COP28

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

There were no answers!

[Mr Speaker]

Please. The Minister will answer as she sees fit. I am sure that at the end you will want to raise a point of order. That is the time—you cannot have a second bite of the cherry. I went out of my way to ensure that this issue was covered, so please—I am sure other Members will ask questions, and it is up to the Minister how she answers them. I am not responsible for that.

Debate on the Address

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 7th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Prime Minister gave way to the hon. Lady. She should at least do him the courtesy of hearing the answer.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say that I was very sorry to hear the news that the hon. Lady will not be standing in the next general election?

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

May I put it to the Minister that it is a bit odd to object to something simply because it will be a novel procedure? Everything is novel once. If we are to improve the effectiveness of Parliament, surely some novel procedures are precisely what we need.

Point of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas

Monday 18th July 2022 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 22 June at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister agreed to look at the urgent case of Afghan nationals who I am trying to help, and whose lives are at daily risk; they include Chevening alumni. I immediately sent him the details of our four cases, and I have chased him repeatedly and asked a written question. Today I did receive a reply, but it simply said that a reply would be sent “in due course.” Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, on what avenue I might take to elicit a serious response, given that it makes a mockery of promises made at the Dispatch Box at PMQs if there is still no response more than three weeks later?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. Although the Chair is not responsible for ministerial answers or the actions taken following them, Ministers should of course follow up on the commitments they make in this House. Not to do so is discourteous, especially when the cases concerned are urgent. Those on the Government Front Bench, including the Prime Minister, will have heard what the hon. Member said, and I hope they will achieve a quick response for her.

Bills Presented

Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Nadine Dorries, supported by Secretary Priti Patel, Secretary Steve Barclay, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Matt Warman, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Stephen McPartland, Tom Pursglove, and Heather Wheeler, presented a Bill to make provision for the regulation of the processing of information relating to identified or identifiable living individuals; to make provision about services consisting of the use of information to ascertain and verify facts about individuals; to make provision about access to customer data and business data; to make provision about privacy and electronic communications; to make provision about services for the provision of electronic signatures, electronic seals and other trust services; to make provision about the disclosure of information to improve public service delivery; to make provision for the implementation of agreements on sharing information for law enforcement purposes; to make provision about the keeping and maintenance of registers of births and deaths; to make provision about information standards for health and social care; to establish the Information Commission; to make provision about oversight of biometric data; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 143).

Ministerial Competence (External Review) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Paul Maynard presented a Bill to make provision for an annual appraisal of the performance and competence of individual Ministers, conducted outside the Cabinet Office, to inform the Prime Minister in recommending ministerial appointments; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 144).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

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

Yesterday, when I asked the Prime Minister about Russian meddling in UK elections, he looked very shifty before claiming that he was not aware of any. Yet, when he was—[Interruption.] Yet, when he was Foreign Secretary in 2017, he appeared at a joint press conference with the Russian Foreign Minister. When Lavrov claimed that there was no evidence that Russia had interfered in UK elections in any way, the now Prime Minister corrected him by saying that there was no evidence of “successful” interference. Can the Prime Minister tell us what evidence he has seen of unsuccessful interference? Has he actually read the Russia report, which is very clear that there is credible evidence of interference? [Interruption.] Given that, as his Defence Secretary said earlier this week, information is as powerful as any tank, can he explain why he is turning a blind eye to allegations of Russian disruption—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I hope that you are coming to the end of your question. I do need to move on.

[Caroline Lucas]

Mr Speaker, I could be a lot faster if I were not being barracked by Conservative Members.

[Mr Speaker]

The challenge is to get those on the Front Bench moving quickly. We want to get speed into this, so I am sure that she is ending now.

[Caroline Lucas]

Given that, as his Defence Secretary said earlier this week, information is as powerful as any tank, can he explain why he is turning a blind eye to allegations of Russian disruption? Why is he playing fast and loose with our national security—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call the Prime Minister.

Covid-19: Government Handling and Preparedness

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 27th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We have a connection problem with the line to Dr Andrew Murrison so we will go straight to Caroline Lucas.

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

The families of the bereaved deserve better than the grotesque pantomime of the Cummings evidence session yesterday. At the very least, they deserve the publication of the internal lessons learned review. A constituent of mine whose father died from covid acquired in hospital wrote to me to say that the refusal to release it is

“an insult to bereaved family members, who, in the midst of our own suffering, are determined to prevent other families from experiencing the loss we have”.

She is right because the big question is not just about mistakes the Government made last March, but why Ministers never learn from those errors and continue on a path that risks lives and livelihoods. The Secretary of State says he is being straight with the public and this House, so as continued Government negligence risks a third wave of the pandemic, will he finally publish that review urgently, not least so that it can be scrutinised before restrictions are due to be lifted next month?

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas

Monday 29th October 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Barely two weeks ago, the world’s scientists issued their most stark warning yet that we have just 12 years in which to tackle climate change and avoid climate catastrophe, yet there was not a single word from the Chancellor about climate change, nothing about clean energy, nothing about green energy. Does the right hon. Lady agree—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Interventions are meant to be short. I think the hon. Lady has got her message across.

NHS Provision (Brighton and Hove)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas

Monday 24th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

That would be a very interesting issue to debate. The hon. Gentleman can get his own debate on Worthing hospital, but what I know about are the particular problems that are facing Brighton and Hove, and I will point again to the particular complex needs that come together when one has a city full of young people as well as very elderly people, a lot of people with mental health problems, homelessness problems, vulnerability problems and so on. If he will give me a little more time, I will set out for him what some of the problems are in Brighton and Hove and also, crucially, what some of the answers are.

I was talking about adult social care and about the fact that, unfortunately, the Government are cutting yet more money from local authority budgets that is supposed to cover those essential care services for vulnerable people.

The Government know that social care in places such as Brighton and Hove is on its knees, and that that has very direct knock-on effect on the NHS that no amount of financial smoke and mirrors can conceal. Brighton and Hove National Pensioners Convention has begun a valiant campaign to protect adult social care services from cuts, with unions such as the GMB fighting alongside it. I really hope that the Minister is listening, because this is a crisis that lets down everyone and there is no hiding from it. Where should responsibility for this catalogue of troubles lie?

What has happened to the city’s non-emergency patient transport service goes some way towards answering that question, and I wish to look at this in a bit more detail. It also demonstrates what can only be described as an utter dereliction of duty on the part of the Secretary of State for Health and I want to repeat my call for his Department to step in and for him personally to resolve an unacceptable and untenable situation.

I am referring to a service that takes people to essential non-emergency appointments—kidney patients going for dialysis, and cancer patients going to and from chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Since April, it has been run by a private company called Coperforma and a number of subcontractors. Coperforma faced intense criticism from the outset, with patients saying that they had experienced delays reaching appointments and subcontractors reporting that they had not been paid. Two of those subcontractors, Langfords and Docklands, went bust in September, leaving some ambulance drivers with up to six weeks’ worth of wages unpaid. In early October, drivers for another Coperforma subcontractor turned up for work only to be sent home again.

Last week, the Patient Transport Service was plunged into a fresh controversy after an investigation by our local paper, The Argus, revealed that one subcontractor may not even have been licensed to operate a fleet of 30 ambulances. I have the headline from the local paper, which Members can see very clearly. It says that ambulances are now in a total shambles—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Do you want to put that paper down on the Bench? Thank you.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am sure that The Argus will be sad to see itself relegated to the seat behind me.

The subcontractor is a company called Docklands Medical Services Ltd. This is apparently a phoenix company for the aforementioned Docklands. As I understand it, the new company seems to be suggesting that it was acceptable for it to operate under the Care Quality Commission licence that was issued to its predecessor, the bankrupt Docklands. The application process for a licence is carefully designed to ensure that standards for vehicles and other safety checks and safeguards have been met. Just allowing a new successor or phoenix company to inherit a licence is setting the bar dangerously low, exposing patients and staff to unacceptable risks.

As a result of this debacle, our struggling hospital trust—yes, the one in financial special measures—has incurred £171,000 of private ambulance costs so far this year to plug the gap left by Coperforma and its subcontractors. To recoup this cost, the trust has, quite rightly, invoiced the clinical commissioning group, which appointed Coperforma. No doubt other trusts similarly affected will have done the same, with serious consequences for the CCGs’ budgets and, therefore, for the money available for other services. Whichever part of the Department of Health ends up footing the Coperforma bill, it represents an unforgivable waste of money and resources, and their diversion away from patient treatment and care.

I trust that the Minister will agree that patients in Brighton, Pavilion or anywhere else should not be paying the price for the failure of private companies that are profiting from NHS contracts. Will he therefore ensure that the CCG is not out of pocket in turn as a result of Coperforma’s mismanagement? I would also like his Department to stop passing the buck when it was his Government who passed the legislation that required services such as non-emergency patient transport to be put out to tender. It is unacceptable for no one in the Department of Health to know whether a fleet of 30 ambulances were properly licensed to transport Sussex patients for three months over the summer. When the Minister responds, will he tell us whether he agrees?

UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

No.

Right now, around 130 countries have endorsed a UN motion calling for a global ban treaty on nuclear weapons. Negotiations for that global ban treaty may begin next year, but this Government are holding out and refusing to engage with multilateral UN processes to secure a nuclear-free world. The Government therefore have no credibility when they say they are seriously working for a nuclear-free world. In an increasingly interconnected world, where our security is deeply linked to the security of those around us, and where we need to be gradually doing the slow and hard work of disarming, the Government’s response is the wrong one, and it takes us backwards. By voting to renew Trident, we are sending a signal that power by any means is necessary—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

UK Drugs Policy

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the current—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Lady has been speaking for 15 minutes, so I am sure that we are nearing the end of the opening speech. [Interruption.] I assure her that we are nearing the end of the speech.

[Caroline Lucas]

Of course I am getting near the end, Mr Deputy Speaker. With that in mind, I shall simply agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton).

The current policy is essentially putting users at greater risk by driving the creation of yet more ways to stay one step ahead of the law and by making research into the harms associated with new substances much more difficult.

Housing Supply

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I very much welcome this debate. The last two speakers have talked about their own constituencies in London. Clearly, my constituency is not in London, but it is experiencing similar house prices and many of the stories that we have heard this afternoon have resonance in Brighton, Pavilion. The failure of successive Governments over the past 30 to 40 years to build anything like enough homes is a scandal that has been ignored by those in power, who have been busy enjoying the short-term economic benefits of inflated house prices. Those prices have skyrocketed in the past year in a market that is both irresponsible and unfair.

I also welcome the motion tabled by the official Opposition. It represents a step in the right direction, but I am concerned that it is quite vague and I hope that they will fill in some of the gaps during the debate. That is why I have amended the motion, and I will say a few words about that in a moment. I want to focus on the issue of council homes, which have not been built in significant numbers for decades. Instead, hundreds of thousands of them have been sold off cheap. On the failure to build, a recent House of Commons Library note shows the long-term steep decline in house building in England over the past 35 years.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady. She might have tabled an amendment but it was not selected, and the motion has not been amended. We are dealing with the motion before us and no other.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can assure you that I was not speaking to the amendment—perish the thought. I was speaking to the items in the motion—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady said that she had amended the motion, and the problem is that people might therefore think that there is an amendment to the motion. That is all I am bothered about. There will be just one vote.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I sought to amend the motion—devastatingly unsuccessfully —and I will not mention the matter further. I do, however, want to mention the substantive issues in the Opposition motion, as well as certain things that are not in it but have nothing to do with my amendment—or rather, my proposed amendment that does not exist. It was a figment of my imagination.

On the failure to build, a recent House of Commons Library note shows the long-term steep decline in house building in England over the past 35 years. Nearly 307,000 homes were built across all tenures in England in 1969-1970, but the number fell to just 107,000 in 2012-13. There was a minor increase in housing association building over that period, although it amounted to fewer than 15,000 more dwellings being built last year than in 1969-70. What is most striking is that the steepest decline was in the building of council homes, which fell from 135,000 to 1,360 over that same period.

To their credit, the last Labour Administration did attempt to address the chronic backlog of repairs and maintenance left after 18 years of deliberate Tory neglect. It is just a shame that this was done at the expense of building the council homes that were needed. For example, only 60 council homes—a tiny number—were built nationally in 2001-2002. By 2008-9, the figure had gone up, with 490 council homes completed in that year, but that was still fewer than one per constituency. The number of housing association homes was higher, with 14,000 in 2001 and 26,500 in 2008, but the numbers were still woefully low. The current Government are clearly worse; they have cut funds for social housing by 60%. The need for strong solutions to get the council and social housing we need built is an absolute priority in our discussions this afternoon.

I see the reality of the housing crisis every day in my constituency. The chronic long-term lack of housing supply is evident everywhere in Brighton, Pavilion and I am regularly contacted by people in despair and in real housing need. Our local paper, the Brighton Argus published a housing special last Saturday entitled “Can you afford to live in the city?” This was a rhetorical question, because for most people in housing need, the answer is a very clear no: the average price in the city has been driven up to more than £367,000. We have seen a 13% increase in house prices in the last quarter alone. Therefore, it is no surprise that we have 18,000 people on the council’s housing waiting list.

The city’s housing market is fast becoming known as a “mini-London”, with average house prices in Brighton nearly twice the national average. Young Brightonians who do not have rich family backers have no hope of getting on the housing ladder. The combination of stratospheric rent and price rises and policies such as the pernicious bedroom tax—which appear to be designed to push people in need of housing benefit, particularly those with disabilities, out of desirable areas—has created a situation in which people on low incomes and those on average wages are being pushed to the margins.

The motion does not say very much about how the Opposition would achieve the aims that they are putting forward. Those aims are laudable, but where are the means? I would like the unfair restrictions on local authorities to be lifted. Housing associations are allowed to borrow against their assets to build but councils are not, despite being able to do so more cheaply. That makes no sense. We must fully lift the borrowing cap to get council homes built again. Councils suffer unnecessary restrictions. They are bound by prudential borrowing rules anyway, so the cap is arguably unnecessary; it is just stifling the building of local authority homes.

Using the Department for Communities and Local Government self-financing model, a joint report published in 2012 by the National Federation of ALMOs, the Local Government Association, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Association of Retained Council Housing and many others showed that if the borrowing cap were fully lifted and councils were able to make prudential use of their borrowing potential, they could borrow up to £20 billion over five years. That extra borrowing could enable between 170,000 and 230,000 extra homes to be built.

The main justification for the imposition of borrowing caps on local housing authorities is that the additional debt incurred by councils would add to the overall Government debt, but that need not be the case. The UK is unique in Europe for classifying a wide range of bodies as coming within the definition of “public sector” that is used to measure public debt. No other EU country treats social housing investment in the way that happens in England. There is a strong case for local authority borrowing for housing not to be counted towards the public sector debt. Local authority borrowing for housing would be largely self-financing in any case, and it is transparent and low risk.

I would be the first to admit, however, that lifting the borrowing cap will not be enough on its own to replenish our social housing stock following the giveaway of council houses under right to buy and the failure to build. A significant increase in grant funding is needed if we are to begin to reverse the chronic failure to build the housing that we need. That money would also create the benefit of a multiplier effect, generating jobs, apprenticeships, an increase in tax revenues and reduced welfare spending. Shelter has said that £1.22 billion extra, on top of the current £1 billion of Government grant spend, could be sufficient to get us building enough homes if it was combined with a package of reform. That would certainly be a good start. Serious consideration should be given to channelling some of the huge windfall increase in stamp duty revenues predicted by the Office for Budget Responsibility into building new council homes. That would be one way of using some of the tax proceeds from our distorted market to increase social housing supply.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you are looking a little fidgety, if I may say so. That indicates to me that you would like me to wind up shortly, and I will do so. However, I just want to mention one other matter, which has not been raised this afternoon. The increase in housing supply that we need must involve housing that people can afford to run, as well as buy or rent. This is an opportunity to tackle the scandal of fuel poverty and the rising cost of living. We must use house building to reverse this Government’s weakening of energy saving, water efficiency and other standards. This Government have acted to prevent local authorities from going further than minimum national standards for energy efficiency, despite those standards looking weaker by the day.

Given the scandal of fuel poverty and the hardship being caused by high energy bills, as well as the urgent need for radical cuts to carbon emissions, new homes must be built to a genuine zero carbon homes standard. The Government’s exemptions for small developments mean that around a third of all homes could be exempted altogether. If the Government were sticking to the original zero carbon homes standard, the situation would not be so bad. Under the original standard, annual energy bills for residents in new homes would be under £300, but the Government are again capitulating to big business, watering down the standards and creating loopholes, so energy bills will be around £800.

In summary, we need sufficient homes, which means lifting the borrowing cap and ensuring that imaginative sources of revenue such as stamp duty funding are properly ring-fenced. It also means ensuring that our homes are fit to live in.

Fairness and Inequality

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

For the benefit of us all and to enable a more enlightened debate, it would be helpful if the Government stopped pretending that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)was responsible for the collapse of Lehman Brothers. I blame the Labour party for a lot, but the idea that the current economic crisis was somehow caused by that is ludicrous. It was a global economic crisis and—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think the Minister has got the message.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

For two minutes only, I call Caroline Lucas.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We have heard thoughtful and powerful speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I want to link my views with those of the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who made a compelling and well-informed case about the cruel, counter-productive and ill thought out nature of the Bill. I also associate myself with the views of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who spoke with his customary eloquence and reminded us that we should be under no illusion that this miserable Bill has very little to do with national security, but everything to do with out-toughing UKIP. No one would argue that our immigration system does not need fixing or that it is not blighted by inefficiency and error, yet rather than taking positive steps to fix the problems, the Government have brought forward proposals that will drive standards down, not up.

All the amendments in the group that I support would make the immigration system fairer and more accountable, such as amendment 1, which would delete clause 11. It is important that we support that amendment because the latest figures reveal that 32% of deportation decisions and 49% of entry-clearance applications were successfully appealed last year, yet the Government’s depressing response to that large margin of error is not to try to improve the quality of decision making, but to reduce the opportunities for challenge by slashing the scope for appeal.

Amendment 79 was tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who spoke movingly about it, and co-signed by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). The basis of clause 3 is utterly flawed, given that it sets out the idea that directions for removal within 14 days are somehow sufficient grounds to assume that bail should not be granted. On any common-sense analysis, there are factors that bluntly challenge that assumption. Plenty of people suffering from psychological or physical illnesses, or who have been bereaved or have caring responsibilities, should not be detained, but will not be able properly to challenge that detention.

I support amendment 60, which would retain the status quo on the use of force, not least because there are serious gaps in the training provided on the exercise of force, especially regarding the use of restraint techniques, by immigration officers and contractors. That is just one reason why it is completely unjustifiable that the Government are extending the use of force without any reference to the type of power exercised and the necessity of that force, and without parliamentary scrutiny.

I get the sense that you would like me to conclude my speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I shall oblige, but let me simply say that this is a miserable Bill and that I hope the House will take every opportunity to vote against it.

Iraq War (10th Anniversary)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in this important and useful debate. The honesty and frankness with which Members have taken part does credit to this place: it has shown the House at its best. I note with interest that no one spoke in defence of the UK’s support for the war. Over and over again, hon. Members emphasised the heavy price paid for the invasion, not only by people in this country, but crucially by people in Iraq, where sectarian violence continues to grow.

The debate focused on looking forward as well as back, and I want quickly to underline a few of today’s conclusions. Hon. Members expressed a lot of support for having free votes—and, crucially, votes based on information—when the House debates going to war. Many hon. Members spoke about the importance of basing our decisions on information. We also heard about the importance of reforming the relationship between the Foreign Office, the military and Parliament to ensure that it works better; about the need for structural changes to the Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Intelligence and Security Committees; and about the significance of Iran and Syria.

Many Members spoke about how the war undermined Parliament’s reputation. I hope that this debate has been a step towards reinvigorating confidence in Parliament. I pay particular tribute to the contribution from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), whose comments, as everyone said, were from the heart and delivered with a frankness that made us all listen. I would like to pay tribute to other colleagues, too. The anger with which the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) spoke about the level of deception rang out across the House and, I hope, much wider. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) spoke powerfully and with an expertise that not many of us in this place have about the importance of acknowledging when we get things wrong and of being able to say that we are failing. He warned of the dangers of thinking that we can only ever succeed.

I thank the Minister for loyally sitting through just about the whole debate, although I cannot thank him for the substance of his remarks, given that he was constrained, as he explained, by the convention preventing him from speaking before Chilcot reports. Waiting for Chilcot is like waiting for Godot. It would be helpful to have that report as soon as possible. The debate lacked a contribution from a Minister made with the same degree—or any degree, frankly—of honesty and frankness about what went wrong as other speeches. [Interruption.] I wanted to give credit to all my wonderful colleagues, but I am being told that my time is up. Is that correct, Mr Deputy Speaker?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

You have had your two minutes, but I am allowing you to continue. I am sure you are coming to an end.

[Caroline Lucas]

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) made an important point about the conflict of interest of those on the Chilcot inquiry and about the importance of the Attorney-General’s advice being put in the public domain. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) talked about the problem of a lack of planning post-Saddam. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) catalogued many of the deceptions and reminded us that the rules of the House prohibit us from reading out names of the dead.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) shared with us his interesting perspective as a serving officer and what it felt like to be in that position. He stressed that threat is a combination of intent and capacity, which needs to be borne in mind when trying to judge what constitutes a threat. I welcomed the contribution from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), because he put it clearly on the record that there was very heavy whipping during the vote and that that day, 18 March, was a “horrible day”. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) implied that the whipping was all very nice, light and happy, but that was not the case.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) raised the crucial issue of depleted uranium, while the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) rightly reminded us that Hans Blix pleaded for more time. He did not say it was a lost cause and that war was the only option—on the contrary. Finally, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) gave us some fascinating insights into the mind of the Prime Minister. Quite how he thought the invasion would help the middle east peace process is a question that will keep me thinking for the rest of the day and beyond.

I apologise to those I have not mentioned in my brief winding-up speech, which has already stretched your kind patience, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War.

Energy Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

Obviously, I am not deeply acquainted with the brickwork of the hon. Gentleman home, but I find it slightly surprising that the justification that he advanced would be responsible for such a dramatic reduction. I cannot believe that quite so many cavity wall insulations, down from 40,000 last year to just over 1,000 this year, could be as a result of its having been done badly in the past. There might have been an element of that, but there are some real concerns about the take-up of the green deal and the way in which it replaced some pretty good schemes instead of building on them.

New clause 3 is about community rights to priority access to local power generation and local grid ownership.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. New clause 3 comes in the next group.

[Caroline Lucas]

I apologise, I thought they were all wrapped up together in one happy family.

I am delighted that amendments 42 to 46 are supported by the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley), so in recognition of that I will call them the amendments from Brighton and Hove. They are basically about decentralised energy, which was another area where the Minister said that he appreciated the direction but did not feel that action was necessary. I quote from “Power to the People—the Decentralised Energy Revolution”, a document from the Prime Minister himself:

“In other countries low carbon energy sources have led a process of decentralisation—in the Netherlands, for instance, in little more than a decade, combined heat and power (CHP) became the single largest supplier of the country’s energy needs.

I want to see a similar revolution happen in Britain.”

I want that too, but I do not see it happening unless we put the means in place. It is a real shame that that vision has gone the same way as the abandoned huskies—once hugged, now hated. Distributed generation is about producing and using energy locally.

New Nuclear Power

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. As a matter of courtesy, after walking into the Chamber Members usually sit for a little bit longer than the hon. Lady has before intervening. I know she has a keen interest in this issue and that the Secretary of State has given way, but I hope she will not intervene again.

[Caroline Lucas]

It is very kind of the Secretary of State to give way. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) will testify to the fact that that we were both on a late train. I apologise.

The Secretary of State is right to say that the majority of the House is in favour of nuclear power, but this motion is not about nuclear power per se; it is about public subsidies, and I am not sure that a majority is in favour of the huge subsidies that will go to nuclear power.

Fuel Duty

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

On the day that the International Energy Agency has warned that two thirds of fossil fuels need to remain under the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change, does the hon. Lady not see a contradiction in arguing for lower fuel prices, especially since the cost of motoring has fallen in the past 10 years while the cost of public transport has risen? Would a more consistent position not be to seek to support struggling households directly, using the money—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Lady is testing the patience of the House. It is unfair. We are going to have to introduce a time limit already. If she wishes to speak, would she please put her name down? She cannot make a speech now. Short interventions are needed on both sides

Badger Cull

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. A lot of Members want to get in and interventions will slow us down. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will want to get to the end of her speech very quickly.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s reminding us that farmers are deeply concerned about the matter and feel frustration, but that frustration is because we have had years and years of inaction. Suddenly pulling a badger cull down from the shelf is the wrong way to respond to that frustration. The Government should have gone to the EU and made the case for the DIVA test so that we could get on with vaccination. All the evidence suggests that vaccination, combined with biosecurity, better hygiene and better husbandry, is a much better way of eradicating this horrible disease. No Member is complacent about the seriousness of the disease, but we differ on the most effective way of addressing it. The science is on the side of those who oppose the cull, because it shows that it is not the most effective way forward.

As I said, modern husbandry practices place chronic stress on intensively farmed animals, and a number of scientists are also pointing to the way in which cattle have been inbred for many years as a significant contributor to why cattle do not have the resistance to cope with such a disease.

I want to say a few words about vaccinating badgers. I agree that vaccinating wildlife should be given proper consideration, alongside the vaccination of cattle, yet the coalition Government have slashed funding for the badger vaccine deployment project. Only one of the six original five-year trials to learn how best to address some of the practical difficulties of vaccination is still under way. If those projects had gone ahead as planned, we would have been much further along the road towards finding a solution by now. That is exactly why farmers are frustrated. Instead, two years on, nothing more has been done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I will not.

That inaccuracy makes it impossible to guarantee that local extinctions will not occur. I welcome the fact that the Government and the NFU have concluded that the pilot culls cannot take place this year. They must now look again at other problems that have been identified, and abandon their culling policy altogether.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. An eight-minute limit on speeches has been imposed, but we want to try and get everybody in. Fewer interventions will ensure that everybody will be able to speak.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Caroline Lucas

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 1, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

(a) the school follows the National Curriculum;’.

[The Temporary Chair (Martin Caton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 25, page 2, line 2, at end insert

‘and follows the National Curriculum in science, mathematics, information technology and English;’.

Amendment 30, page 2, line 2, at end insert

‘and where appropriate section 40 of the Childcare Act 2006’.

Amendment 26, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

‘(0) the school has a curriculum which includes personal, social and health education as a statutory entitlement for all pupils;’.

[Caroline Lucas]

As Members will know, the amendment proposes that academies should follow the national curriculum. Under the Government’s proposals, once a state-maintained school becomes an academy, it is no longer required to follow the national curriculum. [Interruption.]

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. There is an awful lot of background noise in the Chamber at present. I cannot hear the speaker, and I am sure many others cannot either.

[Caroline Lucas]

As I was saying, under the Government’s proposals once a state-maintained school becomes an academy, it is no longer required to follow the national curriculum and that is of particular concern in respect of state-maintained faith schools that convert to become faith academies. Interestingly, a recent poll found that 75% of people agree or strongly agree that all state-funded schools should teach an objective and balanced syllabus for education about a wide range of religious and non-religious beliefs.

The Government appear to be unconcerned about the public’s view on that as they allow a significant risk that some religious authorities will use this new freedom under the Bill to pursue restrictive teaching in line with their religion. There are no specific protections in the Bill to ensure that the duty to offer this so-called balanced and broadly based curriculum cannot be neglected or evaded. That is a cause for great concern.

The previous Government introduced a change so that academies had to follow the national curriculum in English, maths and science, and the teaching of evolution was, of course, covered in that. I have tabled my amendment because the coalition Government propose that academies should be entirely free from the national curriculum. If the Bill is not amended, there will be no requirement on academies to teach evolution, and the Government do not even appear to have plans to prevent the teaching of creationism in academies.

We know that some academy sponsors want creationism to be taught. Emmanuel college in Gateshead, backed by the philanthropist Sir Peter Vardy, attracted controversy by teaching pupils about creationism, and pupils at the school reported that creationism was taught alongside evolutionary theory as being an equally valid belief. How will Ministers ensure that pupils at religious academies receive objective and evidence-based teaching and that creationism is not taught in science lessons or as fact?