Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) thinks that nodding at me vigorously to the extent that it virtually constitutes a bow is the most efficacious means of being called. He may well have his opportunity in due course, but first I want to hear from Caroline Lucas.

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

How can this House have any confidence in the Prime Minister’s claims that he does not want to lower standards, when his own deal precisely moves the so-called level playing field from the binding withdrawal agreement to the non-binding political declaration? Is not the truth that this deal takes a wrecking ball to our social and environmental standards, and the reason that he will not put it back to the British people is that he knows full well that they can see through his bluster and see that this is a profoundly bad deal?

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I welcome the vote on the amendment, because it shows that a majority of Members have stood up for more democracy, not less. They have stood up for more scrutiny, not less. They have also voted to rule out a disastrous no deal. I believe it will also give us a chance to let the people have a final say. Over 1 million of them are, right now, demanding that right outside this place. The Prime Minister has changed his own mind more times than we can possibly count, most recently on the border in the Irish sea. It cannot be right that the British people are the only ones who are not allowed to change their minds. I look forward to the opportunity that this vote affords us to come back to put whatever deal is in front of us to that confirmatory ballot.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I say to her publicly what I said to her privately, which is that I am sorry that, on account of constraints of time and a desire to bring matters to a conclusion, I was not able to call her today in the debate, but she has at least had a mini speech in the form of her point of order. I know that no power on earth would or should stop her contributing frequently on future occasions. I certainly look forward to that.

Preparations for Leaving the EU

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. All these references to named individuals are quite improper. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt luxuriated in the lather of the Oxford Union, in which he excelled, and he excels in this House other than in that respect. He should wash his mouth out, and should refer to Ministers not by name but by title, which he is well able to do.

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

The Minister is not being straight with us. He has the gall to claim that UK environmental standards post Brexit will be a beacon to the world, but in reality he is planning to cut those standards. The document claims that the carbon price will apply “at a similar level” to that under the EU emissions trading system, but page 64 makes it clear that the new carbon emissions price will be about half the EU price. If the Government are going to cut incentives to tackle the climate crisis, will they at least be honest about it?

Points of Order

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) has done huge and invaluable work on this front. She knows the issues and she feels them. She is, of course, as the hon. Lady knows, a stellar progressive change maker, and she has charted that course since she entered the House on 28 October 1982—she came into the House as a very young woman indeed, and she will mark 37 years in the House next month. If I know the right hon. and learned Lady, she will keep pursuing these issues, in whatever capacity, because they reflect her humanity and her attachment to principle, the rights of the underdog and the cause of equality. She, like the hon. Lady, came into politics for all the right reasons.

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

rose—

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) will be very proud of what I have just said about his wife, and he is looking even happier than he otherwise would. I will come to him, but it would be a pity to squander him at too early a stage of our proceedings when we have only been going for an hour and a quarter or so, so I will come to him momentarily.

[Caroline Lucas]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for breaking one of your own rules—perhaps not a written one—as I have only just come into the Chamber, as you noticed. I want to apologise and explain that I was off the parliamentary estate. I had not known that you were about to make a statement, but as soon as I heard, I came back as fast as I could.

I want to thank you very seriously for your incredibly strong sense of fairness. As an MP from a party of just one in this place, it is very easy to feel somewhat marginalised from time to time, and I have so much gratitude for you that you have always included the Green party, recognising that I may be only one in here, but I represent a party out there. I thank you for your incredibly strong sense of fairness and justice and thank you for your reforming zeal in this place. We still have a long way to go, but thanks to you, we are a long way down that path.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady may recall that she once asked me if it would be all right if she included on the dust jacket of a book she was about to publish a tribute that I had paid her. I said to her that I was more than delighted for her to use that tribute on the dust jacket. My rationale was very simple: I had said what I said in public. I said it because I meant it, and I meant it so I said it, and, having meant it and said it, I was more than happy for it to be reproduced. I rather trust that that will continue to be at the hon. Lady’s pleasure. She is a superb parliamentarian and I think that that is recognised across the House. Without a vast infrastructure to support her, she is indefatigable, irrepressible and astonishing in her productivity and in the sheer range of her political interests. She is a fine parliamentarian. Also, because she is the only member of her party at the moment in this House, she is in the happy position of being leader and Chief Whip of her own party and, I think, of invariably agreeing with herself.

I thank colleagues. I know that we have taken a long time, but finally, we have time—frankly, we would have more time if we were not disappearing for a rather excessive period—for Jack Dromey.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman might not have been a candidate so far, but he is scarcely at the midpoint of his parliamentary career, and we know not what awaits us, or him, in the future.

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

On the climate emergency, the Prime Minister will know that I want her to go further and faster, but I congratulate her on facing down the Chancellor by legislating for net zero by 2050. However, if she wants a positive climate legacy, we need deeds, not just words, so there are three things that she could do in the six weeks she has left. Will she cancel the expansion of Heathrow airport? Will she divert the money for more road building into public transport? And will she scrap fracking once and for all? That is the way that she would show us she is serious: will she do it?

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Votes)

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Having looked at the figures, I reinforce the comments from the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable). I regret what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) has had to do, but were he to link to his proposal the opportunity to have a public vote, we would have a huge majority in this House. The idea that we would avoid doing that for fear of the democratic moment of the European elections is frankly absurd. Why would we be afraid of one democratic event and for fear of that avoid a further one? That makes no sense. The Prime Minister’s deal is dead. We should look at where the majorities in this House lie, and they lie with a softer Brexit going against a people’s vote to the country.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Friday 29th March 2019 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It beggars belief that the Prime Minister still seems not to recognise a dead deal when it is right in front of her. It has now been defeated three times, in spite of the procedural games that have been played. Does she realise just how grotesque it looked to appear to be willing to sell out the country’s future for the price of some Tory MPs’ careers? The idea that it was sensible for Conservative MPs to suddenly change their minds about a deal they had been against for months because they thought they might have some career advantage from it is wrong, and it is contemptuous of this country.

[Mr Speaker]

There is a degree of latitude on these occasions, but the hon. Lady has stretched it excessively. If she had wanted to speak in the debate, she might well have caught my eye, but she did not seek to do so.

Spring Statement

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Now, this is the challenge: can people ask their question in fewer than 30 seconds?

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

It seems that the Chancellor is hoping to buy off the rising tide of youth campaigning with a sprinkling of announcements on the environment, but the science is clear and he is doing nothing like enough. We have 11 years to avoid climate breakdown, and protected species are in freefall. I have one test for him to prove whether he is remotely serious about the agenda: will he reverse the savage funding cuts that his Government have made to Natural England—yes or no?

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I stand by that: I think it is what any self-respecting Speaker should say and mean.

[Caroline Lucas]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do wonder how the Prime Minister has the brass neck to come to this Chamber and to say that we should be worried about losing fragile trust when she herself is responsible for losing the trust both of this Parliament and of the country. She has just whipped her Members to vote against the deal that yesterday she stood at that Dispatch Box and promised would be a free vote. We urgently need an extension of article 50, and it needs not to be time-limited, because we need the time that is necessary in order to resolve this by going back to the country. If the last few weeks have proved anything, it is that MPs in this House are incapable of finding something they agree on, and it needs to go back to the people as soon as possible in a people’s vote.

[Mr Speaker]

Let me say to the hon. Lady, who was attempting, I thought, to raise a point of order, that we will have to wait for the business statement by the Leader of the House. But unless I have a problem with my short-term memory—and I do not think I do—my clear recollection is that the Government indicated that if the House voted to demonstrate its opposition to exit from the European Union without a deal in the vote, or votes, today, there would be an opportunity on Thursday for there to be a vote, or possibly a number of votes, on an idea, or ideas, of article 50 extension. So I keenly anticipate that the hon. Lady will be in her place not just for the business statement but tomorrow for such important proceedings as we can expect to take place.

Business of the House

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot speak for the Backbench Business Committee, but I can assure the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) that if he wants a debate on the matter in Westminster Hall, he will get it all right.

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

Tomorrow, thousands of young people will show their deep concern about the growing climate crisis by taking part in a climate strike. Since, shockingly, there was only one debate on climate change in this place last year, will the Leader of the House urgently find time for us to debate this, the greatest threat we face, so that we can demonstrate to young people that we are listening and that we take their concerns very seriously?

Points of Order

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I entirely understand what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is getting at. I can say only for my own part that I do not want to give a flippant response to the Father of the House. I have never been much preoccupied with the opinions of newspapers. I really do not attach any weight to their views. I am sure that they think their views are important, and if that brings happiness into their lives, good luck to them, but the blatherings of a particular media outlet are a matter of absolutely no interest or concern whatever to me; they are simply not consequential at all.

Decisions that this House makes, resolutions that this House passes and motions that are supported matter and should be respected. Some motions, however, do specifically instruct, and if they instruct, there can be not the slightest doubt or uncertainty at all but that they must be followed, just as if, for example, the House were to pass a motion instructing the Speaker. The Speaker is the servant of the House. If the House passed a motion or an amendment instructing the Speaker, the Speaker would do as instructed; that is the way it is.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like your guidance because the Home Secretary is actively ignoring a written question that I tabled back on 18 October 2018, the best part of four months ago. I have since tabled two named-day questions to chase it up and both have been ignored. The Chair of the Procedure Committee wrote to the Home Secretary over a week ago, and still I have had no response. Is there any further mechanism to stop the Home Secretary ignoring the democratic processes that are in place to hold him to account?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of this point of order. Clearly, it is unsatisfactory that she has not had a ministerial response to her question, though, of course, the content of the response is for Ministers. The Chair of the Procedure Committee has recently written to the Home Secretary. I hope that a response will now swiftly be forthcoming. If it is not and she needs to return to the House to raise this matter, that will be extremely unfortunate, but if she has to raise it again, she will, and if she does, I will respond as appropriate.

I hope more widely that the distinction between opinion and an effective order is clear to, accepted by and commands the assent of, the House.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to speak in favour of amendment (g) and to make the case that the amendment is vital in enabling Parliament to take control, frankly, from a Government who are in denial and in disarray. I must say that I find any opposition to amendment (g) from Conservative Members quite perplexing, given that so many of them were in the forefront of saying that Brexit was all about restoring parliamentary sovereignty. Now it seems as though they regard parliamentary sovereignty as a bit of an inconvenient obstacle to getting their own way.

The amendment is vital to allowing us to avoid the catastrophe of no deal. Let me make it very clear that for my constituents in Brighton no deal would be a catastrophe—a catastrophe for our tourism industry, for businesses, for our universities and research and for families and communities who are built on free movement and will fight to the end to stop free movement ending. The amendment does not bind the House to any particular outcome; it simply gives Parliament the time and space to make an honest assessment of the available options.

I want to say a few words about amendment (n)—the so-called Brady amendment. It takes fantasy to a new art form. I do not know how many times the EU has to say that it is just not possible to re-open negotiation on the withdrawal Bill. The amendment is perhaps an extraordinary way of trying to get the Conservative party to hold together, but it will not stand up to any kind of contact with external reality. Right now, EU officials tell us that they are preparing a statement that says that it would not be possible to open up an agreement that was negotiated over the past 20 months. Sabine Weyand, the deputy chief negotiator, said yesterday:

“There’s no negotiation between the UK and EU—that’s finished.”

Crossing one’s fingers, screwing up one’s eyes and just wishing it was otherwise is not a good negotiating strategy.

I appeal to Conservative colleagues to focus on what is in front of us—on practical ways to avoid the catastrophe of no deal, which will hurt the poorest hardest and for which the Prime Minister has absolutely no mandate. To those Conservative Members who seem to think that threatening no deal is effective with our European counterparts, I point out that it is tantamount to someone standing with a pistol to their head and saying, “I’ll fire it if they don’t do what I want.” It is not a very sensible negotiating strategy.

In my last few words, I want to say how much I support amendment (h) on having a citizens’ assembly. If I had more time, I would say more about it.

[Mr Speaker]

We rue the absence of that further time.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Monday 3rd December 2018 Commons Chamber

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

At stake today are really serious issues and yet this House is descending into farce and into some kind of amateur dramatics. This is serious stuff—[Interruption].

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Chalk, you are a most cerebral and ordinarily a most genial individual and you also practise—or have done—in the courts as a barrister in, I am sure, a most dignified and respectful manner. [Interruption.] Order. This is a serious point. Just as the Attorney General is entitled to be treated with respect, every Member of this House—[Interruption.] Order. It will go on for as long as it takes; I could not care less. Every Member of this House is entitled to be treated with respect in this matter and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will be heard. The Attorney General talked about braying and shouting—[Interruption.] Order. He was justified in complaining about being subject to braying and shouting —a point that I have already made. The same goes for Members responding to the hon. Lady. She will be heard. What part of that proposition do some people not understand?

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I was just saying that these proceedings are in danger of descending into farce. The Attorney General repeatedly says that he will subject himself to what he calls full, frank and thorough questioning, but he knows as well as we do that our capacity to do that questioning is seriously undermined by the fact that we do not have the full legal advice in front of us in order to interrogate it. He talks about the national interest. It is precisely because these are issues of national interest that we wish to see the full legal advice. Will he go away and look again at the principle that, in exceptional times, transparency should take precedence, and therefore produce the full legal advice for this House?

Points of Order

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to the hon. Lady, but I think I will take the Opposition Front Bencher first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the Minister for that. What I would say to the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) is that it is perfectly possible for this matter to be further aired in correspondence, and I have a hunch that it might well be—[Interruption]—as we speak. Moreover, it is even possible for the matter to be aired by the alternative route of questions, and I have a physical image in my mind now of one or other of the two relevant parties on the Opposition Front Bench beetling towards the Table Office to table the said questions. Those routes—correspondence and written questions—are not mutually exclusive. I hope that is helpful.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am saving up the hon. Lady. It would be a pity to squander her at too early a stage of our proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said to me and to the House. To what he has said there is really nothing substantive that I need to add. All I would say to him is that, on the basis of what he has said, it is open to him also to write to me on this matter.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I apologise for holding the hon. Lady back, but I had a sense that those points of order were going to relate to each other. Her point of order is on a different and unrelated matter, and I look forward to hearing it.

[Caroline Lucas]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier today, the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) named both the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and me in her question to the Prime Minister, claiming that we were somehow complicit with the group Another Europe is Possible in terms of its misuse of data. I ask the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood, through you, to correct the parliamentary record. Another Europe is Possible is 100% compliant with the general data protection regulation. It turns out that her constituent took action via the group’s website, and the communication she has had subsequently has been in line with the opt-in preferences that she actively expressed on that website.

Further, Mr Speaker, will you indicate what action could be taken if it were to be found that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House during Prime Minister’s questions when she replied to the Leader of the Opposition, “This analysis does not show that we will be poorer in the future than we are today… No, it does not. It shows that we will be better off with this deal”? I think the ministerial code suggests that, if it were the case that she inadvertently misled the House, she should be able to come back to the Chamber to make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, and I thank her for it. I think, however, that she may be seeking to continue the argument. All I would say is that the content of an hon. Member’s remarks is a matter for that hon. Member. I note what the hon. Lady has said, and it will now be reproduced in the Official Report, about the circumstances, and Members and others will form their own judgment of that.

In the event that anybody has inadvertently misled the House, it is incumbent on that Member, whoever he or she is, to take the opportunity to correct the record. I can assure the hon. Lady that she will have plenty of opportunity to pursue these matters in the days ahead.

I would like to leave it there at present. I am responding almost on the hoof to what the hon. Lady has said. [Interruption.] She is looking slightly quizzical and, because I am in a generous mood, and I think it is right to be generous—[Interruption.] The Clerk is implying that I should not be generous. [Laughter.] He is a very generous-spirited person, but he is implying perhaps that I should not be generous. If the hon. Lady wishes to raise a further point of order, I will hear it, although I offer no guarantee that I will reply to it to her satisfaction.

[Caroline Lucas]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your generosity. I simply express my confusion, because I genuinely thought that is what the ministerial code suggests. Were the Prime Minister to be demonstrably shown to have inadvertently misled the House by claiming something that is not the case—we know it is not the case—I am surprised there is not some way to ask her to come back to the Chamber to formally make that correction, rather than simply allowing it to sit on the parliamentary record.

[Mr Speaker]

The difficulty is that the ministerial code is the code under which, if I understand this correctly, the hon. Lady is seeking redress or correction. I am not the arbiter of the ministerial code—as she will know, the Prime Minister is its arbiter. In these circumstances, it is very difficult for me to say anything beyond what I have said. If the hon. Lady feels genuinely strongly that an effective injustice, albeit inadvertent, has been committed, I strongly advise her to raise this matter in correspondence with the Prime Minister in such a fashion as she sees fit. The hon. Lady can raise it in private correspondence or she can publicise the correspondence if she so wishes and seek to extract the outcome that she thinks is appropriate in this case. I repeat that if an error has been made, an error should be corrected. It is in that sense as simple and incontestable as that, but I hope people will understand when I say that it is not for the Chair to judge whether an error has or has not been made. I have set out what the circumstances are or what situations should apply in the event of an inadvertently misleading statement. I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for her patience.

Leaving the EU

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Monday 26th November 2018 Commons Chamber

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

The Prime Minister says that a majority of people want her to get on with Brexit, but actually that is not true. It might be an inconvenient fact, but the truth is that the majority want a people’s vote. So when she is giving her tour around the country—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady is entitled to ask her question without being consistently shouted at. I thought we were talking about respect in the Chamber. Try remembering that—[Interruption.] Well, maybe the person who says, “Were we?” does not care about that, but most of us do, and I want to hear the hon. Lady and the response to the hon. Lady.

Trade Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In calling in a moment the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), principally to speak to her new clause and in the knowledge that she is a celebrated and award-winning parliamentarian, I feel that I can say with total confidence that she will require no longer than five minutes to make her case.

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

Indeed, I do rise to speak to new clause 3, which is in my name and signed by more than 50 Members of the House from four different parties, and I give notice that I would like to move it when it comes to the votes.

This amendment essentially seeks to remedy the Bill’s failure to provide for a proper role for parliamentarians in the scrutiny and approval of trade agreements. At present, trade agreements can be negotiated, or renegotiated as is likely to be the case with many of the existing EU trade deals covered by this Bill, entirely under royal prerogative powers, essentially giving the Government free rein to decide when and with whom to start negotiations, to set their own priorities and objectives, to conduct the negotiations in great secrecy, and to conclude the deal without any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. That not only sidelines Members of this House, but it prevents valuable input by civil society organisations and the wider public. This Bill is supposed to help implement an independent trade policy following withdrawal from the EU, but it does nothing to put in place the kind of scrutiny and approval framework that should be required for an accountable trade policy in a modern democratic country. And this is the only legislative opportunity we are likely to have to put such a framework in place.

In his statement yesterday, the Secretary of State for International Trade once again sought to make a distinction between replacements for existing EU trade deals and future trade deals, but the fact is that effective parliamentary scrutiny and approval is needed for both, for it is increasingly clear that, contrary to the hope of Ministers, it is not going to be a simple case of transitioning, or “rolling over,” existing EU trade deals. Some or all of the countries in question are not simply going to be content to continue with the existing arrangements, and Ministers will have little choice but to negotiate a replacement deal. So while yesterday’s statement by the Secretary of State must be welcomed for its clear, if somewhat overdue, recognition of the current democratic deficit in the making of trade deals and the need to correct that if we are to have a modern, transparent and accountable trade policy, it needs to be applied much more fully and more extensively.

Unfortunately, the package of proposals set out yesterday falls well short of what is required, both because it does not apply to the existing EU trade deals covered by this Bill and because it does not go far enough. For example, it is welcome that the Secretary of State proposes a process for Ministers to set out their ambitions before embarking on a new set of negotiations, including scoping assessments, and the commitment to publish impact assessments is also a step forward, but the reality is that recent impact assessments by the Government on trade have focused purely on the impact for exporters, without taking into account at all the wider economic impacts, let alone social, environmental, gender and regional impacts and the effects on workers’ rights. So we need to see a much stronger commitment to transparency.

Most significantly of all, the Secretary of State’s proposals fail to give Parliament meaningful oversight of new trade deals. For that to happen, Members of this House need a guaranteed vote on the deal that emerges from the negotiations. Without that, all the other measures proposed by the Secretary of State yesterday risk being little more than window-dressing.

The Secretary of State contends that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is all that is needed. However, that process is an utterly inadequate rubber stamp: it gives Parliament a right to say whether a new trade deal should or should not be ratified, but does not enable Parliament to propose modifications. Moreover, as we know to our detriment time and again, Ministers can and do simply overrule Parliament and ratify the trade deal despite Parliament’s objections. In contrast, Members of both the European Parliament and the US Congress get an automatic vote. If this issue is about taking back control, why do we not take back some control in this Chamber and make sure we get the same kind of vote that other legislatures with whom we will be negotiating do?

Trade deals are not simply commercial negotiations; they are public policy negotiations and should be treated as such. Transparency, scrutiny and parliamentary approval should be embraced, not treated as a risk.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

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

My constituents in Brighton are, sadly, used to chaos from Govia Thameslink Railway, but the last seven weeks have been a new level of rail hell. Since the GTR franchise is, effectively, run by the Department for Transport, will the right hon. Gentleman shake up the Government so that they finally take some action and show some leadership: action in restoring the Gatwick Express services at Preston Park, which have inexplicably been slashed, and leadership in getting rid of the hapless Transport Secretary? The Prime Minister has been reshuffling her Cabinet over the last week; will she reshuffle it a bit more and get that Transport Secretary replaced by—

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you very much indeed.

Transport Emissions: Urban Areas

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

For the benefit of those attending to our proceedings, the right hon. Gentleman says that the Secretary of State is very kind, but quite right, so there we are. We all feel a bit better informed.

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

Over the past 30 years, the cost of motoring has fallen by 20%, while the cost of bus travel has risen by 64%. Will the Secretary of State do what he can to reverse those figures? Will he look in particular at the situation in Brighton and Hove? He has written to me about my concern that data on NO₂ exceedances in the city are not being taken properly into account by the Government. Does he acknowledge that we have such exceedances in our city, and if so, will he look again at our grounds for appealing the decision not to award us money from the clean bus technology fund?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

The Cambridge Analytica revelations suggest that there is something rotten in the state—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is very unseemly. [Interruption.] No, I am sorry, it is very unseemly. The hon. Lady—[Interruption.] Mr Pound, your expertise in gesticulation is well known to all Members of the House, but it is not required to be on display at this time. Caroline Lucas will be heard.

[Caroline Lucas]

The Cambridge Analytica revelations suggest that there is something rotten in the state of our democracy. The current electoral law is woefully inadequate at dealing with the combination of big money and big data, so will the Prime Minister commit to urgent cross-party talks to kick-start a process to ensure that we have a regulatory and legal framework that is up to the challenge of dealing with the digital age?

EU Referendum: Electoral Law

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Perhaps we can now proceed with the speech of Caroline Lucas.

[Caroline Lucas]

I recognise that the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has been doing some incredibly important work this morning. Notwithstanding that, I still make the case that there is staggering hypocrisy among a large number of MPs who promised to enhance democracy by leaving the EU, but who cannot even be bothered to turn up to talk about the potential radical undermining of our democratic processes. I find that genuinely quite breathtaking.

I start by paying tribute to the dedicated, fearless journalism of Carol Cadwalladr over the past year. She has led us to the extraordinary revelations that we are debating this afternoon.

Much of the discussion so far has been about the validity of the referendum vote itself, but I want to argue that this goes much deeper and wider than that single vote, vastly important though it is. The revelations by The Guardian, Channel 4 and others over the past few days go right to the heart of the kind of country we think we are living in. I argue that they demonstrate that current electoral law is woefully inadequate. I think they show that the regulation governing our democratic processes urgently needs to be updated and reformed. They show, I believe, that something is rotten in the state of our democracy.

The combination of big money and big data is overwhelming the chronically weak structures that are supposed to protect us against cheating and fraud. As others have said, we are trying to apply laws from the analogue era to the very different reality of the digital age, and it simply is not working. It took the Information Commissioner almost a week to get authorisation to get through the front door of Cambridge Analytica, during which time presumably the delete button had been pressed a great many times. The Electoral Commission, meanwhile, has been investigating claims of the misuse of electoral funds for almost a year. Why on earth do we not have rules that require donations to be reported in real time, and the same for spending? Why do we not have a body with more resources and real teeth? Things urgently need to change.

Electoral law is based on two fundamental principles. The first principle is that parties and candidates compete on what should be a level playing field in terms of resources, which is presumably why we have national and local spending limits in elections. The second principle is that elections are open and transparent, so parties and candidates have to be transparent in their communications with the voters and it is unlawful to make false claims in those communications. The allegations about the true nature of the relationship between Vote Leave and BeLeave suggest that there may well have been cheating when it comes to the first principle, and the investigations into Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, and the spending of huge sums of money on micro-targeted political advertising based on data harvested from voters’ social media profiles, suggest that the second of these two principles is also under great strain in the digital age.

Frankly, Facebook’s desperate adverts on the back pages of Sunday’s newspapers, just a couple of days ago, suggest to me that it knows that its bubble is bursting. We now need to update the law to ensure that people are protected from this social media mega-monopoly. Just because the chief executives of Facebook and Google wear T-shirts to work and turn up on skateboards does not mean that they are not aggressive capitalists, and we need to get a bit wiser to that fact.

The law regulating campaign activity and finance—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—was drawn up almost 20 years ago, long before Facebook or Twitter even existed, let alone had any role in political campaigns. It is considerably more difficult to ensure the compliance of adverts on social media than the compliance of adverts in newspapers or on billboards. Voters simply do not know what is being done with their data by a company that, ultimately, wants to make as much money as possible from the information it has on each of us. Not surprisingly, the regulators struggle to regulate.

This undoubtedly presents a complex challenge to all politicians, as social media platforms overtake the national and local press and media through which we have traditionally communicated with our electorate, but without the same level of transparency and scrutiny. However, it is a challenge that we must meet. The need for a reprogramming of the way parties and campaigns are funded could not be greater. Whether it is donations from Russian oligarchs on one side of the House or from former Formula 1 bosses on the other side, people are sick and tired of a politics that is awash with big money without proper oversight. I argue that the case for state funding for political parties could scarcely be stronger.

DMB Solutions: Liquidation

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

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

My constituent went on to say:

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

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

I think that my constituent was entirely right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He continued:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) to respond to the debate.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Report stage: First Day: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Several colleagues are now seeking to catch my eye, but I emphasise that the Minister must also have a decent amount of time in which to respond. I therefore urge colleagues to be brief in their contributions, while of course covering what is necessary.

[Caroline Lucas]

I rise to speak to new clause 7, which is in my name and is supported by Opposition Members. I hope to push it to a vote. The new clause would transfer article 13 of the Lisbon treaty into UK law, so that the obligation on the Government and devolved Administrations to pay due regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings when formulating law and policy is not lost when the UK leaves the EU.

You will be glad to hear that I can be brief, Mr Speaker, because there is no need to set out again the case for transferring this obligation under EU law into domestic law. In Committee, the then Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), rejected my similar new clause and, I would suggest, inadvertently misspoke in the House in the process by stating that the sentience obligation

“is already recognised as a matter of domestic law, primarily in the Animal Welfare Act 2006.”—[Official Report, 15 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 499.]

That was simply incorrect, and there can be no disagreement about that because the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has since published a new draft Bill providing for the transfer into UK law of the obligation on animal sentience set out in article 13.

The Government therefore accept that they need to do what my new clause provides for, and the simplest thing would be for the Minister to accept it or, if the specific wording is considered deficient in some way, for him to bring forward a revised version as a Government amendment. As this has not yet happened—I will gladly give way to the Minister if he wants to say that the Government will accept the new clause—I can only assume he will say that the Bill is not the right legislative vehicle for the new clause: in other words, that a Bill to transfer the body of EU law into UK law is not the right legislative vehicle to transfer an important piece of EU law into UK law. To me, at least, that does not make sense.

European Council

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be able to contain his misery.

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

Not everyone shares the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for the imminent application of the EU-Canada agreement, not least because the comprehensive economic and trade agreement’s new investment court system still fails to address serious concerns about the investor-state dispute settlement process. Does she regard CETA as a blueprint for the trade deals that she thinks the Government can so easily agree, once the UK has left the EU? What reassurance can she give us about protecting key social and environmental standards and our public services if that is the case?

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Secretary of State would like a minute to wind up, with the leave of the House. I am bound to say that that seems reasonable, but I require the co-operation of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and of the House.

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

We live in very strange times. The campaign to leave the EU was based to a very great extent on the idea of restoring parliamentary sovereignty. Indeed, the Government’s White Paper asserts:

“The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution.”

Yet Ministers seem set on opposing any attempt to guarantee a meaningful role for Parliament in the process of withdrawing from the EU. Instead we are being asked to write a blank cheque to give Ministers power to withdraw the country from the EU on whatever terms they like—or worse, on no terms at all. Ministers seem to regard their colleagues as little better than lemmings. Faced with the prospect of falling off the cliff edge, we are apparently meant to suspend all judgment and blindly follow wherever they lead. But to allow Ministers to proceed in this way would be an extraordinary and unforgivable abdication of parliamentary responsibility. The manner and terms on which we withdraw from the EU will have implications for the rights and interests of every citizen and business for many years to come, and Parliament must take responsibility for these decisions.

The final deal on trade with the EU will almost certainly need to be ratified at both national and federal level of each EU member state. Lords amendment 2 simply gives the UK Parliament the same power. Do Ministers really want this Parliament to be the single most underpowered of all European Parliaments during that process?

I appeal to colleagues to defy the whipped-up anger of the anti-European press, and to stand up to the ridiculous notion that any and every attempt to give Parliament a role in the Brexit process is somehow a betrayal of the will of the people. It is no such thing—it is simply the exercise of the judgment that we were elected to bring to this House. We were not elected to be lemmings.

Points of Order

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that, for the past two years, Members of this House have been in correspondence with the trustees of the parliamentary pension fund, raising concerns about its investment approach, especially on the long-term financial risks associated with fossil fuel assets, as well as on the fund becoming more transparent and open with Members and former Members of this House. In its 2016 annual report, published just last week, we learned that the fund invested in tobacco, fossil fuels and large-scale tax avoidance, raising a reputational risk for Parliament.

Mr Speaker, can you clarify what MPs might do, using proper procedure, to take this matter forward with the trustees who have so far refused to meet Members? Might you also help to allay the concerns of many Members, perhaps through the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, that the pension fund is leaving this House open to reputational damage and legal challenge?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for notice of what I hope she will forgive me as describing as her attempted point of order. Unfortunately, the fact of that notice, which is extremely courteous of her, does not of itself convert the attempt into an actual point of order. However, I do not in any sense mean to be dismissive. This is a very important matter, even if it is not principally a matter for the Chair. The Chair has, frankly, no responsibility for the parliamentary contributory pension fund, let alone the investment policies its trustees pursue. That said, I acknowledge that the hon. Lady and all colleagues, as well as retired Members, have a legitimate interest in this subject. They are, as she indicates, properly pursued with the trustees. I am sure the ever-alert secretariat of the fund will be reading our proceedings—they certainly should be.

My concluding observation for the hon. Lady is that, although there is no ministerial responsibility for this matter, she might wish to bear in mind the interest of the Leader of the House in the subject. I was somewhat perturbed to hear the hon. Lady say that her pursuit of meetings has so far been unsuccessful. I have come to know the hon. Lady over the past seven years and she is, in the very best sense of the term, an extremely persistent Member. People who think that if they forever and a day refuse to meet the hon. Lady she will go away and drop her point of concern are probably guilty of a triumph of optimism over reality.

The Government's Plan for Brexit

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Commons Chamber

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

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that, by accepting the Government’s amendment to his otherwise very good motion, he is falling into a Tory trap of binding his party to supporting the invoking of article 50 by March, which is an unrealistic and increasingly arbitrary date?

[Mr Speaker]

Before the hon. and learned Gentleman responds, may I politely say that the intervention is absolutely legitimate but this is a helpful guide: if Members who are hoping to speak intervene more than once, in accordance with very long-standing practice they will be relegated on the list? That is only fair if I am to try to secure equal opportunities for all Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

Is the hon. Lady concerned, as I am, that 40,000 people a year are dying of diesel pollution in Britain and we may get rid of the EU monitoring standards?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just point out to the hon. Gentleman that he has just spoken and he is going to prevent other people from speaking, which is discourteous?

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In broad terms, I agree with the point the hon. Gentleman is making about air pollution, because the EU is providing the best bulwark against the reduction of air pollution standards in this country.

Let me move on to talk about freedom of movement, as, sadly, few MPs seem prepared to defend it any longer. It is especially sad and worrying that the leadership of the official Opposition are in danger of ceding the terms of this debate to the right. I readily accept that it is easy to blame free movement when the benefits have been enjoyed so unevenly. There are people in my city of Brighton and Hove who have not visited Brighton seafront because they cannot afford to get there. For them, the idea of being able to live, work or study in another country is about as likely as travelling to the moon, but that reality does not justify denying them the right to free movement in the future. On the contrary, it should mean fighting tooth and nail for a Europe of equals, in which the hard-won rights enshrined in EU law do not just exist in the statute books as perks for the privileged, but are genuinely available to all EU citizens. We should have, and we deserve to have, successful policies to redistribute wealth fairly and to create real opportunities for all.

There is an enormous task ahead of us to reunite our country, and it will be made all the more difficult by further economic hardship of the kind that we will have with a hard Brexit which does not have us as part of the single market and does not have free movement. So we absolutely need to know what the plan is going to look like. The justifiable anger and mistrust felt by those who voted leave will only deepen if the many promises made turn out not even to be worth the red bus they were written on. We need to be honest about how people are feeling and why they feel the way they do. We do not need blindly to follow the damaging, blame-laden rhetoric that is being used to distract from the failure of neo-liberal economics to provide the basic needs of all members of our society. Immigration has been systematically and cynically scapegoated for everything, when in fact what is at the heart of this is decades of not investing in our public services. That is what—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Matt Warman is the next speaker. We have eight would-be contributors and I would like to accommodate them all, so the time limit will have to be reduced, with immediate effect, to three minutes. Colleagues are absolutely welcome to intervene on each other, but if they do, somebody will not get in.

Autumn Statement

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That was a splendidly pithy answer, but questions are becoming rather long. There are still nearly 50 Members seeking to contribute, and I am keen to accommodate them, but I can do so only if people can—to put it bluntly—abandon the preamble and get on with the pithy, preferably single-sentence, inquiry. I am sure that we can led in this by Caroline Lucas.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Disappointingly, this Chancellor has joined his predecessor in failing to mention the words “climate change” even just once anywhere in the statement. That is in the year that is set to be the hottest on record, when parts of the country are under floodwater. Can he justify continued handouts to the oil and gas sector when there is no assurance of support for clean energy post-2020, no reversal of the critical solar tax hike, and nothing on keeping homes warm this winter?

[Mr Speaker]

One sentence if it involved the abandonment of punctuation.

Article 50: Parliamentary Approval

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I expect that the Minister also defers to his hon. Friend on the matter of knowledge of kings.

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

Will the Minister consider the proposal put forward today by 1,000 lawyers of establishing of a royal commission or independent body to receive evidence from a wide range of groups, particularly about the risks and benefits of triggering article 50 at various times? Will he ensure that such a body will be able to report before Parliament votes?

Points of Order

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The answer to that is no. As far as I am aware, I have not been approached, certainly not directly, and I am not conscious of any document or missive circulating in my office on this matter. It occurs to me that Work and Pensions questions take place on Monday next week. That is by no means the only, or even necessarily the best, opportunity to raise the matter, but it is one such opportunity. If that does not suit the hon. Lady or other opportunities are sought, they may materialise. As far as the House as an employer is concerned, I am not aware that there is a problem, and I would be very concerned if there were. We must take steps to keep ourselves informed to satisfy ourselves that best practice, as well as the law, is followed.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You might have seen recent press reports that a police unit tasked with spying on alleged extremists intent on committing serious crimes has been wasting its time and, indeed, taxpayers’ money monitoring members of the Green party, including myself. Could you give me advice, Mr Speaker, on the best way to raise the matter so that we can get the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House on the methods of surveillance; the legal power supposedly used in order to justify that surveillance; and, most importantly, why citizens lawfully engaging in legitimate political activity have been targeted by the police in this way?

[Mr Speaker]

This is a rather disturbing matter. I do not know whether the hon. Lady is suggesting that there is any interference with her work as a Member of Parliament. If that were so, that would be an exceptionally serious matter, but it would be effectively a matter of privilege, about which, in conformity with convention, she should write to me and it would then be taken forward as appropriate.

Beyond that, I can only say that the matter in question is not one for me. It does sound a very bizarre situation. I find it very curious to think that the hon. Lady is being, or might be, subject to some sort of surveillance in relation to her activities as a Member of Parliament. I am not aware of that. I think that I have to advise her that she must find other means by which to air her concerns. If she will not take it amiss, I will simply say that, knowing both her intelligence and her indefatigability, there is no way that finding other means to air her concern will be beyond her very considerable capabilities. Perhaps we can leave it there for today, but if she needs to come back about the matter, which is potentially very serious, she should do so.

If there are no further points of order, we come now to the ten-minute rule motion—a further opportunity for a display of the intelligence and indefatigability of Caroline Lucas.

Wilson Doctrine

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I start by paying tribute to the many Members who have raised the issue of the Wilson doctrine over many years. There are many of them and it would be invidious to leave any out if I were to try to name them all, but I pay tribute in particular to the indefatigability of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), the hon. Members for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and, of course, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), whom I congratulate on securing this important emergency debate. There has been a strong sense of common cause here. Contributions from all parts of the House have been very much in accord on the kind of principle we want to see in the future, the fact that we are not putting ourselves above the law, and the fact that this is about securing the confidentiality of our constituents—whistleblowers and so on—and is not about making a special case for MPs per se.

The Cabinet Office response to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruling was that MPs’ communications were not “improperly intercepted” and that

“all activity has been within the law.”

That is true, but I suggest that it misses the point, which is that the activity that MPs have been repeatedly told was not possible because of the Wilson doctrine has in fact been taking place and constitutes a grave breach of our constituents’ privacy. MPs have been misled about the level of protection afforded by the Wilson doctrine and we need legislation that provides a proper framework for future decisions.

The Home Office has responded to the IPT judgment by reiterating that under RIPA the security agencies must apply for a section 8(1) warrant if they want to target a parliamentarian. This is also true, but it also misses the point. GCHQ and MI5 routinely undertake the generic and indiscriminate trawling of everyone’s data to garner what is called metadata. The Wilson doctrine does not prevent communication between MPs and their constituents, whistleblowers, campaigners or journalists from being captured in this kind of trawl. All it does is stop MPs’ names, for example, being used at the next stage of the process when the security services search that metadata. So they could not search for my name, or indeed the name of any other MP, but that does not prevent them from looking at communications highlighted by a search on another term that could still lead them in exactly the direction they wish to go.

As we now know, while the secret services have guidelines intended to enact the spirit of the Wilson doctrine when they make decisions about accessing analysed data gathered in this way, this is not legally enforceable. The IPT judgment refers to previously unpublished guidance issued to the security and intelligence services on the doctrine. The guidance states that, when considering a warrant application to which the Wilson doctrine would apply, the relevant Secretary of State must consult the Prime Minister, via the Cabinet Secretary. The guidance states, and the IPT agreed, that the doctrine only applies to the direct interception of parliamentarians’ communications under section 8(1) of RIPA, and not indirect or incidental interception under section 8(4) of RIPA. Therefore the guidance as quoted does not provide for a procedure to be followed in the event that an MP’s details came up in relation to a targeted search on something else.

Parliamentarians’ communications are not referenced in RIPA and the IPT judgment seems to assume that this means that the Act therefore overrides the Wilson doctrine. I was not a Member of the Parliament when RIPA was passed but many colleagues here today were and perhaps they, understandably, did not seek to amend the Act to refer to their communications because they believed they were already exempted thanks to Wilson.

The judgment casts serious doubt over repeated assurances from successive Governments that MPs are not being subjected to state surveillance or interception. At best, it appears that the Prime Minister, as recently as 11 September 2015, was unaware of the exact status of the doctrine and ignorant of its application. At worst, he may have been deliberately ambiguous in order to lull MPs into a false sense of security. In this I echo the words of the Government’s own lawyer, who described previous ministerial statements on the Wilson doctrine as

“ambiguity at best whether deliberate or otherwise”.

What is unambiguous is that any change in the doctrine’s scope should have been notified to Parliament, in terms, by the Prime Minister. If the Executive have instead unilaterally rescinded the doctrine without notifying Parliament, that represents what Liberty calls

“a significant, constitutional breach of trust between the Executive and sovereign Parliament to which it must answer”.

Consistent with the absence of any reference to parliamentarians’ communications in RIPA, the interception of communications code of practice, published in 2002, approved by Parliament and in force until earlier this year, is similarly silent on the subject. But its replacement, the draft interception of communications code of practice, published in February 2015, does refer to the potential for parliamentarians’ communications to be intercepted. It has not yet been put before or approved by Parliament, but this change of tack suggests a conscious change of policy and, again, it is unacceptable that MPs have not been properly informed—and, indeed, have actually been issued with ongoing reassurances that the Wilson doctrine protects them. The one exception to this was a comment made by the Home Secretary during the debate on the data retention and investigatory powers last summer, which other Members have already referenced, in which she said:

“Obviously, the Wilson doctrine applies to parliamentarians. It does not absolutely exclude the use of these powers against parliamentarians, but it sets certain requirements for those powers to be used in relation to a parliamentarian. It is not the case that parliamentarians are excluded and nobody else in the country is, but there is a certain set of rules and protocols that have to be met if there is a requirement to use any of these powers against a parliamentarian.—[Official Report, 15 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 713.]

Again, as other Members have said, if there has been a material change, as it appears there has been, it is incumbent on the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister to proactively advise Parliament and detail the implications for our constituents and our wider work. This is not about asking for special privileges for MPs; on the contrary.

I have also been campaigning for nobody to be subjected to mass surveillance. As Amnesty International puts it helpfully: surveillance of communications in any form—from the initial interception itself to access, and further use, whether of content or metadata—is an interference with a range of human rights. Those include the rights to privacy and freedom of expression.

To avoid that interference amounting to an actual violation of rights, it must be lawful, necessary and proportionate. UK law and practice around communications surveillance currently fails not only the lawfulness test, but the necessity and proportionality requirements for non-abusive interference with basic rights. In this instance, it is about members of the public having confidence that their communications with MPs are not being spied upon, and that they can expect representation without their privacy being compromised. It is about trust and about our ability to undertake legitimate parliamentary duties without the security services monitoring us.

I would suggest, as Amnesty has done, that the logical conclusion the Government should be reaching in the wake of the IPT’s judgment is that, in order for surveillance to be both human rights compliant and in line with the Wilson doctrine, those authorising warrants—who should be independent entities—should ensure it is properly targeted at where there is a reasonable suspicion. In other words, there should be no indiscriminate bulk surveillance of anyone’s communications data.

I, too, agree that MPs should not be above the law. If there are grounds to suspect an MP or citizen of any wrongdoing, of course it should be permissible to target their communications for surveillance and interception, provided due process is followed. That is proportionate and appropriate. But it is also quantifiably different from the kind of bulk interceptions to which citizens are routinely being subjected and from which MPs were given the impression that they were exempt.

I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for your ongoing willingness to facilitate transparency and accountability in respect of the Wilson doctrine. Last week, in the wake of the IPT judgment on the case brought by myself and Baroness Jenny Jones, I was given the green light to ask two written parliamentary questions that would not have been permissible 24 hours earlier—namely, to ask the Prime Minister what information he holds about MPs having had their communications surveilled and further, to ask him whether the Wilson doctrine has been consistently applied to my communications or whether those communications have also been surveilled. I urge other MPs to ask those same questions, as our constituents and other correspondents have a right to know whether they have been spied on. We also need answers to the following questions. Did the Government realise that the Wilson doctrine was not legally enforceable in advance of this ruling? Will the Prime Minister now come clean about how many MPs and their constituents have been surveilled?

The impending publication of the investigatory powers Bill will offer a key opportunity to ensure that the protections supposedly afforded by the Wilson doctrine are indeed properly enshrined in law. I am pleased that the Home Secretary has indicated that she will look at including a principle of that kind in the Bill, but I would be grateful if she could be even clearer when she speaks again in the debate and if she confirmed—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently say to the hon. Lady that I am sure her error is an inadvertent one? I do not think that the Home Secretary intends to speak again in the debate tonight, although the shadow Leader of the House might do so if there is time. Of course the Home Secretary is perfectly welcome to do so if there is time, but I do not think she intends to do so. However, I will leave the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) to her own devices.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful for that clarification, Mr Speaker. I will therefore simply suggest that it would be helpful if the Home Secretary were to intervene on me to clarify that she will definitely include in that Bill the kind of principle that many of us have been describing tonight. I appreciate that she is still thinking about whether this should involve independent judicial approval, as I would suggest, a triple lock or some other mechanism. We would, however, like to hear a firm indication, as a result of this debate, that this issue will be properly addressed and that the hole that has been left as a result of the Wilson doctrine not being properly enforced will be filled by a measure in the new legislation.

All the Members who have spoken in the debate have agreed that this kind of legislation should extend to the devolved legislatures and Assemblies, and to the European Parliament. We do not yet live in a surveillance state, and MPs have a right to expect that their communications, and those of the individuals they have been democratically elected to represent, should not be routinely surveilled or intercepted.

Points of Order

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruled in a case brought by myself and Baroness Jones that the Wilson doctrine has no legal force and is just an ambiguous political statement. That appears to contradict what the Prime Minister told the House last month. Can you advise us, Mr Speaker, on the best way of ensuring that the Prime Minister comes to this House and makes a statement about what he knew, and—crucially—that he brings forward legislation to ensure that the communications of MPs who are undertaking their parliamentary duties are not spied on without independent judicial approval?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me advance notice of her intention to raise a point of order and of its substance, but I fear that she flatters me and somewhat decries herself. It is not for the Chair to proffer advice on this issue, but I will attend, in terms, to the specifics of the matter she has raised. I am, of course, conscious that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal today released its judgment in the case brought by the hon. Lady, and others, on the Wilson doctrine. She will understand and appreciate that at this point I have not read it—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) will patiently await my reply and we will hear his oratory in a moment. In any case, I do not believe that it falls to me as Speaker to respond to such a judgment, or to provide commentary on it.

I am also conscious of the concerns of devolved legislatures that have been conveyed to me by colleagues from the Chairs of those bodies, but it would not be right for me to comment on the Floor of the House from this Chair on such matters. The hon. Lady asks how she can seek advance or clarification on the matter, but she bobs up regularly from her place on those Benches in seeking to question Ministers—even the most senior—and I will be looking out for her, and others.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

The moment to stop borrowing is when we can no longer afford to pay it back—[Laughter.] We can perfectly afford to pay back our investment, which is why economists are laughing at the Chancellor—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Hon. Members: “More!”] Order! Mr Cleverly, you are convulsed by mirth. You are in an uncontrollable state. I am worried about your perilous condition, man. Calm yourself and get a grip. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) must be heard—[Hon. Members: “More!”] Order. The hon. Lady’s remaining contribution, which I know will be extremely brief, will be heard by the House and the clock will be stopped if she is interrupted again. We had better be very clear about that.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. If we are investing in jobs, that gets taxes going back into the Revenue, which is good for the economy. That is why economists are saying that the Chancellor’s silly trick is very bad economics, even if it is very clever politics to make all his friends laugh a lot. People across the country are not laughing, because he is increasing austerity and increasing the burden on the poorest.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Helen Goodman—not here.

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

T2. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Points of Order

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member has made his point and that of his party with crystal clarity. It is on the record, and we are grateful to him.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the debates on the Infrastructure Bill on 26 January, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change told the House unequivocally that there would be an outright ban on fracking at sites of special scientific interest. That was the basis on which the majority of the House agreed the Bill should be enacted. Yet secondary legislation published on Friday does the exact opposite, by failing to include SSSIs in the list of protected areas. Mr Speaker, could you please offer some guidance on the appropriateness of concealing such a U-turn in the small print of a statutory instrument, and advise us whether you have had any indication that the Secretary of State intends to make a statement on the matter, given that what she told the House very clearly and specifically no longer appears to be the case?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me notice of it. I have received no indication that a Minister is intending to come to the House to make a statement on the matter. I am not familiar with the detail of what was said at an earlier stage, and it would not be right for me to seek to umpire between competing voices on the history of commitments made. Suffice it to say that Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Lady’s point of order.

Beyond that, I think what I would say is that the regulations will have to be brought forward, if they have not already been, and proceeded with either by the negative or by the affirmative procedure, with both of which the hon. Lady—an experienced Member of the House—will be well familiar. There should, therefore, be at least an opportunity fully to debate the matter, and for the hon. Lady to flag up what she regards as an inconsistency between past commitment and present content. I think we had better leave it there for today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

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

Q9. I welcome suggestions that the Prime Minister will attend the crucial climate summit at the end of this month. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Prime Minister will go, and will he tell us what bold new initiatives the Prime Minister will be taking with him, because that is what my constituents in Brighton say they want? They want to protect what they love—[Interruption.] They want urgent action on climate change.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just say for future reference that it is disorderly to display images in that way, and I say with all courtesy to the hon. Lady, whose principles and commitment I respect, that if everybody did that on every cause it would make a mockery of this place? I ask the hon. Lady to take a view much wider than her own immediate preoccupation.

Points of Order

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his response to my question on Gaza, the Prime Minister accused me of seeking to justify Hamas rocket attacks. Seeking to understand a conflict is very different from justifying it, yet so often in the Israel-Palestine debate it suits some to conflate the two, which is both lazy and unhelpful. Given that in my question I clearly said I deplored the rocket attacks, as I deplored the Israeli incursions, would it be appropriate to ask the Prime Minister to retract his earlier statement?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think I have to ask the Prime Minister to do anything of the sort, to be honest, although he is perfectly welcome to come to the Dispatch Box, if he wishes. However, I say in all courtesy to the hon. Lady—I hope she takes this in the right spirit—that I was very happy for her to raise her point of order and put her concerns on the record, and I am sure she will not be affronted when I say that she is a robust character and capable of looking after herself and that I do not think he has anything to apologise for or to add, unless he wishes to do so. We will leave it there for today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, Caroline Lucas.

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

In my constituency, one-third of homes are in the private rented sector. Tenants are often ripped off and forced to move at a month’s notice, and the average rent for a two-bedroom home is £1,200 a month. Will the Prime Minister back my call for a living rent commission to explore ways of bringing rents back into line with the basic cost of living?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

Our hearts go out to everyone whose lives are being devastated by the current floods. I am sure we all welcome the Prime Minister’s promise yesterday that he will do everything he can both with the relief effort and in building a more resilient country into the future. Does he therefore agree that it would be both complacent and ignorant to flout the warnings of the Met Office and his own advisers, who warn that climate change will lead to even more such events in the future? Can he confirm for the House and for everyone in my Brighton constituency that doing everything he can will include not only reversing cuts to the Environment Agency budget and giving proper funding for flood prevention but, crucially, removing anyone from the Cabinet—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful; that is enough. [Interruption.]

Point of Order

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As other hon. Members have pointed out, the Government are heavily amending the Immigration Bill on Report, which means that a substantial Bill is skipping the normal process of scrutiny and extra time is not being given. To make matters worse, the Government have not even bothered to table explanatory statements. They promised that they would do that, when they opposed making them mandatory. Do you agree, Mr Speaker, that their failure to do so now on such a complex measure at the very last moment is a serious abuse of our legislative process, and is there anything you can do about it?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I am bound to say that she both looks and sounds very shocked. I hope she will understand when I say that, although she is a very seasoned politician with experience in another Parliament, I have been here a little bit longer and have therefore seen quite a lot of things before and am perhaps not quite as regularly shocked and astonished as she is.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, Caroline Lucas.

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

In the light of the Prime Minister’s welcome recognition at last week’s PMQs that Brighton is indeed a superb and sunny place, will he come and visit the Brighton Energy Co-operative in my constituency, which demonstrates the real potential of community renewables, particularly solar power? Will he also acknowledge that if the Government’s new community energy strategy were to include the provision for energy providers to sell directly to consumers, it would have far more potential? Will he pursue that strategy instead of his evidence-free fantasies about fracking?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has been looking doleful for much of questions. I shall do my best to rescue her from her misery.

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

I am entirely grateful, Mr Speaker, but my dolefulness has more to do with the responses from the Government than with my not catching your eye.

The Government’s main reason for denying women born between 1951 and 1953 the option of receiving the single-tier pension if that means a higher weekly income appears to be the uncertainty about when their husbands will die. That is irrelevant for single, unmarried female pensioners—the poorest of all groups in retirement—who know that they would be better off with a choice. Will the Minister reconsider his policy so that the Government can help my constituents and others like them?

Points of Order

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

No further point of order arises in respect of the ruling on this matter that I have given. I know the hon. Gentleman well enough to know that he would not be so unwise or discourteous as to challenge the Chair, because he is both wise and courteous.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have evidence, which I have in my hand, that French company MagForce International and Chinese company Tianjin Myway International Trading have been promoting illegal weapons of torture at the DSEI arms fair, which is being held in London docklands this week. Can you advise me how to get that information to Ministers at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills as fast as possible to get them urgently to make a statement in this House about how that can have happened, especially since this is not the first time that illegal weapons have been found at DSEI?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. Not for the first time, and probably not for the last, she has found her own salvation. She inquires about the quickest means by which to ensure that her concern is relayed to representatives of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what she had to say and I am sure that it will be a matter of only seconds before her remarks wing their way to the Secretary of State. It is then for him to decide how to respond. It is not a matter of order for the Chair but the hon. Lady is well aware of the opportunities she has to call Ministers to account and I feel sure that she will deploy the weapons at her disposal.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Several colleagues are seeking to catch my eye. I am keen to accommodate them. The House will appreciate that it is only right that the Minister should have a reasonable opportunity to wind up on her own lead new clause in the group, at approximately 9.50 pm. I appeal to colleagues to help me to help them to help each other.

[Caroline Lucas]

I will be brief.

I put my name to new clauses 10 and 11 in good faith. Opening civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples is something that I have campaigned on for years, so I am hugely disappointed to see such political games being played.

I put my signature to those new clauses because I want to promote equality. It is important to allow everyone—same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples—to enjoy a civil partnership or marriage as they choose. This is a question of equal love. It is not about asking for special treatment for gay couples or straight couples; it is about everyone enjoying the same rights regardless of their sexuality. It is worth noting that equal rights are already enjoyed in countries such as France, where many heterosexuals want and can get the legal security of a civil union if they do not want to get married. I do not understand why straight couples in Britain should not have that right, too. That is why, for several years, I have been writing to the Government—for example, back in May 2011—and calling on them to support civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples. I have done so on a number of occasions, so this is not a new idea or one that has only just now come on to the agenda.

The Government have had time to consider the cost implications and should not now be using their failure to do so as an excuse for denying people equality, especially when the projections on the pension costs are so speculative—in the space of five days they have gone up from £3 billion to £4 billion. One gets the sense that they are being done on the back of a cigarette packet. If civil partnerships for mixed-sex couples really would generate £4 billion of cost liabilities and cause more than two years’ delay, let us see the evidence, but so far there has been none.

Succession to Hereditary Peerages and Estates

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I wondered whether the hon. Lady was hailing a taxi. I am afraid that I am not available for that purpose, but I am happy to respond to her attempted point of order.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. I know that colleagues will want to get on with the main business, but I wish to raise a brief point of order.

The Justice and Security Bill goes to the other place for its final stages tomorrow, but this House has still not been informed whether the introduction of secret courts affects habeas corpus. Indeed, the House has had no fewer than four different answers from the Minister without Portfolio, ranging from “yes”, “no” and “not sure” to “I’ll check”. Will you rule, Mr Speaker, on whether the Minister without Portfolio should come back to the House before the Bill gets its Royal Assent to tell us what the right answer is?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. It is not actually a point of order for the Chair, but I would say that the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), has been in this House, if memory serves, for more than 42 and a half years and it will be 43 years in June. I think he takes his responsibilities to the House very seriously. If, as a result of the matters described by the hon. Lady, there is a requirement for clarification, I feel sure that the Minister without Portfolio will provide it at the appropriate time. We will leave it there for today.

Badger Cull

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Lady responds, I remind Members that she is due to speak for 15 minutes or thereabouts and has already taken several interventions. I gently encourage Members to be economical with interventions. Many Members wish to speak in the debate. The more interventions, the longer we will take, and you can bet your bottom dollar that people will be queuing up to complain and ask, “Why didn’t I get called to speak in the debate?” Answer: the time was taken up earlier. Let us get on with the debate.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In order to do so, I go back to what I said just before the hon. Gentleman intervened, which is that Lord Krebs himself is saying that people are cherry-picking certain aspects to try to get the result they want. If the hon. Gentleman looked at the full set of recommendations from the document instead of those that he cherry-picked, he would see that in fact the vast majority of the evidence is that culling does not make a significant contribution.

Sittings of the House

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) for all his Committee’s work and the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) for her eloquent speech. Notwithstanding the considerable progress made since the right hon. Lady first came into Parliament, we still have a long way to go before this institution is fit for the 21st century.

As I walked into the Chamber today, I noticed the snuff box still provided for MPs by the entrance. That is perhaps just a faintly amusing anachronism, which falls into the category, mentioned by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), of traditional things that are not harmful. I would say that our late sittings fall into the category of things that are anachronistic and harmful. They are harmful to the health of Members—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appeal to Members to show courtesy to those who are speaking, rather than wittering away as though their own conversations were somehow more important. Sit quietly—and if you are not interested in doing so, get out. We can manage without you.

[Caroline Lucas]

I was saying why I thought late hours were harmful. They also give out the impression that things here are suited to the workings of a gentlemen’s club, and that gets in the way of efficient working.

I hope that Members will take this opportunity to bring the Commons out of the snuff age and into the 21st century. We should not be afraid of change because we will all benefit from a more modern House of Commons. When I say “modern”, I fully appreciate that on some days the hours that help some families closer to Westminster will be different from the hours that help families in constituencies further afield.

We have to take on a system that takes the mix of constituency distance from Westminster on board, and there is a solution for Tuesday and Friday that could be an improvement for all Members. I shall come to that after commenting briefly on the other days. I share the commonly held view that the distances that many Members need to travel are a sound reason for leaving Monday’s hours as they are. Ideally, I would like a slightly earlier start time on Wednesday, but I could certainly live with an 11.30 start if Members felt strongly about it. As for Thursday, many Members share the view that the earlier we start and finish the better, so that those whose constituencies are far away at least have a chance of staying for important debates and getting home at a reasonable hour. I hope that the 9.30 to 5 o’clock Thursday will be adopted.

I turn to the case for the earlier start time of 11.30 on Tuesday, which I support. I want to address concerns that that is, apparently, just a measure designed for the benefit of MPs with constituencies near Westminster. To many who are promoting the change, it is about being people-friendly, allowing people control over how they organise their lives and work, and having greater certainty over how we arrange our working lives. Yes, it will directly help family access for some; as long as that does not make it worse for others, we should not be saying, “If it doesn’t help me, why should I help you?”

We should be mindful that, whenever possible, we also have a duty to lead by example with good working practices. Late hours are not good for House of Commons staff who have to clear up afterwards and keep the place running. We are also allowing an unhealthy working culture to prevail. If we do not reform where we can—and Tuesday is the obvious candidate for reform—we send the message that hard-working people are not entitled to a healthy work-life balance. People, and even MPs, are entitled to that. We are often characterised as taking long holidays when in fact most of us are working hard in our constituencies.

The issue is about creating a House of Commons that is both effective and people-friendly. Of course, family arrangements often differ depending on how far away from our constituencies we are here in Westminster, but that can be addressed if we combine an earlier start on Tuesdays with moving private Members’ Bills to Tuesday evenings. Starting Tuesday’s business at 11.30 am and giving PMBs the Tuesday evening slot would have three benefits. It would give PMBs the prominent midweek slot they deserve, it would deal with the problem of filibustering, and it would allow Fridays to become an official constituency day.

We need to send out a very clear message that the House of Commons is a reasonable place in which to work—a place where people can work even when they have family commitments both far and near. That is why we have to make this place a more friendly place for women. The House of Commons is 81% male, and that is a shocking figure. If we frame our sitting hours around modern life instead of allowing the continuation of a system based on hangovers from the snuff-snorting era, we can send out the important message that we are not happy with the status quo of 81% men and want to be a place where the population is properly represented. Changing sitting hours will not solve everything, but it will make things better. I very much hope that by supporting motions 4 and 9 we will take the opportunity to make this place more contemporary and even just slightly more appealing to those who are staggeringly under-represented.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Some people are going to burst they are getting so excited, which is a bit of a shame—and a bit of a problem for them.

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

Will the Prime Minister listen to both the campaigners outside Parliament today and the 80,000 people who have written to him in recent weeks, and commit to becoming a leading advocate for the introduction of a Robin Hood tax at the G20 summit later this week? Will he ensure that the revenue is earmarked to tackle sustainable development and the growing climate crisis?

Wild Animals (Circuses)

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. While paying absolutely no disrespect to zoos, may I request that we return to the subject of circuses?

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

I have to say that I think the Minister’s position is an extraordinarily cowardly one. May I remind him that there was legal advice against a seal ban—a ban on the import of seal products—yet the courage of member states led to that being overturned? There was also legal advice against the ban on the import of cat and dog fur, but, again, the courage of individual member states led to that being overturned. May we have a bit of spine from this Government, and will they respect the wishes of the vast majority of people in this country and ban now these wild animals in circuses?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Thursday 16th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Caroline Lucas.

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

In the light of the role that the World Bank could play in establishing and managing the new green climate fund, which was set up following the Cancun agreements, will the Secretary of State comment on the current level of fossil fuel lending undertaken by the World Bank group, and will he support a major shift to lending for renewables instead?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

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

What contacts have the Minister or his officials had with their Swedish counterparts or authorities about the extradition of WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, from the UK to Sweden, and what assurance has the Minister sought or received from Sweden about the widespread public concern that there might be a political dimension to these proceedings?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister will accept that his answer must relate specifically to the effectiveness of the internet as a means of promoting democracy worldwide.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Colleagues are to be congratulated on their succinctness.

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

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Bercow

Thursday 17th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

Is the right hon. Lady aware of testimony from British Airways staff that British Airways has run commercially unviable flights in periods of industrial action, with low to zero numbers of passengers, to give the impression that it is unaffected by industrial action? Will you condemn any carrier for such environmentally unsustainable behaviour and investigate any report from BA staff?

[Mr Speaker]

I will neither condemn nor investigate, but the Minister might.