Self-employed Persons: Financial Support

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

My hon. Friend is right that there is a range of costs. As I say, we are looking as part of our support at what action can be taken. He can see, as an illustration of that, the action that has been taken on mortgages and in support of renters—both for mortgage holders directly and in terms of the buy-to-let market. Measures have been taken, but we stand ready to look at further measures.

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

The local economy in Brighton and Hove is overwhelmingly dependent on the self-employed, so I cannot overstate how urgent it is that we have action on this. I do not know whether the Minister gave a deadline when he spoke to his colleague earlier, but if he did not, will he please tell us that we will have action by the end of the week? Universal credit is not a fair option for many freelancers, because it means they have to delve into savings that they have put aside because they do not have pensions. We are going to push them into greater insecurity right now if we cause them to have to rely on that instead.

[Steve Barclay]

As I said in my opening statement, the Chancellor is meeting on this today and we hope to bring forward proposals in the coming days.

Spending Round 2019

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

The general point my hon. Friend makes about infrastructure and value for money is of course absolutely right, and as we spend more on infrastructure we must make sure that that principle is always maintained. He has invited me to take a further look at the lower Thames crossing. I will be happy to do that and to discuss it with him.

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

The Chancellor tells us that the challenge of decarbonisation is real, as if he has only just discovered it. But we face a climate emergency, so why have we not had a spending round that would actually match that climate emergency? Green groups are urging him to commit at least 2% of GDP on immediate climate action. Is he going to do it, or is this just going to pile up with all his other broken promises?

[Sajid Javid]

This spending round is focused on day-to-day resource spending. The hon. Lady may know that some very important investments that will need to be made on decarbonisation will be capital investments and that is just not covered today, but that does not mean to say it is not going to happen and is not taken seriously. However, one step that we have taken today is to provide more funding to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to work with the Treasury on the decarbonisation plan to meet the net 2050 targets; there is additional funding of £30 million to work on that programme. There are also other measures I have announced today that would help—for example, the £200 million on ultra-low emission buses. I hope the hon. Lady would welcome that, too.

Economic Growth and Environmental Limits

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered economic growth and environmental limits.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate economic growth and environmental limits. It is, of course, a huge subject, covering why and how our current economic model, which puts GDP growth above everything else, must change fundamentally, fast. I will focus on the environmental imperatives for that, especially the climate and biodiversity crises, and set out practical steps that I hope the Treasury will adopt.

It is crucial to note, however, before going into the environmental detail, that the Treasury’s obsession with GDP growth is also undermining social and economic progress for the vast majority of UK citizens. GDP is an incredibly poor metric for measuring wellbeing or social cohesion. For example, people becoming unhealthy can actually have a positive effect overall on GDP, as revenue from associated healthcare boosts growth. Similarly, the extraction of oil and gas pushes GDP up, while pushing us closer to the precipice of climate breakdown.

I, of course, acknowledge that Government Departments have goals other than economic output. The Office for National Statistics in particular is doing some important work on wellbeing statistics as part of their “Beyond GDP” programme. There is also the ONS/Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs project that seeks to incorporate UK natural capital into the UK environmental accounts by 2020. All of that is welcome, but it is all at the margins. The ONS website is unequivocal about the priority. It says quite clearly:

“Gross domestic product (GDP) growth is the main indicator of economic performance.”

GDP therefore still trumps everything, remaining the primary objective across Government, especially for the Treasury.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on introducing the debate, and on her hard work in this House on the environment and climate change. Although I certainly like to check on GDP and other financial aims, does she agree that the measure of success cannot be GDP alone? It must equally be based on the happiness and health of our constituents.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and kind words. As he says, the purpose of Government should surely be to promote happiness and health, yet we have a perverse obsession with GDP growth, which can often go up even when happiness and health are going down. That obsession must end if we are to secure a safe space for humanity, and if we are to live within environmental limits, or planetary boundaries, to use an alternative term.

I will not be surprised if the Minister takes issue with me on that, arguing that the UK has embraced so-called green growth, perhaps citing the clean growth strategy. Leaving aside the fact that there is nothing clean or green about the Government’s support for rampant airport expansion, road building or fossil fuel subsidies, the essential point is that even so-called green growth rests on the assumption that economic growth can be decoupled from environmental harm fully and fast enough. I will make the case this afternoon that that is a false assumption.

Just yesterday, a new report from the European Environmental Bureau exploded the myth of absolute decoupling. The study looked at a range of factors—materials, energy, water, greenhouse gases and so on—and found that there is no empirical evidence for an absolute, permanent, global, substantial or sufficiently rapid decoupling of economic growth from environmental pressures, either now or in the future. In other words, it is time to move from efficiency to sufficiency. As the report concludes,

“Although decoupling is useful and necessary, and has occurred at certain times and places, ‘green growth’ cannot reduce resource use on anywhere near the scale required to deal with global environmental breakdown and to keep global warming below the target of 1.5°C”.

The transgression of environmental limits has dangerous consequences for all humanity. That was pushed into the spotlight by the UN global assessment of nature—the so-called Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. If ever there was a mouthful that was designed to make it hard to know what anyone was talking about, that is it; we should call it a report on nature.

Regardless, it found that 75% of all land and almost half of all marine and water ecosystems have been seriously altered by human activity. It found that 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction. That is a horrendous number—significantly greater than at any other time in human history—and poses a severe and direct threat to not only those species but human wellbeing in all regions of the world, especially those least responsible for the damage that is causing it.

The report identifies the growth of the global economy, and specifically the growth of material consumption in affluent nations, as one of the major driving forces behind those trends. It is unambiguous about the need to move away from endless consumption and GDP as a key measure of economic success, stating that we must steer

“away from the current limited paradigm of economic growth”

and

“shift beyond standard economic indicators such as gross domestic product”.

I am keen to emphasise that, although Greens have long been leading the political debate on the environmental and social case for ditching GDP growth as a measure of progress, that argument is finally moving into the mainstream. Cross-party collaboration is incredibly important too, and I am delighted that 20 MPs have signed my early-day motion on the report from the intergovernmental panel. My early-day motion calls on the Government to

“urgently show global leadership in developing and advocating alternatives to GDP and in the transition to economies that, rather than being divisive and degenerative by default, are distributive and regenerative by design.”

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and making many good points. I agree that we need to move beyond GDP. Is she aware that work has already been done on alternative methods of measurement? For instance, the University of Leeds, through the Sustainability Research Institute, has a consumption-based emissions model that would give us an alternative to GDP. We could calculate everything based on emissions, including at source, as well as those used in the UK or other developed countries. Should we not move to that sort of model, rather than a GDP-based model?

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The work going on at the University of Leeds is incredibly exciting. It demonstrates that there is a lot of work going on, both in this country and internationally, into researching what alternative indicators might look like. I think what is lacking is a real commitment to move them into the mainstream. In the regular updates on the radio or in the Financial Times, when we hear about GDP growth and how we should be very happy that it has gone up, we could look at those indicators, which might well show that our wellbeing is being severely undermined by environmental damage.

Turning to the climate emergency, the primacy of GDP growth as the overarching priority for the economy is the elephant in the room. To quote Greta Thunberg,

“Our house is on fire”,

and the GDP growth obsession is the obstacle blocking the door to the emergency exit. In April, Greta visited Parliament and spoke about why she and millions of other young people were missing school to strike for the climate. She said very clearly that the way that we measure progress is absurd and archaic:

“People always tell me and the other millions of school strikers that we should be proud of ourselves for what we have accomplished. But the only thing that we need to look at is the emission curve. And I’m sorry, but it’s still rising. That curve is the only thing we should look at…We should no longer measure our wealth and success in the graph that shows economic growth, but in the curve that shows the emissions of greenhouse gases.”

That call to rewrite the economic rulebook is echoed by many others in the climate justice network, including many in the grassroots movements for a green new deal in the UK and the US, and a vastly growing number of academics and economists. The reaction to a tweet by the London Mayor, Sadiq Kahn, one week into the Extinction Rebellion protests was interesting; it illustrates that climate justice is inextricably linked to the transformation of the economic system. To be fair, I am sure he did it without thinking it through that much, but he tweeted:

“My message to all the climate change protestors today is clear: let London return to business as usual.”

That tweet went down so terribly because the new climate justice movement understands that business as usual is killing the planet and destroying our children’s future. The litmus test for adequate climate action is no longer what is considered politically feasible within the current system; it is whether we are transforming the economic system to fit with what is scientifically necessary to keep within 1.5° of global heating, and to reverse the unravelling of the Earth’s life support systems before our eyes.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

I have immense sympathy with what the hon. Lady is saying, and I agree. She talked about political feasibility. All the proposals and politics that she is suggesting are difficult to achieve in an environment of gross inequality. Would it not be easier if we addressed equality, to make all these things more acceptable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his wise intervention. Certainly, if we are not going to make the economy bigger by growing it and growing it—we simply cannot, within environmental limits—arguments about redistribution become absolutely central to the whole debate. Everything that I am saying is about social justice and environmental justice being inextricably linked. They must be, because we have to tackle them together. Although it is quite hard to find opportunities when the environmental data is so grim, there is an opportunity to get our social systems and inclusiveness right, and to get our inequality sorted, at the same time as taking serious steps towards making the way we organise our economy genuinely sustainable.

On climate, as on biodiversity, I believe strongly that we must look at the science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s October report, entitled “Global Warming of 1.5 ºC”, says that we need

“rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented change across all aspects of society”.

We have barely a decade to cut global emissions by half. As the co-chair of an IPCC working group put it,

“The next few years are probably the most important in our history.”

The Treasury is doing a very good impression of ignoring the urgency of taking action. The Government boast about emission cuts and about legislating for a net zero emission goal to be reached in three decades’ time. However, the Committee on Climate Change said in its new report, which was published this morning, that the next 18 months are make or break, especially as the UK

“is lagging far behind what is needed, even to meet previous, less stringent, emissions targets.”

The UK’s carbon reduction statistics ignore consumption-based emissions. Our exported emissions are one factor that explains why global emissions continue to rise, and why we are still heading for a devastating 3° of warming, even if countries deliver on their Paris pledges.

This is all to say that the pursuit of economic growth is devouring our efforts to decarbonise. I will quote the work of Jason Hickel, a leading environmental economist at Goldsmiths. He has explained the situation by examining the IPCC’s trajectories on reaching net zero by mid-century. The IPCC is telling us that we have until 2050 to get to net zero, but the global economy is set to nearly triple in size during the same period, which means three times more production and consumption. It is hard enough to decarbonise the current economy in such a short time span. The idea that we will be able to do it three times over is, frankly, for the birds. However heroic our assumptions about the potential for decoupling, there is no evidence that it can be completed quickly enough in the timeframe that we have.

There is some hope, because the IPCC report contains one lifeline scenario that does not rely on speculative and harmful negative emissions technologies to keep global heating under 1.5°. That scenario is our emergency exit from climate breakdown. So what does it look like? Fundamentally, it is about scaling down material consumption by 20% globally, with rich countries such as the UK leading the way. As yesterday’s European Environmental Bureau report concluded,

“Policy-makers have to acknowledge the fact that addressing”

the climate and biodiversity crises

“may require a direct downscaling of economic production and consumption in the wealthiest countries.”

I should add, “among the wealthiest people in the wealthiest countries,” because I take the point made by the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins); equality and justice needs to be at the heart of this process.

As I say, the ONS work on wellbeing indicators beyond GDP and on natural capital is important and welcome, but it is clearly not the priority. It is not a primary consideration in Treasury decision making. Nor is the wellbeing work integrated with environmental considerations. Will the Minister commit to ensuring the ONS has the resources and the direction required to integrate environmental limits into its “Beyond GDP” work, including, as a priority, consumption-based carbon emissions? While I am making requests of the Minister, can he tell us what has happened to the latest release of those “Beyond GDP” statistics? If they are quarterly, as the ONS website states, the latest were due a couple of months ago, back in May.

I turn to the positive case for ousting GDP as a measure of progress, and to some of the alternatives that we could adopt. There is an extensive and expanding evidence base to suggest that ousting GDP as a measure of progress is essential to achieve both environmental and social justice. Transitioning away from the growth dogma is not about hurting people’s welfare—quite the opposite. It is about placing wellbeing centre stage, reducing inequalities, cutting out waste and inefficiencies, and prioritising quality of life over quantity of things.

There is a chorus of experts—academics, economists and campaigners—proposing concrete, credible alternatives to get us out of the GDP gulag. Many of them are members of the global Wellbeing Economy Alliance. I will briefly give four examples. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) will be very happy, because the first example I will give is from the University of Leeds, where researchers are exploring a

“good life for all within planetary boundaries.”

This shows that the UK and other wealthy nations are well past the tipping point at which

“using even more resources adds almost nothing to human well-being.”

The researchers explain that this means countries such as the UK could

“substantially reduce the amount of carbon emitted or materials consumed with no loss of well-being.”

A second example comes in the shape of a doughnut. In her book, “Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist”, Kat Raworth sets out to replace the dominant image of the economy as a closed, self-generating loop with a picture of the economy that shows energy flowing in from the sun, and waste and heat flowing out. Her doughnut image requires us to recognise that all economic activity is embedded in the Earth’s living systems and in society. Instead of maximising GDP, we need to change our goals to meet

“the human rights of every person within the means of our life-giving planet.”

Crucially, this model combines environmental limits with social factors such as housing, equity, political voice, education and income. The inner boundary of the doughnut is the social floor, below which wellbeing suffers. The outer boundary is an ecological ceiling, beyond which we overshoot the Earth’s support systems. The doughnut’s fundamental point, which the Treasury seems to have not yet grasped, is that the current economic system is failing on both human wellbeing and environmental health grounds.

A third example is a call from 238 academics for the EU and member states to plan for a post-growth future, in which human and ecological wellbeing are prioritised over GDP. They say:

“Growth is…becoming harder to achieve due to declining productivity gains, market saturation and ecological degradation. If current trends continue, there may be no growth at all in Europe within a decade. Right now the response is to try to fuel growth by issuing more debt, shredding environmental regulations, extending working hours, and cutting social protections. This aggressive pursuit of growth at all costs divides society, creates economic instability, and undermines democracy.”

The academics end by offering some measured and moderate practical next steps, including constituting

“a special commission on Post-Growth Futures”

in order to

“actively debate the future of growth, devise policy alternatives for post-growth futures, and reconsider the pursuit of growth as an overarching policy goal.”

I would love to see citizens’ assemblies play a major part in that.

Secondly, the academics suggest prioritising alternative indicators over GDP in all economic decision making. Thirdly, they propose establishing a Ministry for economic transition, to drive the shift to a new economy that focuses directly on human and ecological wellbeing, and away from one that is structurally dependent on economic growth.

The fourth and final example is New Zealand, where the Treasury has conducted the world’s first wellbeing budget. Finance Minister Grant Robinson explained that GDP growth was simply not translating into higher standards or better opportunities. Instead, the wellbeing budget looks at spending on the basis of a project’s contribution to the wellbeing of the population, as measured through four dimensions: human capital, social capital, natural capital, and financial and physical capital. The former Cabinet Secretary, Lord Gus O’Donnell, recently launched a report by the all-party parliamentary group on wellbeing economics that makes a similar case for wellbeing to replace growth as the main aim of UK spending in the forthcoming spending review. Those are just some examples.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is giving a fantastic speech. She has mentioned the views of four different people on the limits of using GDP, what it is, what good it does in our economy, and what good growth does. Some 51 years ago, Robert F. Kennedy—hardly an economic radical; he was a Democrat—gave a speech on the limits of GDP. I add that because he is someone that I and many people across the political divide can respect. He was well ahead of the curve on this issue.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is a very good friend and colleague, but he has just taken my final point; I was building up to that speech from Bobby Kennedy. I forgive him, because he is a good colleague and it was very good point.

I give a shout out to the all-party parliamentary group on economic wellbeing and the APPG on limits to growth, of which I am a co-chair, and which works closely with the Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity under the leadership of Professor Tim Jackson, who does good work in this area.

I want to leave time for the Minister to respond, so I will conclude. The climate and biodiversity crisis means that urgency is becoming emergency, in terms of getting economic transformation going. I will skip most of my lovely Bobby Kennedy quote, but his words ring as true today as they ever did, so I will keep the last bit. He said that GDP

“measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

I have three requests of the Treasury to which I hope the Minister will respond. First, will he put rocket boosters behind the ONS “Beyond GDP” work, ensure that the environment is fully integrated alongside social factors, and commit to adopting those indicators and using them alongside or, even better, instead of GDP growth? I would even let him use them alongside GDP growth, as long as that were done regularly, so that we could see those indicators as a key measure of the nation’s progress.

Secondly, from this year on, will the Minister publish consumption-based carbon emissions, material throughput and wellbeing statistics alongside quarterly GDP figures? Thirdly, will he meet me and some of the leading economists, academics and practitioners working on this issue, to inform the forthcoming spending review?

As Kenneth Boulding said more than 50 years ago,

“Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.”

Thankfully, we now have a new generation of environmentally literate economists, and it is time that we listened to what they have to say.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Bill delivers an important part of the work that the Government are doing to protect animals, both in the wild and in captivity, and to ensure that we as a country maintain our world leadership on safeguarding and respecting animals. This important Bill seeks to bring to an end outdated practices that have no place in modern society and delivers a long held Government commitment. It addresses the specific concerns of the public and Parliament about the use of wild animals in travelling circuses and seeks to bring that activity to an end. That requires primary legislation, for reasons that I will explain in a moment.

The Government published the draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in April 2013. I pay tribute to Members who have taken the Bill forward as private Members’ Bills. First, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is in his place, picked up the Bill at the end of the 2010 to 2015 Parliament. Then my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster) attempted to take the Bill forward during the last Parliament. Last, but by no means least, during this Session my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), who is in her place, really sought to give the Bill wings. Sadly, those attempts were not successful, for reasons that I will not go into here, but I thank those Members for their efforts.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who, I am pleased to see, is also in his place. His Backbench Business debate back in June 2011 put this issue firmly on the Government’s agenda and made it clear what Parliament was specifically concerned about.

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

The Minister is setting out the history—the long time it has taken to get the Bill to this point. Although I very much welcome the fact that it is here, it is very overdue. Will he confirm that the Bill will come into force in January 2020? Will he also confirm that, if by some strange happenstance it gets delayed by Brexit or anything else—even if the Bill has not finished its progress through Parliament—the Government will not issue any more licences after January 2020?

[David Rutley]

We will do everything we can. We are completely committed to making sure that the legislation gets into place. The hon. Lady has been keen to see it through, and we will do that. We are absolutely committed to delivering on this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

That is another important question. There is a strong rationale to do that. We are looking at other proposed legislation going forward. The environment Bill will be absolutely pivotal in the next Session, but as my hon. Friend knows we have other legislation we need to get through. We all know, including those on the Opposition Benches, that there is a lot of other proposed legislation that will take up time and make matters more complicated. However, he makes a good point and it is vital we seek ways to get other Bills in place, not least on animal sentience. We have already had a question about sentencing and increased sentences. I share the commitment to seeing that proposed legislation through. We just need to find the right vehicle to do that.

There are key arguments about necessity. It is not necessary to use wild animals to operate a circus or to enjoy the circus experience. The public can still, as the vast majority already do, attend travelling circuses that do not use wild animal acts. They can also readily see wild animals in zoos and safari parks. We need to consider the intrinsic value of wild animals. Modern society recognises the intrinsic value of these animals. This concerns the respect of animals and their natural behaviour. Wild animals in a circus are trained for our entertainment and amusement. That sends the wrong message to audiences about the intrinsic value of those animals. We should appreciate wild animals behaving naturally, not in a comic or superficial setting. We need to look at the educational conservation benefits. The practice of using wild animals in circus performances, unlike in zoos, does nothing to further our understanding or the conservation of wild animals. There is no greater benefit to humans or animals that justifies the use of wild animals in circuses. In short, it is an outdated practice that is no longer necessary to operate a circus or to enjoy the circus experience, and it is demeaning to the wild animals involved.

In 1990, 29 years ago, there were over 250 wild animals across some 20 circuses, including tigers, lions, elephants and bears. By the time of the 2009 DEFRA consultation, it was estimated that there were only four circuses in the UK using some 47 wild animals. Today, there are only 19 wild animals left and only two travelling circuses. Attitudes and audience appetites have changed, but if we fail to bring in a ban by the time our licensing regulations expire in January there is a risk that we could see more travelling circuses using wild animals such as lions and tigers again. It is crucial that we do not let that happen.

Let me turn to the Bill itself. Clause 1, the main clause, will make it an offence for a circus operator to use a wild animal in a travelling circus in England. The offence applies only to operators of travelling circuses in the circus environment; our view is that most people are employees or hired acts who are firmly in the control of the operator, so it should be the operator who carries responsibility for any illegal use of a wild animal.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister look again at the need to define “travelling circus” in the Bill? A concern exists that without such a definition, the law will be unclear on circuses that travel without actually showing the animals. Many animal welfare organisations think that it would be much clearer if the Bill included a definition of “travelling circus”.

[David Rutley]

I understand that some residual concerns have been raised by welfare groups, but I assure the hon. Lady that the definition set out will be adequate. In fact, the Scottish Government arrived at a very similar definition.

Spring Statement

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Now, this is the challenge: can people ask their question in fewer than 30 seconds?

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

It seems that the Chancellor is hoping to buy off the rising tide of youth campaigning with a sprinkling of announcements on the environment, but the science is clear and he is doing nothing like enough. We have 11 years to avoid climate breakdown, and protected species are in freefall. I have one test for him to prove whether he is remotely serious about the agenda: will he reverse the savage funding cuts that his Government have made to Natural England—yes or no?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Lady is nothing if not cynical. Funding for any bodies will be considered in the spending review, and I would be very happy to have a representation from her.

Points of Order

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to the hon. Lady, but I think I will take the Opposition Front Bencher first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the Minister for that. What I would say to the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) is that it is perfectly possible for this matter to be further aired in correspondence, and I have a hunch that it might well be—[Interruption]—as we speak. Moreover, it is even possible for the matter to be aired by the alternative route of questions, and I have a physical image in my mind now of one or other of the two relevant parties on the Opposition Front Bench beetling towards the Table Office to table the said questions. Those routes—correspondence and written questions—are not mutually exclusive. I hope that is helpful.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am saving up the hon. Lady. It would be a pity to squander her at too early a stage of our proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said to me and to the House. To what he has said there is really nothing substantive that I need to add. All I would say to him is that, on the basis of what he has said, it is open to him also to write to me on this matter.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I apologise for holding the hon. Lady back, but I had a sense that those points of order were going to relate to each other. Her point of order is on a different and unrelated matter, and I look forward to hearing it.

[Caroline Lucas]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier today, the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) named both the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and me in her question to the Prime Minister, claiming that we were somehow complicit with the group Another Europe is Possible in terms of its misuse of data. I ask the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood, through you, to correct the parliamentary record. Another Europe is Possible is 100% compliant with the general data protection regulation. It turns out that her constituent took action via the group’s website, and the communication she has had subsequently has been in line with the opt-in preferences that she actively expressed on that website.

Further, Mr Speaker, will you indicate what action could be taken if it were to be found that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House during Prime Minister’s questions when she replied to the Leader of the Opposition, “This analysis does not show that we will be poorer in the future than we are today… No, it does not. It shows that we will be better off with this deal”? I think the ministerial code suggests that, if it were the case that she inadvertently misled the House, she should be able to come back to the Chamber to make a statement.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, and I thank her for it. I think, however, that she may be seeking to continue the argument. All I would say is that the content of an hon. Member’s remarks is a matter for that hon. Member. I note what the hon. Lady has said, and it will now be reproduced in the Official Report, about the circumstances, and Members and others will form their own judgment of that.

In the event that anybody has inadvertently misled the House, it is incumbent on that Member, whoever he or she is, to take the opportunity to correct the record. I can assure the hon. Lady that she will have plenty of opportunity to pursue these matters in the days ahead.

I would like to leave it there at present. I am responding almost on the hoof to what the hon. Lady has said. [Interruption.] She is looking slightly quizzical and, because I am in a generous mood, and I think it is right to be generous—[Interruption.] The Clerk is implying that I should not be generous. [Laughter.] He is a very generous-spirited person, but he is implying perhaps that I should not be generous. If the hon. Lady wishes to raise a further point of order, I will hear it, although I offer no guarantee that I will reply to it to her satisfaction.

[Caroline Lucas]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your generosity. I simply express my confusion, because I genuinely thought that is what the ministerial code suggests. Were the Prime Minister to be demonstrably shown to have inadvertently misled the House by claiming something that is not the case—we know it is not the case—I am surprised there is not some way to ask her to come back to the Chamber to formally make that correction, rather than simply allowing it to sit on the parliamentary record.

[Mr Speaker]

The difficulty is that the ministerial code is the code under which, if I understand this correctly, the hon. Lady is seeking redress or correction. I am not the arbiter of the ministerial code—as she will know, the Prime Minister is its arbiter. In these circumstances, it is very difficult for me to say anything beyond what I have said. If the hon. Lady feels genuinely strongly that an effective injustice, albeit inadvertent, has been committed, I strongly advise her to raise this matter in correspondence with the Prime Minister in such a fashion as she sees fit. The hon. Lady can raise it in private correspondence or she can publicise the correspondence if she so wishes and seek to extract the outcome that she thinks is appropriate in this case. I repeat that if an error has been made, an error should be corrected. It is in that sense as simple and incontestable as that, but I hope people will understand when I say that it is not for the Chair to judge whether an error has or has not been made. I have set out what the circumstances are or what situations should apply in the event of an inadvertently misleading statement. I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for her patience.

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend’s assertions lie at the heart of what we are all considering: the future of our country and the expressed will of the British people at the time of the referendum. What this deal—as opposed to no deal—will do is safeguard our economy and the jobs that we have created as a Government, ensure that we deliver on our pledge to take control of our borders, our money and our laws in order to protect the integrity of the United Kingdom, and enable us to go out as a globally facing nation and do deals with other countries around the world.

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

The Government are treating both Parliament and the people with contempt. The economic analysis published today is essentially worthless, because it does not model the Prime Minister’s blindfold Brexit. We have just heard why that is: because there are not enough facts in there, and it is just a leap into the dark. Does the Minister accept that the British public deserve better than this? Does he accept that they deserve facts, and that they also deserve a say on those facts?

[Mel Stride]

I assume that the hon. Lady is referring to the suggested second referendum. As I said in my opening remarks, I think that that would be entirely the wrong route. The British people took a decision in 2016. At that time the hon. Lady and I were on the same side of the argument, but the difference between us is that I respect that democratic decision. It would not be appropriate to go back with what would be a politician’s vote to seek a different outcome.

EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

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

In January, the Prime Minister promised ahead of the so-called meaningful vote that there would be a full economic impact assessment of the exit deal. Can the Minister guarantee that that will happen? How much time will MPs have to consider the deal before we have to vote on its credibility or the lack of it?

[John Glen]

We will have a considerable amount of material before the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, who is about to come to the Dispatch Box, will have more information on that issue.

Summer Adjournment

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great honour to follow two such passionate maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Jared O’Mara) talked powerfully about the importance of inclusion and equality—I am sure that we all agree with him on that—and the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) talked passionately about her constituency. An aspect of her speech that particularly resonated with me was her opposition to the extreme Brexit towards which the Government are leading us.

I originally intended to spend my brief minutes talking about the immorality of indefinite detention. I will still talk about that, but I feel that before I do so, I must take the opportunity to say a few words about yet another decision that has been smuggled out on this last day before the recess, and about which many Members may not even know. The Government have just given the green light to more fracking at Preston New Road.

This is an absolute kick in the teeth for the local community, who almost unanimously oppose fracking in their back yard, and who have been fighting an incredibly strong campaign against it. However, it is not just a kick in the teeth for localism; it is an extraordinarily perverse decision, given the reality of accelerating climate change. The Government are locking us into a whole new fossil fuel industry at exactly the time when the experts are telling us that we must leave the majority of known fossil fuels in the ground.

We are currently in the middle of a heatwave, and more and more scientists are linking the freakish weather that we are currently experiencing with the likelihood of its happening more often as a result of climate change. The idea that now is a good time to give the green light to fracking, while making it more difficult, for example, to pursue renewable energy—as the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) was saying a few moments earlier—seems to be taking stupidity to new heights. I shall not spend any more time talking about fracking, because I want to talk about my recent visit to Yarl’s Wood, but I think it incredibly cowardly of the Government to smuggle this decision out when they know that people’s attention will be elsewhere, and when we cannot have a serious debate about it.

I recently visited Yarl’s Wood detention centre, having finally been granted permission following 18 months of trying to gain access. The visit was publicised to detainees, and it is difficult to communicate the desperation and heartbreak that I sensed in the 100 or so women who came to meet me. Each wanted her story to be heard. They wanted someone to know where they were, and they wanted to know that they would not be forgotten. They wanted something to be done about the mental torture that they were enduring day in, day out.

I use the term “mental torture” very deliberately. Imagine, Mr Speaker, living in the community where you have made your life and being required to report to the Home Office every week. Imagine that you do that religiously and never fail, and then one week, when you turn up to report as usual, you find yourself being randomly sent, with no notice, to a detention centre. You are given no time even to pack your clothes, and no time to tell anyone—your kids, perhaps. You are given no warning and no explanation. Imagine arriving at Yarl’s Wood and being given no information about the reason for your detention; about what, if anything, you have done wrong; or about how long you will be there. Months or perhaps even more than a year later, you may be released— again, with no warning or explanation. You are still required to make weekly reports to the Home Office. You are none the wiser about the reason for that arbitrary use of power against you, and you have no idea whether it will happen again.

This is intolerable, Mr Speaker, and it is happening on a daily basis in our country. Can you imagine how frightening it must be? It is cruel, it is inhumane, and it must stop. Many of the people to whom it is happening are vulnerable women. A recent research report published by Women for Refugee Women found that survivors of rape, trafficking and torture are still routinely being locked up in Yarl’s Wood. When Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons inspected Yarl’s Wood in 2017, it found exactly the same.

The Government’s adults at risk policy is supposed to reduce the number of vulnerable and at-risk people in detention, which the Shaw review identified as needing urgent action. The policy is not working. What I observed is consistent with the findings of HMIP, which is that

“the effectiveness of the adults at risk policy, which is intended to reduce the detention of vulnerable people, was questionable”.

That is, I think, a use of understatement.

The Home Office claims that progress on detaining fewer vulnerable people is difficult to measure because there is no way of assessing how many vulnerable people are detained. Many of the women I spoke to seemed incredibly distressed, and some had obviously been self-harming. Figures from the independent monitoring board at Yarl’s Wood show that levels of self-harm there more than tripled in 2017 alone. Yet I was told by Serco, which runs Yarl’s Wood, that out of 183 individuals detained when I visited, 29 adult women were defined as at risk level 1, and 43 at risk level 2, with none defined at risk level 3. For those who do not know what these risk levels mean, in a nutshell they identify survivors of torture, individuals with suicidal intentions, or those whose health is likely to be

“injuriously affected by continued detention.”

The claim of an absence of any category 3 people was, I think, disproved by the kinds of people we were speaking to, so I am not sure that even the way in which data is compiled is accurate. But even if it is accurate, this demonstrates the level of desperation of women who are being routinely locked up.

We heard a statement today from the Home Secretary, who said that he would look again at the whole issue of indefinite detention. May I use my last five seconds to urge him to do so with the strongest amount of urgency because people’s lives are at risk and what is going on is intolerable?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robertson]

Of course I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I hope we always do have a Unionist Prime Minister. Many of us will be working towards that end for many, many years.

The Prime Minister said in December

“the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, will leave the EU customs union and the EU single market. Nothing in the agreement I have reached alters that fundamental fact.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 27.]

If nothing has changed, I am confident—and I understand it is the case—that the Government will support this amendment.

During the past two years, we have had many polarising debates on our withdrawal from the European Union, but this amendment is straightforward and should be supported by anyone who values and believes in the Union. This is not a matter of leave or remain; it is about protecting the Union and ensuring that any deal we secure with the European Union upholds the constitutional integrity of the UK.

As well as protecting Northern Ireland’s constitutional position in the UK, new clause 37 is also about protecting the economy of Northern Ireland by securing our most important single market, the UK itself. There are no absolute figures, but estimates from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency suggest that external sales of goods and services between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK were worth £14 billion in 2016, which represents approximately 58% of Northern Ireland’s total external sales. To jeopardise that by subjecting Northern Ireland to extra border arrangements, effectively down the Irish sea, would be foolish.

Earlier this year, the Prime Minister rightly rejected the European Commission’s proposed version of the backstop, which would have treated Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. As the Prime Minister has said a number of times, no UK Prime Minister could ever agree to it. I understand that is still the Government’s view.

New clause 37 does not look to tie the Government’s hands. Rather, it will galvanise the Government’s position on this issue and signal to the people of Northern Ireland that they will not be left behind or left out. The Irish border is being used as a red herring by the European Union. As the Prime Minister has agreed on a number of occasions, we cannot know what arrangements, if any, will be needed on the border until we know the details of any deal with the European Union. To think the opposite of that is to put the cart before the horse.

Her Majesty’s Government, the Irish Government and politicians of all colours in Northern Ireland have said that they do not want to see a hard border in Ireland. When we say “hard border,” we are not talking about troops being stationed along the border—that is not going to happen. Nor will whatever arrangements we reach with the EU provoke violence along the border—those years have surely gone.

What will happen, though, is what has been happening for a very long time. The two jurisdictions already have different laws, different currencies, different VAT rates, different levels of corporation tax, different fuel duties, different levels of tourism tax and different levels of air passenger duty, yet trade takes place. People cross the border each day, with some people crossing several times a day. Some checks are carried out at various places in the north and south, which is how it will continue to be, without the disruption to trade and to everyday life that some people predict.

There is, therefore, no need for discussions about the border in Ireland to hold up the wider trade talks with the European Union, nor is there any need to threaten Northern Ireland’s position within the UK or Northern Ireland’s economy during these talks. New clause 37 will ensure that will not be the case.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that the backstop proposals for Northern Ireland are something no Prime Minister of the United Kingdom could ever agree to, and this new clause will enshrine that policy in law.

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

I support all those who have been arguing for continued membership of the customs union, and therefore I support new clause 1. It is clear from everything we have heard today that, if we are to avoid serious economic hardship, membership of the customs union is essential. Frankly, the wrecking ball that the hard Brexiteers would bring to British business and industry is pretty extraordinary, and all for what?

The Prime Minister had it pretty much right when she spelled out:

“We export more to Ireland than we do to China, almost twice as much to Belgium as we do to India, and nearly 3 times as much to Sweden as we do to Brazil. It is not realistic to think we could just replace European trade with these new markets.”

She said that in April 2016, and I contend, as the Prime Minister herself is fond of saying, that nothing has changed.

In the brief time available to me, I will raise the issue of standards, particularly in relation to my amendment 71. Clause 8 sets out factors to which the Treasury must have regard when considering the rate of import duties that apply to goods. Those factors include the interests of UK consumers and the desirability of maintaining and promoting productivity and external trade.

Amendment 71 would add to those factors. First, it would add the interests of UK producers, particularly farmers. Secondly, it would add the desirability of ensuring that UK standards of animal welfare, food safety and environmental protection are not undermined by imports produced to lower standards.

The Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions in February 2017, and many times since:

“We should be proud that in the UK we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world—indeed, one of the highest scores for animal protection in the world. Leaving the EU will not change that…we are committed to maintaining and, where possible, improving standards”.—[Official Report, 8 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 424.]

Similarly, we have heard the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs say on many occasions that we need to maintain, and where possible enhance, environmental and animal welfare standards. However, if the UK is unable to protect its farmers from being undermined by lower-quality imports, those farmers are likely to find it hard to be competitive and to go further on improving their animal welfare and environmental standards. Accordingly, when negotiating new trade agreements, it will be vital that the UK insists on the inclusion of a clause permitting it to require imports to meet UK animal welfare and environmental standards. I have tabled an amendment to the Trade Bill to that effect.

If that were not to happen and we were to lose the principle of prohibiting products that do not meet our standards, we would need some kind of backstop, which is where amendment 71 comes in. It would give Ministers the power to place differential tariffs on imports. Imports that do not conform to UK welfare standards would be subject to tariffs high enough to safeguard UK farmers. It would ensure that UK farm businesses were not undermined by low-quality products and that UK consumers would be protected from goods of a lower standard—chlorine-washed chicken, ractopamine-fed pork and hormone-treated beef, to name but a few—through tariffs on imports that do not meet UK standards. These tariffs would effectively make the cost of these lower-welfare products an awful lot higher to protect our standards here in the UK.

[Mr Fysh]

The hon. Lady makes an important point about the value of trade defences in our armoury. Would she consider supporting new clause 36, which is essential if the UK is to be able to operate its own trade defence policy, because if the EU is not collecting our tariffs for us at our border, there will potentially be nothing we can do about that?

[Caroline Lucas]

I am afraid that I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s faith in our own Government continuing to keep higher standards. We have already heard clear criticisms of new clause 36 for many other reasons, including the way in which it drives a coach and horses through the kind of customs union that we want, so I will not be supporting new clause 36.

I was going on to give examples of ways in which food standards in the US are much lower than our own. Many may find the prospect of eating chlorine-washed chicken disturbing. Although there appears to be no clear scientific evidence that it poses a substantial risk to human health, it is linked to poor animal welfare on farms and at slaughter. Similarly, ractopamine is a feed additive used to promote growth in pigs, and its use is permitted in the United States, but prohibited in the EU. There is evidence that it has a detrimental impact on pig welfare, with the Humane Society of the United States stating that it

“causes death, lameness, stiffness, trembling and shortness of breath in farm animals”.

Concerns have been expressed about its impact on human health as well.

My amendment 71 would simply require the Treasury, when considering the rate of import duty that ought to apply to any goods, to have regard to the interests of UK producers, such as farmers and to the desirability of ensuring that UK standards of animal welfare, food safety and environmental protection are not undermined by imports produced to lower standards. I will wrap up my comments about it there.

I am supporting a number of other measures, including that on dealing with impact assessments, which are vital when we talk about impacts on the economic situation in this country and on the Northern Ireland border. However, I just thought that it was important to put something on record in this debate about the impact on animal welfare and environmental standards, too.

[Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)]

Let me start by saying that I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) that the Bills we are considering today and tomorrow are vital pieces of legislation. I rise to speak against new clauses 1 and 12, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry); new clause 6, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper); and new clause 11, which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

I speak as someone who voted remain in June 2016. However, having had time to study these matters at close hand, and having an objective, pragmatic and reasonable approach—I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe that being objective and pragmatic is vital—I believe that it would be a grave error to enter into a customs union with the EU while being outside the EU. I shall give five reasons why I believe that to be the case.