Point of Order
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Caroline Lucas
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, this morning a Home Office-commissioned report from Lord Walney was presented in Parliament using the motion for unopposed return procedure, effectively protecting it from any kind of legal challenge. However, the report reads as a highly political document and includes proposals, for example, for very serious restrictions on civil liberties and human rights. I understand it is not in order for Members to criticise a member of the House of Lords in the Chamber, and Lord Walney’s interests as a paid adviser for the arms and oil industry are registered in the Register of Lords’ Interests. However, could you advise the House on whether, when a report is given legal cover by this House, it would be at least healthy for scrutiny to have an additional requirement for any relevant interest by a report’s author to be specifically flagged to this House as well?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I can confirm that the effect of this morning’s motion is that the report was published by order of the House. She asks about the financial interests of members of the House of Lords, which of course is not a matter for the Chair of the House of Commons, but I appreciate that she makes a serious and valid point about the way in which the matter has been presented to this House. If she has concerns about the content of the report, I would advise her to discuss with the Table Office how she might pursue the matter further. There are various lines of action open to her.
Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Caroline Lucas(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the hon. Lady gives way, I did ask for five minutes and she has taken nine. She may wish to consider whether she is giving way or might be concluding soon.
Caroline Lucas
Madam Deputy Speaker, on that note, I will not give way. I had not realised it was nine minutes and I will bring my comments to a close. Simply to say again, this matter could not be more important, and that is why it matters so much that the motion is passed later today.
Russian Oil Import Ban
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Caroline Lucas(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I think I said quite clearly no more shouting from people who are sitting down.
COP26
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Caroline Lucas(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Hon. Members must not shout at the Prime Minister. Everyone will have a chance to ask their question—
Environment Bill
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Caroline LucasTuesday 26th January 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 January 2021 - (26 Jan 2021)
Caroline Lucas [V]
My new clause 13, on the application of pesticides in rural areas, follows a very similar amendment made to the Agriculture Bill in the other place. Although it was later removed by the Government during the final stages, it enjoyed wide cross-party support, as I hope this new clause will.
As it stands, the Environment Bill lists air quality, water and biodiversity as priority areas for long-term target setting, alongside waste, but it does not recognise the environmental harm caused by the use of pesticides, and the need to protect human health is omitted entirely. My new clause seeks to remedy that by requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations prohibiting the use of chemical pesticides near buildings and open spaces used by rural residents and members of the public, whether hospitals, schools or homes. That is crucial for improving air quality and protecting human health and the environment.
It is important to recognise that this is about not the misuse or illegal use of pesticides, but the approved use of crop pesticides in the locality where rural communities are present, yet there are still no specific restrictions on the contamination and pollution of the air from widespread spraying of pesticides in rural areas. Indeed, the UK’s regulatory system assesses the safety of only one chemical at a time, yet rural residents are exposed to a cocktail of harmful pesticides spread on nearby farms. Furthermore, although operators generally have protection when using agricultural pesticides, residents have absolutely no protection at all.
We cannot restore and enhance our environment while continuing to ignore the damage caused by pesticides in our intensive food and farming system. In that light, the Government should be standing up for rural residents and communities and protecting them from harm. That is what my new clause 13 seeks to do.
My new clause 18 would require the setting of targets for the reduction and replacement of animal testing under REACH regulations. It has been estimated that, by mid-2019, tests had been performed on about 2.4 million animals. In the last reporting period, the UK used the highest number of animals in experiments of any country in Europe. Although the Government have protected animal testing as a last resort principle from REACH in the Bill, this is an opportunity to go further and demonstrate real leadership by setting targets to replace animal testing.
Tests on animals are notoriously unreliable and are increasingly being questioned by the science. The scientific advancement of non-animal tests and approaches allows us better to predict hazard and manage risk while avoiding or significantly reducing the use of tests on animals—all in a shorter timeframe, with fewer resources used. That is better for human health and animals. I therefore urge the Minister to look again at this important issue and support the new clause.
Covid-19: Support for UK Industries
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Caroline Lucas(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Many of my constituents have signed the petitions triggering this debate and, in particular, are calling for a dedicated programme of support for our events, cultural and creative industries. Anyone who knows Brighton and Hove cannot fail to be aware that we are home to some of the country’s most vibrant, creative and successful festivals. We lead the way nationally as well in widening access to the arts and unleashing the creative lives as yet unlived in excluded communities. Failing to directly support the creative sector puts 16,000 jobs at risk in our city alone and £1.5 billion in turnover. The consequences for the UK as a whole will be equally devastating, including for our sense of identity as a nation, which is inextricably bound up with cultural innovation from Chaucer to Banksy.
I call on Ministers to introduce urgent life support measures as other European countries have done. Germany, for example, has invested in a €50 billion rescue package. We need a similar cultural sector hardship relief fund to save live music venues, grassroots theatres, arts centres, community pubs, and any space that is a vital hub of culture and social interaction in our communities. Live music venues in my constituency are particularly at risk, and face a cliff edge when furlough ends. As one, Komedia, wrote to me,
“A world without grassroots venues is a world where the future’s talent never get the opportunity they deserve”.
I urge Ministers not to stand by and watch them go to the wall.
Those working in the events and creative industries are often self-employed and need their incomes protecting, too. Yet the self-employed scheme falls far short, failing to recognise the reality of self-employment today, penalising those who combine self-employment with PAYE work, PAYE freelancers, new start-ups and the recently self-employed, women who have taken time out for maternity leave and childcare, and anyone earning £50,000 and over. It is also a kick in the teeth for the nation’s small limited companies whose directors take all or part of their income in dividends. Therefore, as well as expanding access to the self-employed scheme, the Government must immediately extend its duration. The self-employed are still only protected until August, and that is not equivalent to the job retention scheme and it is not enough.
This must also be a green recovery in more than name, because of the accelerating climate emergency—it is currently 45 degrees in the Arctic—and because it makes economic sense as well. Plenty of evidence shows that green projects create more jobs, deliver higher returns on investment and lead to increased long-term cost savings. A green new deal recovery should invest only in industries willing and prepared to adapt to the net zero imperative. If public money is being used to bail out a company, there should be green and social conditions attached. We should not be handing over £600 million to easyJet with no questions asked. We should not be bailing out BA when it is treating its workers so appallingly.
Finally, a green recovery requires rethinking our entire economy, so that its primary purpose is human and planetary wellbeing, rather than the endless pursuit of indiscriminate GDP growth, which is destroying our planet and undermining the livelihoods of millions of people.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It should be obvious to the House that we do not have very long left. I estimate that eight more people will be called to speak. As you all have the speaking list, you will be able to work out who those eight are. If you are not among them, it is only fair that I warn you now.