Bovine TB

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Baroness Primarolo

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I remind the House that we have a Select Committee report and two Back-Bench debates this afternoon? The convention for statements is that Members ask one question of the Secretary of State—not make statements, but ask one question. We will get everybody in if that convention is followed by Members, so I hope from now on we can move at a slightly faster pace.

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

I think people around the country will be really shocked by this statement, not just because it represents a complete disregard of the science and the evidence, but because it is also likely to make bovine TB worse, not better. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that he will bring this issue back to the House so we can have a vote before it goes any further?

Energy Price Freeze

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who must have been looking over my shoulder, because these are exactly the points that I would make. When we compare nuclear with renewables, we see that in some cases renewables are already cheaper. They are also asking for a strike price of £91 by 2018, which is substantially less than what we are going to be giving to nuclear.

Consumer Futures said that the Hinkley deal

“moves the risks of future variations in wholesale prices from investors onto consumers, will likely see household bills increase and will distort future investment in electricity generation.

Consumers will again feel that the energy market is stacked against them.”

I just cannot understand why there is not greater outrage at the way in which we are allowing ourselves to be locked into these long contracts with EDF, paying over and above market prices for decades to come. I repeat that it is hard to take seriously the crocodile tears we are seeing from hon. Members on both sides of the House while we are suggesting paying hand over fist to the nuclear companies, which will be laughing all the way to the bank.

In conclusion, I welcome the greater focus on the problem of high energy bills that we have seen in recent months. It is a massive issue in all our constituencies; people come to us on a daily basis worried about how they are going to be able to survive the winter. It is a matter of life and death, not just of discomfort; we are talking about people who are going to be suffering from radically ill health and about the premature deaths associated with fuel poverty. So I welcome this debate, but I regret that most of the solutions put forward do not fully address the root causes of fuel poverty and high energy costs. A fundamental shift should be at the heart of energy market reform. I am worried that we have heard much more about tinkering around the edges of a system that keeps the big six in power and far too many people in fuel poverty, rather than about much more radical energy transformation, which we are beginning to see in other countries. There is a precedent and we could be following it here—if the political will existed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I call Christopher Pincher. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Iraq War (10th Anniversary)

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Baroness Primarolo

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Before the hon. Lady goes on, may I say in respect of Mr Hans Blix—I have made this point outside the House—that there is a profound disconnection between what he is saying now and what he said at the time? What he said at the time, and he repeated it in a book in 2004, was that he thought that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat. I know of no provenance whatsoever for the claim that the inspectors were prevented from continuing their work in Iraq by either the US or the UK in January 2003.

Moreover, the final reports from Hans Blix complained about a lack of co-operation, the inability of inspectors to interview scientists from Iraq inside or outside Iraq, and the continuing intimidation. The final report that he made, which I had to force him to publish, on 7 March 2003, catalogued in 29 chapters of 170 pages the unanswered questions that Mr Blix thought Saddam had to answer, even at that stage, about all the chemical and biological weaponry that had been known about in the past and which Saddam had failed to explain. That is where Blix was at the time. My last point is this—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

No. Will the right hon. Gentleman please sit down? I am trying to be very tolerant to facilitate the debate but there are lots of Members who want to participate, and making a speech on an intervention, however important the point, is not acceptable. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait to make the rest of his points.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for his intervention. Obviously, he has a great deal of information from that time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. It would really help me to chair the debate if Members made brief interventions and stayed on their feet while they were doing so. I know the hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way under some considerable pressure, but I am sure she will bear in mind the length of time that she is speaking and the others wishing to participate.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I was saying that many people will say that if they had known then what they know now, they would not have supported the war, and I said that that was not an adequate justification, precisely because of those Members of Parliament who were not taken in by the spin. Members of Parliament could have known then much of what they know now. A vast amount of the evidence available now was in the public domain then. We know this because of those hon. Members who did see through the lies and the deceptions, who asked the right questions, who trawled through the documents, who stood up in Parliament and said that the war was based on a false prospectus, and many of those hon. Members are in the Chamber today.

Let me give an example of three others, starting with an hon. Member who is no longer in the Chamber, the former Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, Lynne Jones. She saw that Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) made the misrepresentation of the French position a centrepiece of their efforts to win the vote on 18 March 2003. As one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, France had the power to veto a second UN resolution. In an interview on 10 March 2003 President Chirac indicated that, as things stood, France would use its veto in the unlikely event that a second resolution authorising military action got the necessary majority of nine members of the Security Council.

I quote from the transcript of the interview. Chirac says:

“My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote ‘no’ because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to disarm Iraq.”

But by selectively quoting the words “regardless of the circumstances” when describing the French position on authorisation of the use of force, proponents of the war blamed France for blocking military action against Iraq, no matter what evidence emerged of a breach of resolution 1441. Tony Blair even included the selective and misleading quote in the motion in support of military action that was put to the House on 18 March 2003. [Interruption.] I want to finish this section. The importance of the inclusion of this misrepresentation in the motion was huge. Some MPs have stated that it alone changed their minds on whether or not to vote to go to war.

Giving evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, the right hon. Member for Blackburn suggested that President Chirac’s use of the phrase “this evening” did not describe the French position on the evening of the interview, thereby indicating that this could change in the future, but was simply an introduction to what he was going to say that evening. He put that argument to the panel by specifically stating the order of Chirac’s phrasing, down to where a comma is used. However, the transcript shows that he did not give the phrasing in the right order. The phrase “this evening” came after “regardless of the circumstances”, but he said that it came first, changing the meaning of Chirac’s words to suit the argument. The right hon. Gentleman said:

‘I know there has been some textual analysis of the use by President Chirac of the word “Le soir”, but I watched him say this and I took this as no more than saying, “This evening”, comma, and then he announces, “France will, whatever the circumstances”, he says, right?’

Well, that was not right. In fact, the transcript shows that Chirac explicitly ruled in the possibility that military action might be needed, stating in the same interview that if the weapons inspector reported after more time that they were unable to do their job, war would be inevitable. To quote directly, he said:

“But in that case, of course, regrettably, the war would become inevitable. It isn’t today.”

The French position, then, was that progress was being made on the weapons inspections and that France was therefore opposed to replacing the existing inspections process with an ultimatum that would lead to war in a few days’ time. The phrase “regardless of the circumstances” was not helpful, and it was unfortunate that Chirac used those words, as they were easily taken out of context. However, that does not detract from the responsibility of those, including Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Blackburn, who—I argue—misinterpreted, and continued to misinterpret, President Chirac’s interview of 10 March in order to blame France for the failure to obtain a second UN resolution. The reason that it was not possible to obtain UN authorisation for the use of force is that there was no evidence showing Iraq to be an active and growing threat; it was not because of French intransigence, as UK Ministers said.

Hansard shows that Lynne Jones was ridiculed when she tried to raise the misrepresentation of Chirac’s interview in the House, but the fact that she raised it shows that there were hon. Members who bothered to get the transcript of what was actually said before the vote and that it was not necessary to accept the interpretation being given by the Government at face value. It was not a detail; President Chirac’s words were placed at the heart of the motion that Parliament debated and voted on.

Charities Act 2011 (Amendment)

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday in my Adjournment debate on high-carbon investment, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) said that

“the Committee on Climate Change has recognised in its recent progress report…that we are on track to meet our first three carbon budgets”.—[Official Report, 18 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 828.]

That did not sound right to me, so I returned to the report to check the details to which he had referred and sought clarification from the committee directly. I can confirm that the committee’s report states clearly that the current rate of progress is

“sufficient to meet the first and second…budgets, but not the third and fourth budgets,”

and that the

“rate of underlying progress is only a quarter of that required to meet future carbon budgets.”

Given this afternoon’s debate on the Energy Bill and the crucial matter of decarbonisation, I wonder whether you might invite the Minister to correct the record on this matter, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

The content of speeches in this House, whether by Back Benchers, Ministers or shadow Ministers, is thankfully not the responsibility of the Chair. The contributions made as a matter of debate in this House are the responsibility of the Member who makes those observations, so it is not a point of order for the Chair. The Minister is here; I am sure he took note of the hon. Lady’s comments and will want to engage again in debate on those facts.

Environmental Protection and Green Growth

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I am gratified by the extent to which successive Governments have sought to brand themselves as green—after all, imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery. However, I also see it as part of my role to scrutinise the authenticity of any promises made and, most importantly, to inquire whether fine and noble rhetoric is backed by fast and ambitious action.

It is important to say at the outset, as the Green party always has, that environmental policies cannot be just bolted on to business as usual. We have always said that to judge the greenness of a Government, we should look not so much at their environmental policies, but at their economic programme. If a Government’s economic policies are simply about promoting more and more conventional economic growth based on the production and consumption of yet more finite resources, it does not really matter how many green trimmings they add to their manifesto. The direction of travel will still be fundamentally unsustainable. Judged by that measure, sadly not one of the main parties has come close to understanding the true nature of green politics.

Therefore, although I welcome the fact that Labour has chosen the Government’s green record as the subject for today’s debate, and although I am heartened by the commitment that I have heard in the Chamber today, it is interesting to contemplate why those aspirations, commitments and statements are not made when we discuss the Budget or growth, for example. In those debates, all the “business as usual” economic arguments are trotted out, as ever. We do not marry up all the nice words about the environment that we have heard today with the arguments that we hear in those economic debates, which is when it really matters. To say that this shows remarkable inconsistency would be a kind way of putting it.

Over a year ago the Prime Minister pledged that this would be the greenest Government ever. The first thing to say about that aspiration is that it is sadly not particularly ambitious, given Labour’s poor record on the environment in the preceding 13 years in office. At the end of that Labour term, the UK was getting more of its energy from fossil fuels than in 1997, when Labour came to power. Everyone rejoices in a sinner who repents, but one cannot help but think that, at best, Labour’s criticism of the Government’s record today shows an almost heroic degree of collective amnesia.

It is significant that one of the first acts of this Government, who aspire to be the greenest ever, was to abolish the very body that could have had a role in judging whether they could achieve that. I refer, of course, to the Sustainable Development Commission—I support the comments that the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) made about that. As a critical friend, the commission was a vital in providing well-informed scrutiny of Government policy. The commission also saved the Treasury around £300 million over 10 years, against running costs of just £4 million a year. The scrapping of that commission undermines the Government’s assertion that they are committed to green issues. It is also the first of many examples of ideology trumping common sense, economic sense and environmental sense.

Much has been said today about the green investment bank, and of course it is a good idea to have such a bank. It is very badly named, however, in that it is not very green and, so far, it is not even a bank. The Government are actively considering using it to subsidise nuclear power, and its wings are being clipped from the outset through insufficient capitalisation and no initial borrowing capacity for several years at least.

I could refer to many other issues, but I would like briefly to mention the complete chaos that the solar industry is now in, thanks to the way in which the Government keep moving the goalposts in relation to the level at which the feed-in tariffs are going to be secured. That is a tragedy not only for the environment but for some of the fantastic solar industries in this country that could be at the forefront of solar power internationally. Because the Government keep changing their level of support, however, the industry has been left in great confusion.

In conclusion, I shall return to my first point. Slavish adherence to the same economic model that has created the economic crisis and the climate crisis will not empower us to build a sustainable future and make the transition to a zero-carbon economy, yet that is what the Government and the Opposition are relying on. Yes, efficiency gains can help, and yes, technology will have a vital role to play, but there is a real risk—which has not been addressed today—that, with a rising population and understandably rising expectations from a growing middle class around the world, those efficiency and technological gains will be undermined by the overall level of net growth. That means that behaviour change will have to be a far greater part of the solution when it comes to adopting sustainable development, yet the dogma that we can carry on with business as usual provided that there is more and more economic growth to get us out of this economic crisis—never mind the long-term environmental, social and economic consequences—is barely questioned by politicians. Professor Tim Jackson states:

“Questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries. But question it we must.”

We must—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

Energy Bill [Lords]

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before the hon. Lady answers, let me say that the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that he should address the Chair, that I am “you”, and he should not therefore ask me what my views are. The hon. Lady should be referred to as either his hon. Friend or the hon. Member.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the report of the all-party parliamentary group, which was co-chaired by myself and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, as it contains all the detail in it. Off the top of my head, I cannot remember the overall number of years, but my essential point is that both for attacking fuel poverty and for environmental rigour, it makes more sense to target all the ECO resources for at least the first three years on low-income, vulnerable households, including those living in solid-wall and hard-to-heat properties, rather than trying to separate out the ECO into hard-to-treat homes that might belong to able-to-pay groups. A focus for at least three years solely on low-income and vulnerable households would have stronger fuel poverty and environmental outcomes.

Let us not forget that the Government are still bound by their statutory commitments to the eradication of fuel poverty in England by 2016. If that objective is to be met, we need significant additional resources for programmes that will improve heating and insulation standards in dwellings occupied by those households. An impoverished Exchequer, a coalition Government who are averse to high taxation and a policy of funding a range of programmes through levies on consumer bills can only exacerbate the appalling scale of fuel poverty. I think we need a major investment in a national programme to improve domestic energy efficiency, giving priority, as I say, to those in greatest need.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Baroness Primarolo

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 7, page 1, leave out from line 7 to end of line 4 on page 2 and insert—

‘(3) The questions that are to appear on the ballot paper are—

“(1) Do you want to change the current “first past the post” system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?

(2) If there were a change, list your order of preference, 1, 2, 3, for the United Kingdom to adopt:

(a) The ‘alternative vote’ system,

(b) The ‘additional member’ system, or

(c) The ‘single transferable vote’ system with multi-member constituencies?”.

(4) In Wales, a Welsh version of the question is also to appear on the ballot papers.

(5) The voting for the second question in the referendum shall be in accordance with section (Counting of votes on second question of referendum).’.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 230.

Amendment 140, page 1, leave out lines 8 to 11 and insert—

‘Rank your preference for the system for electing members to the House of Commons (a) Alternative Vote (b) First Past The Post (c) The Single Transferable Vote.’.



Amendment 204, page 1, line 9, after ‘vote’, insert ‘plus’.

Government amendment 231.

Amendment 141, page 2, line leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert—

‘Graddiwch pa gyfundrefn o ethol aelodau i Ty’r Cyffredin sydd well gennych chi. (a) Pleidlais Amgen (b) Cyntaf i’r Felin (c) Pleidlais Sengl Drosglwyddadwy.’.

Amendment 205, page 2, line 2, after ‘amgen’, insert ‘plws’.

Amendment 142, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

‘(4) In Scotland, the following Gaelic version of the question is also on ballot papers—

Rangaich do roghainn a thaobh an t-siostaim taghaidh buill gu Taigh nan Cumantan? (a) Bhòt Eadar-roghnach (b) A’Chiad Bhuannaiche (c) Bhòt Mhalairteach Shingilte.’.

Amendment 14, in schedule 1, page 15, line 30 leave out

‘in favour of each answer to the question’

and insert

‘in answer to the questions’.

Amendment 15, page 19, line 24, leave out ‘question’ and insert ‘questions’.

Amendment 16, in schedule 2, page 26, line 39, leave out ‘question’ and insert ‘questions’.

Amendment 17, line 17, leave out ‘answer’ and insert ‘answers’.

Amendment 18, page 32, line 16, after ‘only’, insert

‘in relation to each question’.

Amendment 19, page 47, line 22, leave out ‘to the referendum question’ and insert

‘either or both of the referendum questions’.

Amendment 143, page 54, leave out lines 7 to 16 and insert

‘In England the ballot shall be as follows:

[Caroline Lucas]

I am pleased to move the amendment that stands in my name and those of the hon. Members for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell). I welcome the fact that the Committee is at long last debating the possibility of a referendum on electoral reform, but it is crucial that the public choose the voting system, not the politicians. We do not often have referendums in this country, and now that we are planning to have one, the least that we can do is give people a real choice on their ballot papers. It is hugely disappointing that AV is the only alternative to first past the post in the Bill. As a result, the Bill fails to live up to the promise of genuine reform and of re-engaging people with the political process.