Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Olney Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alok Sharma
What an excellent question. I commend my hon. Friend for the work he is doing to encourage youth climate activists in his constituency, such as those in Warrington Youth Voice and at Penketh Primary School. As he knows, last month we sent a COP26 schools pack, designed to engage students with climate action, to schools across the UK. In May, MPs also received a UK engagement pack.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
We are pressing all countries to come forward with mid-century net-zero commitments, and aligned ambitious 2030 emissions reduction targets. We have seen some progress. When the UK took on the COP26 presidency, less than 30% of the global economy was covered by a net-zero emissions target, and that figure is now 70%.
Sarah Olney
The Government claim that the UK has reduced its emissions footprint by 42% since 1990, which is a commendable feat. That has been achieved in part by offshoring manufacturing and outsourcing many emissions to countries such as China that produce the goods we consume. If we factor in those emissions, the UK emissions reduction is possibly as little as 10% to 15%. Ahead of COP26, what steps will the Minister take to include the full scope of our emissions in the accounting, including those arising from UK consumption, supply chains, and international aviation and shipping?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Lady talks about aviation and shipping, and we have included those in the sixth carbon budget. The role of the UK COP presidency is to ensure climate action and ambition across the whole UK, and that is what we are working to deliver.
Lobbying of Government Committee
Sarah Olney Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The overriding impression that one has received from following every new revelation in the Greensill case is of people making up the rules to suit themselves. First, we had David Cameron, the former Prime Minister, who passed an anti-lobbying Bill while he was in power, which conveniently did not cover the kind of lobbying that he himself then went on to do. Now we find that the Cabinet Office did not require its chief procurement officer to declare his part-time role advising a commercial company that wanted to bid for public contracts, and then—incredibly—did not require him to consult the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments about a full-time role with the same company when he left the civil service, because he was already working there.
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have attended a number of inquiries on the Government’s approach to the pandemic. I have heard time and again about the necessity of circumventing the rules to deliver at speed during the last 12 months. I broadly accept that principle, but again we see that the people benefiting financially from these emergency provisions are close associates of those who decided that the rules could be circumvented.
There often seems to be an aversion to setting rules in our political life: a preference for assuming that a combination of personal honour and political pressure— or “moral and reputational pressure”, to quote the Minister—is sufficient to keep people in line. There is a debate longer than my four minutes will allow to be had about whether our political culture has fundamentally changed to the extent that these principles can no longer be regarded as sufficient. But suffice it to say that the lack of a robust system of rules to which everyone is subjected and for which the penalties are more than just damage to political reputation is a major weakness of our constitution. If there are no rules, or if the rules are made and remade and applied by those in power, there are no effective checks or balances on that power. If the rules can be easily changed or subverted to suit the circumstances, they are not rules and they have no discernible function.
For my own part, I think we are seeing a slippage of standards in public life. Our current Prime Minister has been sacked from two previous jobs for lying, and a former Prime Minister has been hawking his Government connections for personal enrichment. I believe that the behaviour of our elected Ministers has impacted our appointed officials’ perception of what is acceptable.
Doubtless the Government will respond by saying that Opposition parties have indulged in the same behaviour and that everyone is as bad as everyone else—and actually, that could well be true. At the heart of the Government and parliamentary machinery are human beings, and not bad human beings for the most part. But any human being asked to define how conduct should be judged will naturally seek to define that conduct in terms that favour their own actions and judgment. So let us not argue that everyone is as bad as everyone else and that the only arbiter should be the voter—or, if we do, let us accept that we are actually making the argument for a more robust system of rules. If everyone is dishonest, how can the voters use their votes to distinguish between us? If they cannot use their votes in that way, how can they be an effective check against self-interested behaviour?
I support the Labour party’s call for a Select Committee to investigate how Greensill became embedded to the extent that it did and to consider how the rules should be strengthened. Liberal Democrats supported the moves to bring in a lobbying register and rules to register ministerial meetings when we were in government, and we have previously tried to amend companies legislation to require annual company spends on lobbying of up to £1,000 to be declared in annual accounts. We will consider any recommendations carefully and back anything that can improve the current system.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Olney Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend puts his finger on it. That is exactly what we need to do. The areas that go into high levels of concern are reviewed every 14 days, and the restrictions, as I told the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), are reviewed every 28 days. The way to get through this is exactly as my hon. Friend says: to follow the guidance, particularly the “hands, face, space” basics.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I can confirm that Hammersmith bridge has been closed thanks entirely to the incompetence of the current Labour Mayor of London, and that Shaun Bailey, the Conservative candidate, is going to reopen it, which is the best thing possible.
Debate on the Address
Sarah Olney Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Davey
I absolutely do. In her speech, the hon. Lady mentioned carbon capture and storage; I had pushed that competition forward, and it was going very well but, directly after the 2015 election, the then Chancellor cancelled it overnight and put Britain’s global leadership on this key climate change technology back years. It was a disgraceful measure.
I was talking about the opinions of the Prime Minister on climate change. Just seven years ago, in his infamous Telegraph column, he sought to cast doubt on mainstream climate science, dismissing it as complete tosh. You can hear him saying that, can you not, Mr Deputy Speaker? Instead, he warned about the
“encroachment of a mini ice age”.
That is what our Prime Minister said.
On wind power, in which Britain now leads the world thanks to Liberal Democrat Ministers—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] If anybody wants to contest that point, I am happy to take an intervention. None are coming. What did this Prime Minister have to say about what is now the cheapest form of renewable power? He said that wind farms would barely
“pull the skin off a rice pudding”.
This technology is a global leader from Britain. It is powering our homes, but the Prime Minister apparently does not believe in it.
Then we see the Conservative record on climate change since 2015, voted for at every stage by the Prime Minister: scrapping the zero carbon homes regulations, banning onshore wind power and stopping tidal lagoon power.
And then we come to Heathrow. In south-west London, we do not forget what the Prime Minister said just four years ago, when he promised that he would
“lie down in front of those bulldozers and stop the construction of that third runway.”
If only, Mr Deputy Speaker—if only.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Conservative Government’s commitment to expanding Heathrow, and the economic benefits claimed for it, do not justify the impact on climate change, the impact on air quality and the impact on noise, in south-west London in particular but also over a very wide area?
Sir Edward Davey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has been an amazing campaigner against the third runway, and I always admire her advice and thank her for it.
When we on these Benches say that we do not trust this Prime Minister and this Government on climate change. The evidence is with us, so we will raise the need for radical action on climate change time and again in this Parliament. We will work to force the Government to make the next global climate change talks in Glasgow in November a success, even though they come, ironically, just when the UK will be losing its influence on climate change at the European table. We will champion the need to decarbonise capitalism, and to build on the fantastic work done by the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney. Today, in the Financial Times, we read that Mr Carney is taking action, introducing world-leading climate stress tests in major financial institutions. If only this Government would back the Bank of England in the City, there would be a historic opportunity for this country to lead the world with a gold standard for green finance, but I fear that there is no ambition on the Conservative Benches for that.
This Queen’s Speech is disappointing on so many levels, and we will vote against it. Liberal Democrats in this Parliament will do our democratic duty: we will scrutinise the Government, and argue for the liberal, inclusive, fairer and greener society in which we believe.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Olney Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend will know, business rates are based on property value and it has been seven years since property values were last looked at, so I think it is absolutely right that we update them. But of course, as I recognised last week, there are different impacts on different businesses, and it is important that we have already put significant sums into transitional support for businesses so that we help the companies that are facing increased bills. As I said in this House last week, I have asked my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Communities and Local Government Secretary to make sure that the support that is provided is appropriate and is in place for the hardest cases. I would expect my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to say more about this next week in the Budget.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I am happy to say to the hon. Lady that we have, of course, protected the core schools budget in real terms. Yes, we have had free schools—I understand that she raises a concern about them—but we have seen the programme of free schools and academies continue under this Government to ensure that we are creating more good school places throughout the country. That is what we want to do and that is what our policy will continue to do.