England must be subject to a condition to secure that a net zero-carbon target objective during construction and ongoing occupation of the building is achieved.”’

New clause 17—Strategy for new economic goals to deliver environmental protection and societal wellbeing—

‘(1) Her Majesty’s Government must prepare a strategy for the adoption of new economic goals to deliver environmental protection and societal wellbeing.

(2) “Environmental protection” in subsection (1) means the protection of humans and the natural environment from the impacts of human activity as defined in Clause 44.

(3) The new economic goals must address—

(a) the environmental targets in this Act,

(b) the Climate Change Act 2008,

(c) the UK’s commitments under international environmental agreements, laws and treaties,

(d) the wellbeing of future generations,

(e) the overseas environmental impacts of UK consumption and economic activity, and

(f) the contribution of the UK’s consumption and production to the state of the global environment, in relation to nine planetary boundaries—

(i) Stratospheric ozone depletion,

(ii) Loss of biosphere integrity (biodiversity loss and extinctions),

(iii) Chemical pollution and the release of novel entities,

(iv) Climate change,

(v) Ocean acidification,

(vi) Freshwater consumption and the global hydrological cycle,

(vii) Land system change,

(viii) Nitrogen and phosphorus flows to the biosphere and oceans, and

(ix) Atmospheric aerosol loading.

(4) The strategy must—

(a) set out how the new economic goals will replace growth in gross domestic product as the principal measure of national economic progress,

(b) set out a vision for how the economy can be designed to serve the wellbeing of humans and protect the natural environment,

(c) include a set of indicators for each new economic goal, and

(d) set out plans for the application of new economic goals and indicators to central and local government decision-making processes including but not limited to Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation produced by HM Treasury (The Green Book).

(5) In drawing up the strategy, Her Majesty’s Government must obtain, publish and take into account the advice of—

(a) experts in the field of ecological economics,

(b) a nationally representative citizens assembly,

(c) trades unions,

(d) businesses,

(e) statutory agencies,

(f) representatives of local and regional government, and

(g) any persons the Secretary of State considers to be independent and to have relevant expertise.

(6) The strategy must be laid before Parliament within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.

(7) The Government must lay before Parliament an annual report on progress towards meeting the new economic goals and their efficacy in delivering environmental protection and societal wellbeing.

(8) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than one month after the report has been laid before Parliament, move a Motion in the House of Commons in relation to that report.’

This new clause requires the Government to prepare a strategy for the adoption of new economic goals that are designed to deliver environmental protection and societal wellbeing and to report annually on these goals.

Amendment 21, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

‘(e) Public access to and enjoyment of the natural environment.’

This amendment is designed to require the Government to set legally-binding, long-term targets to increase public access to, and enjoyment of the natural environment.

Amendment 40, page 2, line 20, at end insert—

‘(10) In setting a target, the Secretary of State must take into account any targets set by Senedd Cymru.

(11) If the UK Government seeks to spend funds from the Shared Prosperity Fund on infrastructure in Wales, an impact assessment must be carried out and published on the effect of the infrastructure project on the target set by Senedd Cymru.

(12) If the impact assessment under subsection (11) finds that the infrastructure project would have a negative effect on the achievement of the target set by Senedd Cymru, the Secretary of State must seek and receive the consent of Senedd Cymru to that infrastructure spending.’

This amendment would ensure that the consent of Senedd Cyrmu would be required before the UK Government could use the financial assistance powers in the UK Internal Market Bill to spend via the Shared Prosperity Fund on infrastructure projects in Wales which would undermine environmental targets set by Senedd Cymru.

Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) The PM2.5 air quality target must—

(a) be less than or equal to air quality guidelines established by the World Health Organization in 2005; and

(b) have an attainment deadline on or before 1 January 2030.’

This amendment is intended to set parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM2.5 target will be at least as strict as the 2005 WHO guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest.

Amendment 25, page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) The PM2.5 air quality target must—

(a) be less than or equal to 10µg/m3;

(b) follow World Health Organisation guidelines; and

(c) have an attainment deadline on or before 1 January 2030.’

This amendment is intended to set parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM2.5 target will be at least as strict as the 2005 WHO guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest.

Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 3, line 31, at end insert

‘, and

(c) interim targets are met.’

This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to meet the interim targets they set.

Government amendment 6.

Amendment 28, in clause 7, page 5, line 12, leave out “may” and insert “must”

This amendment would require the Government to include steps to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment in its Environmental Plan.

Amendment 39, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

‘(7A) If an exemption is granted under Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, which is likely to affect species covered by an environmental improvement plan—

(a) a report must be laid before Parliament within one month of the exemption decision on the likely effects of the exemption on populations of—

(i) bees,

(ii) other pollinators, and

(iii) other species,

(b) the scientific advice given to ministers relating to the exemption must be published as an addendum to the report, and

(c) a Minister of the Crown must, not later than one month after the report is laid before Parliament under paragraph (8), move a Motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.

(7B) The requirement in subsection (7A) shall apply retrospectively to exemptions granted within the last 12 months of the coming into force of this Act.’

This amendment places requirements on Ministers to allow parliamentary scrutiny of exemptions granted to allow plant protection products banned under retained EU law (such as neonicotinoid pesticides), where they are likely to impact bees and other species covered by an environmental improvement plan.

Amendment 4, in clause 16, page 10, line 15, at end insert—

‘(3A) When applying the precautionary principle, the policy statement must comply with the provisions of the regulator’s code and must include—

(a) a procedure for identifying and recording risk; and

(b) a procedure for identifying and recording the social, economic and cultural impacts of action and inaction.

(3B) The policy statement in subsection (3A) must also include instructions for taking into account all activities with an environmental impact on any area of land under consideration and a procedure for ensuring that any action taken—

(a) is proportionate to the risk posed by each activity on the land being considered; and

(b) balances short term impacts against the achievement of the land’s conservation objectives.

(3C) The precautionary principle should only apply in response to risks that are—

(a) more than hypothetical in nature; and

(b) serious and irreversible.’

This amendment sets out the definition of the precautionary principle when it is used in accordance with the provisions of this Bill.

Amendment 1, in clause 18, page 11, line 20, leave out from “benefit” to end of clause and insert—

‘(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to policy so far as relating to Wales.’

This amendment removes the proportionality limitation and the exceptions for armed forces, defence policy, tax, spending and resources from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles.

Amendment 43, page 11, line 24, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

This amendment removes the exceptions for armed forces, defence and national security policy from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles. It also removes the exceptions for tax, spending and allocation of resources.

Amendment 23, page 14, line 29, leave out Clause 24.

Government amendment 31.

Amendment 44, in clause 45, page 27, line 15, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

This amendment removes the exceptions for armed forces, defence and national security policy and the exceptions for tax, spending and allocation of resources from the definition of environmental law.

Government amendments 9 to 20.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am pleased to move new clause 1. This Bill could not be more important. It is 25 years since the last dedicated Environment Act was passed. During that time, the speed and scale of environmental destruction has increased dramatically. The UK is now one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, and Ministers simply are not rising to that challenge. According to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Government are failing to meet fully 17 out of 20 UN biodiversity targets.

Despite the Government’s aim to be

“the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it”,

this Bill has languished in Parliament for more than 200 days before Committee resumed. As a consequence, there is now a governance gap, with only interim measures in place where a fully-fledged Office for Environmental Protection should have been. Worse, we now hear that the Bill is to be delayed by at least six months, because Ministers have apparently run out of time to pass it in Parliament.

Of course we understand the pressures that covid has put on the parliamentary timetable, but the Government have had more than four years since the referendum, two years since the draft Bill was published and one year since the UK left the EU to get these plans in place. Their failure to do so is utterly incompetent. Will the Minister give us a precise date for both the next Report stage and the missing policy statement that is linked to the environmental principles? It is to those principles that I now turn, because my new clause 1 and amendment 1 are on the environmental principles, and I plan to push new clause 1 to a vote.

Ministers promised that, post Brexit, environmental standards would be not only maintained but enhanced, yet this Bill does not even come close to making up for what we have lost by leaving the EU. It sets out five important principles, including prevention, precaution and polluter pays. Under EU law, it is a requirement that those are actually applied when law making and that they cover all public bodies, not just Ministers. However, the Bill significantly weakens their legal status because they do not apply to public bodies, and there is no such duty on Ministers to act in accordance with the principles. Instead, there is only a duty to “have due regard” to a policy statement that the Government have not even bothered to published yet.

The Minister has tried to persuade us that “due regard” is at least as strong as “in accordance with”, yet her case simply does not stand up to scrutiny. In 2018, the Lords Select Committee on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 found that the duty to “have regard” to contained in that Act was

“weak, unenforceable and lacks clear meaning.”

Adding the word “due” in front of “regard” does not change that. There are plenty of examples of other legislation in which public authorities are required by statute to act in accordance with or to take actions to comply with—for example, the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 or the Planning Act 2008.

We can only conclude that, in this instance, the Government deliberately intend to weaken these provisions and, as a consequence, to drive a coach and horses through fundamental EU protections. New clause 1 would extend the duty to all public authorities and broaden the scope of the principles. Crucially, it would strengthen the duty from “have due regard” to “act in accordance with”, and it would apply directly to the principles, rather than a non-existent policy statement.

Amendment 1 addresses further absurdities in the Bill—in this case, the exclusion of the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury, and indeed anyone spending resources within Government, from having to consider the principles at all. That really is ludicrous. My amendment therefore removes the proportionality limitation from the environmental principles, as well as the exclusions for the MOD and the Treasury.

New clause 17 is vital because it recognises that even if we do succeed in strengthening this Bill, efforts to protect and restore nature will ultimately fail unless we also address the underlying economic drivers of biodiversity and ecosystem destruction. The new clause therefore requires the Government to prepare a strategy for the adoption of new economic goals so that social and environmental gains sit at the heart of the Government’s economic plans and measurements. If we stick with the current economic rulebook, we will continue to see the hard work of DEFRA undermined by the overriding short-term economic priorities of the Treasury, and above all the pursuit of infinite GDP growth on a planet of finite resources. For decades, we have seen Ministers commit to environmental goals and targets only for those goals to be missed time and again. Nature’s dangerous decline continues apace, at a high cost to current and future generations. This time we need to do things differently. Some major business voices are also urging Government to do the same. Consider this from the Business for Nature coalition, which says:

“Governments, companies and financial organizations would take better decisions if they used information ‘beyond short-term profit and GDP’ that includes impacts and dependencies on nature, as well as synergies and trade-offs informed by science and planetary boundaries.”

New clause 17 is all about better, more consistent decision making across Government so that the environmental ambition in this Bill is not undermined by conflicting goals of other, more powerful Departments. While I will not be pressing it to a vote, I do hope that the Minister will commit to taking this forward with the urgency it requires.

Turning to amendment 21, green space has become more important than ever over the past 10 months, yet access to nature is far from equal. My amendment seeks to address that. Some 2.6 million people in the UK have no publicly accessible green space within walking distance, and one in eight British households has no access to a garden—an inequality that disproportionately affects those in black and minority ethnic communities. Currently the Bill states:

The Secretary of State may…set long-term targets”

on

“people’s enjoyment of the natural environment.”

However, because this is not a priority area, it risks being overlooked, with funding and resources being diverted elsewhere. My amendment remedies this omission by promoting access to and enjoyment of nature as a priority area for long-term targets. This change not only has the potential to equalise access to nature but would also come with wider benefits to physical and mental health.

Finally, I would like to indicate support for a number of other amendments, including amendment 23 on the Office for Environmental Protection. When it comes to enforcement, the OEP is being presented as a new, independent watchdog. In reality, it is more like a ministerial lapdog kept on a tight leash, with Ministers given the power to steer it by offering so-called guidance that the OEP is bound to consider. Since Ministers also control its budget and its board, it is entirely likely that such guidance will actually be felt, in practice, rather more as an instruction. The Minister has argued that the Government already routinely offer guidance to other non-departmental public bodies. While it is true that they do to some, they certainly do not have power to issue guidance in relation to bodies charged principally or partly with enforcing potential breaches of the law by other public bodies. That is a crucial difference. That is why I support the amendment that would delete this guidance, which was added to the Bill at a very late stage.

I also support amendments that intend to ensure that interim targets are legally binding. There are strong amendments to improve air quality, and to align our state of nature targets with those from the convention on biological diversity and with the objectives of the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill, which I introduced into Parliament last year.

This is a hugely important Bill. It is unbelievable that we are seeing, yet again, a delay to its coming forward. The Minister must now undertake that in the extra time she is going to achieve, she will strengthen the Bill to make it fit for purpose so that it comes close to some of the aspirations that she and her fellow Ministers have expressed before.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call the Minister, let me say that, as I have indicated, there is a four-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. The vast majority of contributions will be via videolink. Can I say to those who are contributing via videolink that there is a clock on the device you are using, so please keep an eye on it? There are no interventions on you, so it should be straightforward as to when you finish your contribution. If you try to exceed that time, you will be automatically cut off. For those contributing in the Chamber, the clocks will be working in the usual fashion.

Support for Self-employed and Freelance Workers

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Nigel Evans

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

If they do not have any money, they cannot save their business, can they? That seems an odd intervention to make.

The Petitions Committee urged the Government to amend the scheme to take into account periods of maternity and paternal leave to ensure fairness and equality, yet, once again, Ministers have deliberately looked the other way. That phrase “whatever it takes” apparently does not stretch to ending discrimination against self-employed women. Nor do they care very much about freelancers, especially those on short-term PAYE contracts, as is now common practice because of HMRC requirements. They are caught between a rock and a hard place: denied access to the job retention scheme and the chance to be furloughed, yet often not earning enough from self-employment to qualify for the self-employed scheme.

In some sectors of our economy, freelance working is especially common. In my own Brighton constituency, for example, a number of people work in the arts. Three in four jobs in the arts across the country are freelance. They are the people who make the plays, the musicals and live experiences that are a part of the fabric of British life. We do not always see what they do, but they are invaluable, yet one in three of the skills base in theatre, for example, have missed out on any Government support since March, with disabled people, people of colour and early career workers disproportionately affected. Young people are also over-represented compared with other sectors of the economy. Therefore, rather than recovery, we see a sector that is facing total collapse.

Failure adequately to support the cultural, creative and events industries has put at risk 16,000 jobs across Brighton and Hove and £1.5 billion in turnover. My inbox, like, I am sure, the inboxes of many other hon. Members, is full of emails from constituents forced to abandon long-standing careers in the arts because there is no income support for them as freelancers.

Many working in media and journalism are similarly struggling, as the National Union of Journalists has evidenced, with its members routinely treated as employees for tax purposes, yet not eligible for furlough and not afforded the same protections and rights as staff when it comes to employment law.

Another group of people hard hit is those who choose to combine self-employment with PAYE income. I have a number of constituents in that situation, often as a result of being midway through making the transition to running their own company and being wholly self-employed.

None of this is inevitable. All of it is the result of a conscious choice by the Government to abandon anywhere between 3 million and 6 million self-employed people and freelancers. As the current self-employed scheme winds down, now is the time to change tack and do the right thing by these people. The details of a more inclusive scheme have been set out by the campaign groups and by the Treasury Committee. The ForgottenLtd group published a rescue package. Backed by the Federation of Small Businesses and other business groups, it sent it to the Treasury over a month ago, and it is still waiting for a response.

I appreciate how much other people need and want to speak, so let me quickly, in my last few minutes, outline three things that can be done. First, we can retrospectively expand the self-employed scheme. Bring those people who have been excluded from it into its ambit and make it fair by retrospectively starting it from 1 March to give it parity with the furlough scheme.

Secondly, as well as looking back, we need to look forward, so the Government should immediately extend the duration to the many sectors where the self-employed are a significant part of the workforce and which will not be back to anything like normal for some time to come. Thirdly, the Government should be looking at ways of keeping pace with the changing shape of the economy, balancing public health and economic priorities with the likelihood of more local lockdowns, for example. Part of the answer to that is a basic income scheme. The self-employed and job retention schemes do not work in tandem with the welfare system and therefore do not approach anything like a proper safety net. Many people have not been able to claim universal credit. Some have received no support whatever and the consequences are devastating, so much so that ExcludedUK has been working with the Samaritans on creating a dedicated helpline called Mind the Gap for those experiencing mental health problems. There is a simple and effective way to start to put things right and a universal basic income delivered via a welfare system that lifts everybody up would be a key cornerstone of that.



In conclusion, on Tuesday the Chancellor said he had

“not hesitated to act in creative and effective ways to support jobs and employment,”—[Official Report, 15 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 160]—

and promised he would continue to do so. The self-employed and freelancers rightly want that creativity to apply to them as well. The Treasury has demonstrated time and again that it does not understand self-employment, so at the very least those of us standing up for the excluded are asking this again today: please will the Minister go back to the Treasury team and ask them to meet us so that at the very least they can understand what is at stake here? The stakes could not be higher: people’s businesses are being destroyed and their lives are being destroyed. That is not right and that is why so many Members want to speak in this debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There is a four-minute limit.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Nigel Evans

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. May I re-emphasise the time constraint?

[Caroline Lucas]

I am pleased to speak in favour of my amendments 1 to 7, and I hope to press amendment 1 to the vote. As colleagues will know, they are designed to get rid of part 2 in its entirety. That part would allow Ministers to use secret courts in a wide range of cases, for example any in which they could claim that national security was involved.

Let us look at some examples of when secret courts could be used, such as the cases of the bereaved families of soldiers bringing negligence claims against the Ministry of Defence. Debi Allbutt, whose husband was killed in a so-called friendly fire hit on his Challenger tank in Iraq, has said:

“I really don’t think people in the country realise how dangerous this new law will be for justice. I think anyone in my position deserves to know the truth about how their husband, a brave soldier fighting for his country, lost his life.”

Let us think of cases involving victims of torture or rendition in which the Government have been involved, who are seeking redress. They would also be affected, including such people as Khadija al-Saadi, who was 12 years old when she was rendered by MI6 to Gaddafi’s Libya along with her mother, three younger siblings and Gaddafi-opposing father. In a letter published by the prisoners’ human rights group Reprieve, she has said:

“I wrote to Ken Clarke when I heard about the secret courts plan, but he would not say that he would not seek to try my case in secret. I still feel this would have been unnecessary, unfair, and unworthy of the UK. I hope the inquiry will be as open and as fair as the phone hacking inquiry.

Secret courts could also be used in actions against the Government over corruption in arms deals. On Second Reading, Ministers refused to rule out the possibility of that in some cases:

“if there was embarrassment over arms sales to a particular country, where those sold arms had been used to deny the human rights of many others, against the policies and wishes of this country, and there was a desire not to make that too public”.—[Official Report, 18 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 722.]

A case of corruption in arms deals is therefore another that would not be held in open court.

Habeas corpus claims are at risk, too. Claims under the centuries-old safeguard against illegal detention, which forces the authorities either to charge or release a prisoner, are generally considered civil actions, so secret courts could mean people being imprisoned without knowing why. That was exactly what the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), said in the Public Bill Committee—that the Bill would cover habeas corpus claims. My new clause 2 would address that.

The question this evening is whether we really want to allow the Government to ensure that everything from state involvement in torture to the neglect of British soldiers could be hidden from public view. After a decade that has seen our intelligence agencies become involved in unprecedented complicity in wrongdoing, we should ask how we can prevent that from ever happening again, not how to remove the safeguards that allow us to hold the state and its agencies to account. That is especially true when, as the high-profile case of Binyam Mohamed has amply illustrated, the security agencies have shown that they are prepared to mislead the judiciary, and given that judges tend to defer to Ministers when faced with arguments about national security.

Energy Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I tabled a reasoned amendment to decline giving the Bill a Second Reading. I do not do that lightly, and I recognise that there are some small steps forward, including the £7.6 billion for low-carbon energy to 2020, but overall the Bill fails miserably when compared with the scale of the challenges we face. It fails, first, on energy bills and the scandal of 6 million households in fuel poverty; secondly, on the scale and pace of carbon reduction needed; thirdly, because it does not fully recognise the huge potential of energy efficiency and renewable energy, including community renewables, to meet energy needs and create thousands of jobs now and into the future; and finally, because it locks us into a centralised fossil fuel and nuclear energy system at exactly the time when we need more decentralised energy.

Lack of time means that I can focus on only a few aspects. I agree with everything that the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) said about nuclear. Let me say a few words about energy efficiency and fuel poverty. It is extremely disappointing that the Bill overlooks the huge potential of energy efficiency and demand reduction, despite widespread consensus that they are the cheapest, quickest, most effective ways to protect householders and businesses against high energy bills and to cut emissions.

The Government’s record is dismal. Ministers have slashed overall funding for fuel-poor households by 26% and cut energy efficiency funding for fuel-poor households by almost a half. I very much hope the Government will table amendments on demand reduction when the last-minute consultation is complete, and that they are commensurate with their own analysis, which shows that demand for electricity could be cut by at least 40% by 2030. Unfortunately, current policies would achieve at most about a third of that potential. It is crucial that any such demand-side incentives do not compete with renewable energy, and I hope Ministers will today confirm that demand-side measures will not be funded by the levy control framework.

It is worth reiterating that whether we see proposals for an energy efficiency feed-in tariff or other mechanisms, they must be additional to wider measures, including high efficiency standards for buildings and the recycling of revenue from carbon taxes and the EU emissions trading system to invest in a nationwide housing retrofit to ensure that all our homes need far less energy in order to keep warm.

On renewables, I welcome the announcement last month that the Government will provide sufficient funds through the levy control framework to ensure that the UK meets its legally binding renewables target by 2020. I sincerely hope that that will help reverse the current situation in which the UK is falling miserably behind other EU countries. The UK languishes at third from the bottom of the league table, on just 3.3% in 2011, a quarter of the EU average.

I am worried also about the future of community energy, on which Ministers deliver platitudes and promises but no policy. As a result, the Bill prolongs the uncertainty faced by small electricity generators, including community-owned renewables. What we need is a radical change in ownership—a move towards many more independent generators, smaller companies located in the UK, and community and co-operatively owned energy generation. Many hon. Members will have in their constituencies projects similar to Brighton energy co-operative that offer a real alternative.

I hope we can work together to change the Bill so that it does not disadvantage such schemes, by supporting, for example, the creation of a purchaser of first option to provide a guaranteed market for community energy schemes and other smaller generation projects; an increase in the fixed feed-in tariff threshold to allow funding certainty for community projects; and a minimum annual target for new generation capacity from community renewables schemes.

I will not go into detail—the House can imagine why—on the many reasons why I am a supporter of putting a decarbonisation target in the Bill, but at the risk of sounding just like the Prime Minister did two years ago, I will quote him. He said:

“If we don’t decarbonise electricity, we’ve got no hope of meeting the targets that we’re all committed to.”

That means at the very least a 2030 target of 50g of CO₂ per kilowatt hour by 2030. If the scientific evidence shows that we should have more ambitious targets, however, for either power sector or economy-wide decarbonisation, it is crucial that the Bill provides a mechanism to ensure that that can happen in a timely manner.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To resume his seat no later than 6.40, I call Mr David Anderson.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Amess. Have you have received any indication from the Home Secretary that she might be coming to the House tonight to make a statement on whether she believes that police tactics outside the House are proportionate? Many hundreds of students and schoolchildren have been kettled for more than four hours and, according to the police, will be out there for several more hours in the freezing cold. Whatever one thinks about the student protest, holding people against their will for no reason is neither proportionate nor effective.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr David Amess)]

The whole House has heard what the hon. Lady has said, particularly those on the Treasury Bench, but that is not a point of order.