Sustainable Development Goals

Debate between Tom Clarke and Mark Lazarowicz

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, referred to the report we have produced on the sustainable development goals. Given the nature of business during the next few months, it will probably not even receive a Government reply and it certainly will not get much time for debate, so I would like to highlight a few of the report’s recommendations, to which the Minister and the shadow Minister might respond.

We strongly took the view that it was important that there were stand-alone climate change goals in the new sustainable development goals. I know they are currently there and I hope that the Government and the Opposition will confirm that they will recognise the importance of maintaining those in the final package.

In terms of specific recommendations, we emphasised the importance of phasing out the subsidies to carbon intensive energy sources in developing countries. There is no point in our having tight emissions targets if we then encourage activities that produce increasing carbon emissions anywhere in the world, and certainly in developing countries. We emphasise the importance of ensuring there are the highest standards of environmental protection in trade deals. Only today, the Committee took evidence on the new Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership proposals and the need to ensure that they do not jeopardise environmental standards, both within the European Union and the United States, and in the consequential effects on developing countries.

We emphasise the importance of the UK leading efforts to improve air quality in cities. We know that in the UK, the numbers dying from poor air quality are much greater than originally realised, and that is even more of an issue in developing countries, with urbanisation continuing to develop in many parts of the world. Once again, I hope that is an issue on which the Government will take a lead.

We emphasise the importance of—the phrase we use may not be the most elegant but nevertheless it highlights what we want to say—decoupling economic growth from an increase in natural resource use. I hasten to add that we are not against economic growth, but we want to get away from the idea that economic growth has to be accompanied by increasing resource use, and increasing climate emissions as well.

We recommended an annual report on the impact of the international climate fund. That is an important initiative, but it has to be done properly to ensure, apart from anything else, that we do not waste the money when it is going to the most effective uses.

It is important to establish marine protected areas in the UK overseas territories. The only marine protected area that has been established so far is in the Indian ocean territories, and that is more to do with the Chagos islanders and other issues than with having a marine protected area in that part of the world.

There is a very important recommendation on engaging young people in the UK with the renewed sustainable development goals and supporting activities that raise awareness about sustainable development. I am concerned about the future of the international citizen service—an initiative initially promoted by the previous Government that has been much promoted by the current Government. I hope the Minister can give a commitment that the UK will continue to support the international citizen service after this year, when it is due to terminate. That is important. We all know from our work in our constituencies that the genuine interest among schoolchildren and other young people underpins the commitment across the Chamber and across the country to supporting our international development goals.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

Given the discussions about whether there ought to be debates on this, does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we have a debate before the Paris conference in order to give strength to our representations?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Absolutely. Public debate, engagement and support strengthen the hand of any Government in international negotiations such as those later this year.

Last week, I was fortunate to visit Leith Walk primary school in my constituency, where the students and their teachers had been involved in the important and valuable send my sister to school initiative. I am sure that we all have in our constituencies the same experience of young people being very committed to taking action on these issues. I hope that the Government will continue to support that through the continuation of the international citizen service.

It is important to be non-partisan on this issue, as far as possible, and to ensure that we have the widest consensus among political forces in this Chamber and outside. At the same time, it is also right to criticise and challenge a Government where there are failings. That is why I intervened on one of my colleagues about refugees from Syria and, bluntly, the Government’s failure to live up to what was promised just over a year ago. I know that is not the direct responsibility of the International Development Secretary, but the failure of the Home Secretary and her Ministers to live up to what we promised is a blot on our otherwise good record in supporting refugees and international development. I recognise that the Secretary of State cannot today suddenly reverse the Government’s record to date on supporting Syrian refugees, but I hope that she will have a word with her ministerial colleagues to ensure that we now live up to the Government’s commitments, which I believed at the time were made in good faith and which were supported across the House. I would like a change in our actions to be consistent with the policy that the Government followed just over a year ago.

Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Tom Clarke and Mark Lazarowicz

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I welcome this debate.

The measure of a Government’s compassion is their treatment of the most vulnerable members of society. Although we all recognise the unfortunate reality that we must deal with our nation’s deficit, that should never be done on the backs of that section of our society. I requested this debate in response to the dreadful experiences of some of my constituents with personal independence payments. Many of them require the state’s support in order to enjoy a life that those of us fortunate enough to enjoy good health often take for granted. For them, a fair measure of support makes the difference between spending their lives at home, isolated, alone and cut off from the rest of society, and enjoying as active a life as possible and participating in their communities.

Colleagues will know that in the past I have raised the deficiencies of the former disability living allowance. When a constituent of mine endured the difficulties associated with a laryngectomy—the removal of the voicebox, which is almost always carried out as a means of treating cancer—I spoke in the House. The benefits process was so convoluted that it resulted in an individual having to fill out an application form of massive proportions. That would be difficult for many of us, let alone for an individual with a profound physical or mental disability. In this individual’s case, using a telephone was just not possible. Enable, the charity supporting people with learning disabilities in Scotland, has said:

“Whilst it may be possible for many claimants to make this initial call without support, it is our experience that people with a learning disability are often unable to do this and require the physical support of advice services. This is especially true when no family or other support is available to assist.”

Citizens Advice Scotland agrees.

I sought this debate today not least to congratulate Citizens Advice Scotland, which runs the Scottish citizens advice bureaux, on its 75th anniversary. I warmly commend its excellent staff and many volunteers. Crucially, it released a report recently that shows that the rollout of PIP to replace DLA is in an utterly shambolic state. I commend that report to the House for its consideration, and I intend to make a number of references to it. For example, for some rural residents in the north of Scotland the nearest assessment centre is in Inverness, which requires an 80-mile round trip. In some cases, people have to go even further, travelling distances of up to 100 miles, and even in urban areas there are serious problems.

I will give another example of a person who was contacted by Atos for a home visit, so that they could receive a medical assessment for PIP. The individual was receiving in-patient care in hospital on the arranged date and informed Atos, which told her that non-attendance at the meeting would affect any award of PIP. Therefore, the patient had to arrange for an early discharge from hospital and pay for a taxi back to her home. Using a walking frame and with a nasogastric tube in place, she was told by the health care professional who arrived to see her that the assessment could not be carried out because she was too ill. Of course, that left the patient very upset and the health care professional informed her manager of this. Consequently, the health care professional was told that she could carry out the assessment if the patient agreed that it could go ahead. Afterwards, the patient had to get another taxi back to the hospital, at a cost of another £12.

Numerous cases involve what is at best a very sceptical line of questioning and at worst an outright interrogation of a claimant’s circumstances, and I know that many of my colleagues know of similar experiences.

Another decision involved an individual with heart failure who was initially refused any component of PIP, because she had walked from the car park to the assessment centre, albeit with enormous difficulty.

Time and again, the main reasons why people are asking for PIP decisions to be reviewed are, first, the failure to consider fully the impact of a client’s condition during the medical assessment, and, secondly, inconsistencies in the information provided by the Department for Work and Pensions following a decision.

Decisions about the refusal of the mobility component also cause problems. In its comprehensive report, Citizens Advice Scotland states that it has found selective use of evidence in order to make a decision not to award the benefit. Clients feel that not all of their circumstances have been considered, or that they have been over-simplified.

Another awful example is that of a client who had just been awarded a PIP daily living standard rate. He was told that he could drop dead at any time due to a heart condition, and he had a specialist cardiologist’s report from the beginning of last year stating that. The person is so traumatised by the wait and the hardship that have been caused that he cannot face the appeal; he has been told to avoid stressful circumstances at all costs. All that, and much more of what is in the report, is totally unacceptable.

Four in five advisors say that delays are causing worsening health, and in nine out of 10 cases are causing additional stress and anxiety, not to mention financial strain, while claims are being assessed.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I am sure that we will continue to discuss this issue during the course of the day.

What can double or treble delays is the delay upon delay in the appeal procedure. I know of the case of someone who first applied for PIP back in September 2013. She was refused it in the first instance. She was then successful at the first-tier appeal, but the Department has not yet decided whether or not to appeal to the next tier up; because of various delays and errors, that decision has not yet been reached. So, 13 months after first applying, she is still facing nobody knows how many months of delay, and that kind of thing is causing people much tension and pressure, is it not?

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions must be brief.

Energy Price Freeze

Debate between Tom Clarke and Mark Lazarowicz

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am glad for the opportunity to make a few comments in this debate. As for all colleagues—at least on the Opposition Benches—who have spoken, the issue of rising energy prices comes up every week in my surgeries and public meetings. It is utterly complacent for the Secretary of State to lecture us about rising disposable incomes, as if that were the solution to the problem and energy prices did not really matter. He should try and tell that to people who, on top of rising energy prices, have been forced to accept a drop in hours, a wage freeze or rising housing costs, which is the reality for millions up and down this country.

To date, the Government’s measures have not worked, as they have implicitly recognised, because if they were working, why would the Prime Minister have announced, on the hoof, his two major changes in energy prices? Last year, came the promise to put everyone on the cheapest tariff, which then became a promise to simplify tariffs, from which millions of energy customers will not benefit; then, this year, came the sudden review of green levies, which has now become simply the transfer of some energy efficiency measures into general taxation, or so it would appear.

The Government’s policies have not worked to date because they rely on claimed features of the energy market that, by themselves, have not and cannot bring about the required level of market reform and apply downward pressure on energy prices. First, as my hon. Friends have said, the Government are relying on competition, but as even the Secretary of State would seem to accept, competition is not bringing down prices. After all, given that the prices charged by the major energy companies all seem to rise at roughly the same time and at roughly the same rate, we may be excused for being sceptical about competition. We now seem to be relying on switching, but after three and a half years in power, the Government have realised that it is not as easy to switch as they suggested, so they are going to introduce measures to make it easier.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

I regret that I did not have time to refer to small businesses in my speech. Does my hon. Friend agree that small businesses do not welcome being asked to switch, in addition to all the other bureaucracy they have to deal with?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

That is a good point. One problem with relying on switching is that the Government’s measures do not tackle the problem of people switching and then finding it does not bring the expected advantages and so deciding to switch again. I have experience in my constituency of people who are tied into a year’s contract that they cannot get out of. Conservative Members gave the House examples of people making wonderful savings by switching, but I wonder whether those consumers will still find switching to be advantageous in a year’s time. I accept that switching is important, but it is ridiculous to suggest that it is a panacea, as the Government seem to be doing.

The Government are also relying on simpler tariffs to solve the problems. Unfortunately, the simplification is proving to be of much less benefit than first promised. Many customers are now worse off because of the simplification measures. I have highlighted the impact of the way in which Ofgem encouraged a return to the use of a standing charge—in order, it said, to simplify the charging system. This has resulted in many customers with low energy usage, who are often on low incomes, facing sometimes substantial increases. To be fair to the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), he agreed to meet me when I raised this issue, and we were due to meet today. The meeting had to be postponed because of this debate, but I shall certainly press him on this issue in due course.

The Government know that their policies are not making an impact on energy prices, and that is why the Secretary of State and the Government as a whole have been running round like headless chickens trying to come up with a response to the clear set of policies outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the party leader, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) at the Dispatch Box today.

The Government appear to be relying for a solution on the transfer of some of the cost of energy efficiency measures to general taxation, which will have some limited impact on energy bills. A move in that direction might have some theoretical merit, although we would all want to see how it would be worked out in practice and, above all, how it would be paid for. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) has just pointed out, however, none of these measures would have been put forward by the Government, were it not for the plans announced by Labour.

The Government’s proposed measures will have only a limited impact. They, and the similar measures that the Scottish National party have proposed for Scotland if it were to be independent, also suffer from a big weakness—namely, that transferring the cost to general taxation would let the energy companies off the hook. That would lessen the pressure on them to keep prices down. It would also create the risk that the limited saving to customers would gradually be eaten up by price rises imposed by the companies to take up the slack—unless such measures were accompanied by Labour’s price freeze or a similar measure to prevent the companies from taking advantage of the price cut.

Labour’s proposals for an energy price freeze are clear, coherent and comprehensive. They would make a real difference to consumers, households and businesses up and down the country, and that is why I support the motion. I hope that some Government Members will join us in the Lobby, but that seems unlikely, given that so many of them appear to regard this issue as so unimportant that they have not even taken part in the debate. Their constituents will certainly not hold them in high regard for being absent from a debate on such an important issue.

Global Hunger

Debate between Tom Clarke and Mark Lazarowicz

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clarke]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I am delighted that he is shadow Minister for International Development, and I know that he will pursue these points with great enthusiasm.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to intervene in a debate called by my right hon. Friend, precisely because he, perhaps more than any other Member of the House, has committed himself to this issue over decades. That is recognised across the House, by Members from all parties.

My right hon. Friend referred to the new campaign that is being launched by non-governmental organisations. Leading up to Gleneagles seven years ago, the “Make Poverty History” campaign applied pressure and made a real difference, not only in mobilising public opinion but in affecting Governments. Does he hope that we will see similar public support for a massive new campaign that leads to the kind of changes we need?

[Mr Clarke]

Yes, I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I hope I might be forgiven for not giving way later on, because I hope to give the Minister at least 15 minutes—or as near to that as possible—to respond to the debate.

I return to the thoughts I was offering. Food prices are more volatile than they have ever been, and even here in our own country hard-working families are struggling to feed their children. The message is simple: there is enough food in the world for everyone if we act now to address the structural causes of poverty. Hunger and malnutrition are not caused by a shortage of resources but by our inability to see beyond our own immediate needs. The time has come to look beyond politics, country borders and economic partnerships, and to make a decisive leap forward for the sake of humanity.

However, that prompts a question: what are the structural causes of poverty? They are the political choices made by Governments throughout the developed world that ingrain inequality and injustice. We have a global mission and duty to ensure that the poor do not become poorer while the rich become richer.

Small-scale farmers in the developing world produce more than half the world’s food—a staggering figure—but look at what is happening to their land. Obviously, sizable and suitable land is vital for farmers to grow food, but globally, in the past decade, an area eight times the size of the UK has been sold off or leased out. Such land deals, done behind closed doors and with no transparency or participation by the people affected, often see local people unfairly lose their homes, land and access to the resources that are vital for them to be able to grow or buy enough food.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Tom Clarke and Mark Lazarowicz

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a complex Bill, but at its heart there is of course a simple principle that those who make the laws for the people should be elected by the people, and that is why I shall certainly support the Bill’s Second Reading.

That principle of election, if it is to be made as real and as complete as possible, also requires accountability, and that is why I have grave reservations about the proposals for 15-year terms with no possibility of re-election. I shall look for amendments to that as the Bill makes its way—eventually—through the House.

I also do not see why election requires 450 Members in the reformed upper House. At an earlier stage, it was suggested that 300 would be sufficient, but even that is on the high side. If the new House is to have Members with a revising role but no constituency responsibilities, it does not need anything like the suggested 450 Members, and, if the number of Members of a second House were lower, some of the cost objections that have been raised would be less powerful both in this House in debate and in a referendum.

I support the principle of election, so I also agree with Opposition colleagues who argue against reserved places for Church of England bishops. Many bishops who attend the Lords do offer an independent and critical voice, and it has challenged over-mighty Governments of all parties, but such a challenge should come from those whose authority to speak is derived from election, not from appointment. As many Members have pointed out, the additional objection is that, by giving a privileged place to leaders of one faith group, we discriminate against every other faith group, let alone against agnostics and atheists.

I am glad that the programme motion has been sent away for another day, because it limited, as is normal, not only the total number of days for debate, but the subject for debate on each day. So there were bound to have been occasions when, because of statements or whatever, and after Front Benchers’ speeches, perhaps only six, seven, eight, nine or 10 Back Benchers would have been able to join in the debate, and that would have been unacceptable on an issue about which so many Members have strong views.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Bill, in many cases and in many places, is opaque? For example, it does not indicate whether, in the other House that is going to emerge, Members will even be paid during the parliamentary recess. Given that so many questions are bound to be asked, it would be ridiculous to confine ourselves to a particular time limit.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Indeed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said, given that the Bill might end up in exactly the same format going through under the Parliament Act procedures, it is vital that we get it right first time while it is here. It would be ironic if a measure that is designed to improve scrutiny ended up restricting scrutiny here in this Chamber.

The programme motion has been taken away, but that does not necessarily mean that the Bill will not go through this place, although it will certainly take longer to do so. If it does not go through, that will not be because of actions on the part of Labour Members, as some Liberal Democrat Members have suggested; it will be because the Conservative side of the coalition has pulled the rug from under its Lib Dem partners, and the Lib Dems will have to draw their own conclusions about the future of the coalition.

I want to say a few words in support of the call for a referendum. I have not always been as enthusiastic as some colleagues about the case for referendums on almost any constitutional change, but it is now broadly accepted that any major constitutional change should be submitted for endorsement to those it affects. Having seen referendums approved for much less significant changes than this one, I cannot see any argument against a referendum ultimately being agreed to as part of a final requirement of endorsement by the people.

I suspect that the real argument as to why the Government—certainly the Liberal Democrats—are against a referendum is that they fear, particularly after the experience of the AV referendum, that they would lose it. I draw a different conclusion from that experience from that which some Liberal Democrats seem to have reached. I supported AV and campaigned for it. However, in the case of the AV referendum, hardly anyone who campaigned for AV really believed that it was the ideal solution, and they did not give it any enthusiastic support. That is the danger that will face the Government if and when this matter comes to a referendum. [Interruption.]