Safe Asylum Routes: Afghan Refugees

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Rachael Maskell

Tuesday 17th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

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

Will the Minister give way?

Support for Self-employed and Freelance Workers

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Rachael Maskell

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

A whole range of practical proposals has been set out by the Treasury Committee, ExcludedUK and many others documenting the other paperwork that could be presented, including records from tax returns and so forth, that can make sure that this scheme is not open to fraud. If the political will is there, a way can be found using a range of different documentation to demonstrate that the money that people are applying for is absolutely legitimate. We can look at bank statements, for instance. It is not beyond the wit of people to make sure that people in our constituencies are not literally having to go to food banks, as an hon. Member mentioned the other day, in order to be able to put food on the table.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

When I raised this very issue with the Treasury Minister, I highlighted the fact that the records are held in Companies House and all HMRC has to do is marry up the records. The reason he gave was that they did not have enough staff at HMRC. Is that not just a complete disgrace?

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. She is of course absolutely right, and it would be a simple measure to do this if the political will were there.

Relationships and Sex Education

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Rachael Maskell

Monday 25th February 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Moon, in this debate about parental opt-out rights. There is no disputing that it is a parent’s right to teach their child about sex and relationships, but at the same time schools have an important responsibility to teach RSE to all children, in collaboration and partnership with parents. Those two responsibilities are not mutually exclusive. I know from the expert lessons I have observed in Brighton that teaching RSE is a skilled job for which teachers need high-quality training. For that reason, the vast majority of parents work with schools, and are grateful for and support the provision of RSE lessons.

Having said that, it is vital that we do not forget that some children will not get RSE at home. We cannot guarantee that they will, and we do not know which ones will not. The very small number of children who are withdrawn from the classes may well be among those who would benefit the most. As Barnardo’s and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have stated:

“To have a child opt out of sex education is tantamount to offering no sex education as it cannot be assured that the child will receive this information at home.”

There is also the serious question of how to ensure that children who may be at particular risk of harm or abuse are not withdrawn from sex education by a parent who is party to that risk. As I mentioned in an intervention, I have not yet heard a good answer to that concern. For example, guidelines for health workers and schools on female genital mutilation already include withdrawal from sex education as an indicator of risk.

Of course, only a tiny minority of parents withdraw their children from sex education, but at secondary level—the level at which RSE will become compulsory—I am deeply concerned that the Government have retained the right of parents to withdraw children until three terms before the child turns 16. Those who are withdrawn will, for example, miss out on vital lessons about sexual health at a time when sexually transmitted infections are rising among young people. Data from Public Health England reveal that a young person is diagnosed with either chlamydia or gonorrhoea every four minutes in England. In recent years, police and crime commissioners across the country have reported a dramatic escalation of child sexual exploitation, with sexting and sexual bullying both on the rise.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I met police last Friday to look at the issue of safeguarding, and they were urging that all children should be able to attend classes. Children who are excluded from school or off-rolled are at the most risk. Is it not really important that schools make education inclusive for everybody?

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree. As the hon. Lady says, this is about a basic right to education that should be available to all children.

Alarming numbers of children are watching online pornography, as other hon. Members have said, and shocking numbers of teenaged boys and girls think that aggression by boyfriends is normal and okay. Teaching RSE in schools on a compulsory basis is the only way to ensure that all children get the information they need to stay safe and to report abuse if they need to.

The petition that is before us says:

“We have grave concerns about the physical, psychological and spiritual implications of teaching children about certain sexual and relational concepts proposed in RSE and believe that they have no place within a mandatory school curriculum.”

I do not know whether any hon. Members in this House or in this Chamber today support the petition, but I am left wondering what exactly those “sexual and relational concepts” are. I wonder why what they mean has not been spelled out. Given the kind of homophobic communications and leaflets I have received ahead of today’s debate, I am left with the strong impression that the message is one of intolerance and prejudice against LGBT+ children, families and teachers. Despite that, I remain confident that such views are not widely held and that the majority of parents want to work in close partnership with schools to provide the vital RSE that all children need.

Providing welcome clarity and calm ahead of today’s debate, last week the Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman made it clear that all children must learn about same-sex couples, regardless of their religious background. She said that the lessons are

“about making sure they know just enough to know that some people prefer not to get married to somebody of the opposite sex and that sometimes there are families that have two mummies or two daddies… It’s about making sure that children who do happen to realise that they themselves may not fit a conventional pattern know that they’re not bad or ill.”

As we move forward, it is important to keep talking with parents about what RSE teaches. It is not about promoting any particular lifestyle, which I think might be a misunderstanding at the core of the petition. At its heart, RSE is about giving children clear, honest, accurate and age-appropriate information. It is about reflecting real lives, keeping children safe and tackling bullying.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Rachael Maskell

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree. This country will be very interested in forming more free trade agreements as soon as possible, and under circumstances that might not necessarily be in the best interests of our own environment and standards. It therefore even more important that these things are enshrined in law, as the hon. Gentleman says.

Paragraph 3 of schedule 1 explicitly limits the legal remedies available when general principles are contravened. It will not be possible to take an action in court, or to challenge or quash any law or activity on the basis of the principles. The courts will be unable to overturn decisions, and individuals and non-governmental organisations will not be able to challenge decisions on the basis that they are not compatible with environmental principles such as sustainable development. In short, as the Bill stands, if a business or public body contravenes the principles of environmental law, it will not be possible to challenge that in court.

That is a clear departure from continuity, as the EU courts have strongly upheld the environmental principles, such as by overturning planning decisions that contravene the precautionary principle. The level of environmental protection after exit day will not therefore be as strong and rigorous as it was before exit day, unless we accept new clause 60 and do something right now to enshrine these principles in our law.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is it not vital for air quality that we enshrine these principles in UK law, given that the Government have been told four times by the courts to improve air quality but failed to do so? It is essential that actions can be brought to enforce such really important things.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The role of the ECJ in applying fines has concentrated the minds of policy makers in the UK. It was only the threat of significant fines that led to the air being cleaned up in places such as London. One of the many things that worry me about the Brexit process is that, even in what the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said about closing the so-called governance gap, I have not heard any proposal from him for real sanctions to concentrate the minds of policy makers on bringing their laws into conformity.

In EU law, the environmental principles are forward looking and play a formative role in guiding not just day-to-day decisions, but future policy development. That role could be lost under the Bill as drafted. In the months and years ahead, the principles of environmental law should be applied to UK decision making in a number of high-risk areas, such as trade policy, chemicals, and infrastructure planning, but unless the Bill is amended, the legal force of the environmental principles to guide future policy and decision making will be lost.

I want to end with a few words about national policy statements. The Government have suggested several times that instead of enshrining the principles in UK law, they might instead consider using the NPS route. I have real concerns about that because an NPS is not a fixed, long-term commitment, and does not provide the long-term certainty of primary legislation. Such an approach would represent a serious step backwards from the current position.

The statutory framework for establishing an NPS limits its scope to planning matters, so we would need a new statutory instrument to have a much broader scope. Also, an NPS lacks the binding character of legislation. Courts could give little or no weight at all to policy statements so, essentially, the basic problem with an NPS is that a Secretary of State has a great deal of control over it, unlike with primary legislation. In a case in which a non-governmental organisation or an individual wanted to use an NPS to hold the Government and public bodies to account, there could be a serious temptation for the Government to amend the NPS precisely to make it less effective at holding them to account.

I want briefly to express my support for amendments 93 to 95, which the hon. Member for Bristol East will no doubt speak to. Those amendments speak to the primary intention of the Bill as expressed by Ministers. Without them, it could not be said that the same rules and laws will apply on the day after exit as on the day before, as the Prime Minister has pledged. They are needed to ensure that our laws and our rights, and indeed the intent and purpose behind them, remain the same immediately after withdrawal from the EU. Any changes to those laws and rights, other than to ensure the faithful conversion of EU law into domestic law, should be made following our exit from the EU only through primary legislation, not by any other means. Those amendments therefore ask, in a sense, little of Ministers, and so, as with new clauses 30 and 60, I hope that the Minister will respond positively to them.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Rachael Maskell

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I apologise, Sir Roger. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh)—who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee—tried to make some of these points for hours yesterday, but I will confine myself to saying that I agree with what she has said. I think that the impact on our chemical industry has been massively underestimated. Given that it is our second largest manufacturing export and given that at least 50% of those exports go to the EU, the impact on the sector will be massive.

If the Government are serious in their ambition to be the first Government to leave the environment in a better condition than they found it in, Ministers must now explain to us in detail how the legislative system for monitoring and enforcement will be replaced. I find it astonishing that they expect us to vote for the Bill without being given any idea of what the present complex, robust and unique system of legal enforcement might look like when we leave.

In evidence given to the Environment Audit Committee, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds made the important point that the European Court of Justice operates on a slightly broader basis than the Supreme Court in the UK, which must follow narrower due process. It is therefore possible that great swathes of environmental protections, once transferred to UK statute, will in effect become redundant owing to the absence of monitoring and enforcement by the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. That loss of an effective judicial system will come at a time when UK regulators, tasked with monitoring compliance with environmental legislation, have had their own budgets slashed. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has a third of the staff that it had 10 years ago. Furthermore, because the great repeal Bill will not carry over the jurisprudence from the European Court of Justice, we seem to be set to lose the important case law which, for the past 40 years, has proved so effective in protecting the UK environment.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Lucas]

At risk.

[Rachael Maskell]

We are also in danger of losing access to the European Environment Agency, which brings such expertise to the advancing of environmental legislation.

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree, and the same applies to the European Food Safety Agency. Some of the new clauses draw attention to the fact that we still need to have access to those bodies. It strikes me as completely baffling that the hon. Member for Fareham can somehow think it insulting to her constituents for us to be talking about such vitally important new clauses.

This is not only an issue of law relating directly to wildlife and nature. As it stands, the Government’s push for an extreme Brexit opens the way for changes in key environmental policies relating to air, water, waste, food and much more, all of which will have an impact, direct or indirect, on UK biodiversity and our natural environment. For all those reasons, I think that new clauses which are intended to protect our environment, and which ask for that protection to be guaranteed before article 50 is triggered, make good sense.

I will end my speech in just 30 seconds, Sir Roger. Let me simply say that I particularly support new clause 100, about which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) spoke so passionately and eloquently. In recent weeks we have heard repeated and welcome assurances from Ministers that workers’ and women’s rights will be protected. If that is the case, let us get the new clause into the Bill. Let us ensure that this will not be rolled back through secondary legislation.

National Health Service Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Rachael Maskell

Friday 11th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

That intervention is incredibly helpful, as it shows what is possible. The fact that it has been done in Scotland without major problem demonstrates that, if the political will is there, changes can be made.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The urgency of the Bill is notable. In my constituency, a hospital was closed within five days because of competition and the fragmentation of services. Is it not essential that we do everything we can to bring about a collaborative, planned service now?

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. She must have very good eyesight, as I was about to come on to exactly that point. We need a planned service, not one based on competition all the time. To those who say that the private sector is only a small part of our NHS, I make three important points. First, the private sector causes enormous harm by cherry-picking profitable services. Secondly, there has been an undeniable escalation of private sector involvement since the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and the direction of travel is plain. Thirdly, material harm is being caused by the purchaser-provider split, which puts competition above co-operation and sees NHS bodies literally bidding against each other, and I simply cannot see whose interest that is in.