COP26: Limiting Global Temperature Rises

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Steve Brine

Thursday 21st October 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

“That this House has considered COP26 and limiting global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

It is a pleasure to open the debate on COP26 and limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5°C. I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for recognising the pressing need for this debate and all Members who have offered their support.

The 2015 Paris agreement commits parties to:

“Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C”.

The difference that just half a degree can make has been underscored by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s special report on 1.5°C. It could mean many millions more people being subjected to life-threatening climate events from unprecedented crop failures and food insecurity to risks from diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, extreme heat and sea level rises. Staying below 1.5°C is essential for all of us, yet the IPCC’s most recent report warned that unless there are

“immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to close to 1.5°C or even 2°C will be beyond reach.”

Globally, far from being on track for the 45% emission reduction by 2030 that scientists say is essential, we are on course for an emissions rise of 16%.

That is the context in which the UK is hosting COP26 in Glasgow. That is why the coming decade has been called the most consequential decade in human history, and it is why, as COP26 president and as the nation that led the industrial revolution, fuelled by coal and colonialism, the UK has a particular responsibility to lead the transition to a sustainable, just and resilient world in line with the science and with climate justice.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for opening the debate, and she knows I listen carefully to what she says. I really welcome the net zero strategy the Government announced this week. I think Ministers do deserve credit for being the first major economy to legislate for net zero, and we are decarbonising faster than any G7 country. I realise that for our opponents there is a temptation to pour scorn, express cynicism and say it will never be enough, but as somebody who is nationally recognised as being a thought leader in this space, which part of the Government’s net zero strategy outlined this week would she like to praise and give credit to?

[Caroline Lucas]

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

Trade Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Steve Brine

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

It is extremely interesting to follow the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who seems to be labouring under a completely false set of perceptions. First, the standards referred to in new clause 11, and indeed in many of these amendments, are the standards for products exported from country A to us here in country B. We are not making any comment about the products that are circulating within that country. We are simply saying that, if we want our farmers not to use sow stalls, for example, it makes no sense not to apply such conditions to the imports of food coming from countries that are using those standards. If our standards imply higher costs and we do not have some way of moderating the goods coming in from countries that are not imposing those standards, our farmers will be undercut. I really wish he would get his facts straight before standing up and saying that these amendments do not make sense, because they do.

I stand to speak to new clause 9, tabled in my name. New clause 9 stipulates that no international trade agreement may be ratified or implemented if it restricts the UK’s ability to pursue its climate and environmental goals. It requires the Government to make full implementation of multilateral environmental agreements by all participating nations the priority during trade negotiations, and to prioritise facilitating action to that end at the World Trade Organisation. It requires regular reporting on compliance with the above. Overall, it would ensure that the Government’s trade policy is in line with their international climate obligations and domestic environmental targets.

The Trade Bill should have been an opportunity to provide a clear direction of travel on the UK’s new trading status. It should have set out a democratic, environmentally and socially just framework for a new, pioneering and independent trade policy. The Conservative election manifesto promised that the Conservatives would not

“compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”

Yet, as we have seen, the gap between reality and rhetoric is a yawning gulf. We do not want yet more warm words and nice rhetoric. What we want are some red lines in the negotiations, and the way to get them is to write them into this Bill. That is all that those on the Opposition side of the House are asking for.

Instead, what we have with this Trade Bill is the same rehashed, controversial proposal from before the general election. It is one that fails completely to take account of the long-standing climate and nature crises or, indeed, of the covid-19 pandemic that has happened since. The UK’s objectives for trade deals must change to keep up. They must prioritise action to tackle the climate crisis, sustainable food supply chains, decent work and, as has been so sharply highlighted, universal and affordable access to medical supplies.

As it stands, this Bill risks undermining the UK’s social, labour, environmental and agricultural standards. It fails to ensure that imported products adhere to at least equivalent standards. I therefore welcome all the amendments that have the same objectives as my new clause 9, which would provide us with a framework for protecting the standards that keep us safe. This is not an academic discussion, as we know. We know that the US Administration have made it very clear that they want the UK to lower its food standards to allow the export of products currently banned in the UK, and that is why we need to be on our guard.

[Steve Brine]

I am listening to the hon. Member carefully, as I always do, but we are dealing in facts. She said, following my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), that we should deal in facts; for the record, I thought he dealt in facts beautifully. Does she accept the point that the Food Standards Agency, for which I used to be responsible as a Minister, would have to propose any change in lowering regulatory standards—let us say, for instance, in how one washes chicken. It would have to propose such a regulatory change, which would have to be bought through these Houses of Parliament. Does she accept that as a fact?

[Caroline Lucas]

I am happy to accept that as a fact, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that the unwillingness of this Government to put their objectives into the Bill is causing massive concern? Thousands of people are writing to the Minister to say that they are deeply, deeply concerned, so why not put them in the Bill? Unless they are there, we are not going to take them seriously. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I just do not think that people are going to believe warm words; they want such things in the Bill.

We need to be listening to those people who are contacting the Minister. That includes, as we have heard before, not just the National Farmers Union, but many other organisations and many people from civil society. We also need to be listening to the science.

I want to end by speaking to the issue of climate change and the fact that all our policy arrangements going forward need to be aligned to the essential fact of not exceeding the threshold of 1.5°. This year, 2020, is on course to be the warmest ever. Aligning trade policy with environmental and climate objectives is not just something that would be good to do; it would be reckless and perilous to do anything else. Despite the hype of a brave new post-Brexit world, this Trade Bill perpetuates the status quo. It is totally unfit for purpose from the point of view of standards; democratic scrutiny; secret courts that can also undermine values of the kind we want enshrined in trade Bills going forward.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Steve Brine

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I am very happy to follow the powerful speech by the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening). The decision facing this House could not be more serious, nor could the stakes be higher. This is a debate about the kind of country that we want to become and the kind of values that we want to enshrine. I want to speak out for all those who do not share this Government’s vision of a mean-minded little Britain with our borders closed and our horizons narrowed; and for those who do not accept a future that betrays the hopes and dreams of our young people, who, let us remember, overwhelmingly voted to remain—we should think about their futures when we vote night. I want to speak out for those who are concerned about the threat that this deal poses to the fragile peace in Northern Ireland; for those who, like me, are proud to stand up for the precious right to be able to freely work and study, and live and love, in 27 other countries; for those who celebrate the role of and contribution made by the 3 million EU citizens in our country; for those who recognise that, imperfect though it undoubtedly is, the EU remains the greatest international venture for peace, prosperity and freedom in history; and for those who do not believe that democracy stopped in its tracks three and a half years ago.

As many others have said today, democracy is a process, not a single event. Since that referendum, we have had one general election, two Prime Ministers and a wealth of further information about the costs and complexities of Brexit, and the lies and lawbreaking that stained that poll on 23 June 2016. The Prime Minister has changed his mind on more occasions than it is possible to count, most recently over the prospect of a border in the Irish sea. It is wrong that the British people are apparently the only people who will not be allowed to change their minds.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Ind)]

I am listening to what the hon. Lady says, as always. If another referendum were to come forward—that is not out of the question, although I think it is unlikely—and it were, say, to confirm a leave vote by 52% to 48%, would the hon. Lady accept that, or would she continue her campaign?

[Caroline Lucas]

I would both accept that and recommend that, if the Kyle-Wilson amendment was the kind of amendment that was put, it meant that it would not even have to come back to this Parliament—it would go straight into law. That is what should happen.

This Brexit is the hardest of hard Brexits. It is led by the hard right and, frankly, the rich and the reckless. It is yanking Britain completely out of the customs union and single market—the most advanced examples of international economic co-operation in history, which crucially, protect us with the strongest regulatory framework on earth, with high standards for food safety, workers’ rights and environmental protection.

The so-called guarantees on workers’ rights that are given in, for example, proposed new schedule 5A to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are utterly worthless. They simply require a Minister of the Crown to make some statement about whether or not workers’ rights are going to be rolled back, and if they cannot get around to making that statement, that is fine, too, because they do not have to unless it is “practicable”. When it comes to workers’ rights, we know what the Government’s agenda is. This is not some kind of conspiracy theory.

Acquired Brain Injury

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Steve Brine

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Steve Brine]

Ladies first.

[Caroline Lucas]

Does the Minister share the concern raised with me by my Brighton constituents who travelled up to Westminster to share their stories, about the lack of funding for support for relatives and carers—in particular, the education that family members and carers need about how to look after someone with ABI? It can be incredibly stressful for the person themselves and for family members if people do not know how best to provide care. Funding can make a huge difference.

[Steve Brine]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point, which I shall come to. There are other Ministers on the Bench with me, including from the Department for Work and Pensions, because I wanted them to hear other parts of this debate. The hon. Lady’s point is well made.