Points of Order

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Rosie Winterton

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I was about to say that the hon. Gentleman might want to consider raising the issue with Ministers, but that has already happened. I am grateful to the Minister, and I am sure that the issue will be considered between the two of them.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was very grateful to Mr Speaker for granting my urgent question, but do you have any advice on what can be done when a Minister simply refuses to answer a single question and essentially abuses the procedures of the House? I asked 12 questions in good faith. The Minister was on her feet for 49 seconds, during which time we learned that the Secretary of State is at COP, that there is a Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and that the Minister’s granddaughter cares a lot about the planet. That is all very fascinating but it did not answer a single one of my questions. How can we do our jobs as Members holding the Government to account when Ministers can stand at the Dispatch Box for 49 seconds and not answer a single question on an issue deemed worthy of an urgent question?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, but I am not responsible for the answers given by Ministers. I believe the Minister would like to say something.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I thank the Minister for that response. Both the hon. Lady and the Minister have put their views on the record. I am sure that there will be further opportunities after the summit for the issues to be discussed.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I do not want to prolong this exchange, but I will allow a very brief point.

[Caroline Lucas]

On the point made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and just now by the Minister, they will know that there is one person representing my party and I cannot be in two places at once—I am working on it! There are 350 Conservative Members, and just one Back Bencher was at the debate last week. I suggest that they look at getting their own house in order before criticising this side.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

This is getting way beyond anything resembling a point of order, so we should move on swiftly.

Bill Presented

Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Kemi Badenoch, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Oliver Dowden, Secretary James Cleverly, Secretary Grant Shapps, Secretary Alex Chalk, Secretary Michelle Donelan, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Mel Stride and Secretary Alister Jack, presented a Bill to provide for the payment out of money provided by Parliament of expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under, or in connection with, schemes or other arrangements to compensate persons affected by the Horizon system and in respect of other matters identified in legal proceedings relating to the Horizon system.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 16) with explanatory notes (Bill 16-EN).

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Rosie Winterton

Report stage
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for keeping within time, but I am now going to impose a time limit of eight minutes, just to ensure that everybody gets the chance to speak.

[Caroline Lucas]

The speech we have just listened to from the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) shows exactly why this is not the right time for this Bill and this debate. The speech from the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that he criticised was a perfectly reasonable one making the case for the tools of boycott, sanctions and divestment. To suggest that those tools are intrinsically antisemitic is clearly and evidentially wrong. The vast generalisations that the hon. Gentleman has deployed again show why this Bill is deeply unhelpful and the timing downright dangerous.

The brutal attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas on 7 October have filled every right-thinking person with horror and underscored the urgent need to stand against violence. We do that, in part, by defending and advocating human rights. These principles need to guide our response to the collective punishment of the civilian population of Gaza, too, and to any other unlawful action being perpetrated by the Israeli or Palestinian authorities, or by Hamas.

I am struggling to understand why, as one of the leading global champions of human rights, the UK would want to send a signal that it thinks that human rights matter only selectively—that would be the impact of the current wording if the Bill passes. It would say to the world that some people’s rights matter less than other people’s. Frankly, the timing seems designed to make political capital from a horrendous situation, and the Government should be ashamed. This is a new low, and it is reckless, provocative and deeply damaging. The Government risk igniting the situation further by bringing back this Bill with the clause singling out Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This legislation, in effect, applies restrictions on the right to freedom of expression and debate, in a way that risks polarising views even further. At any time, let alone in this most sensitive of contexts, enshrining in law such partiality towards the conflict is beyond irresponsible.

I have tabled three amendments to the Bill: two on the ability of public bodies to make decisions about their activities on environmental grounds and one to exclude fossil fuels from the Bill’s provisions. First, on fossil fuels, there is a worrying lack of clarity from the Government about what it may or may not be permissible for public bodies to do should the Bill be enacted. My amendment 15 is intended to clear that up and protect the right of public authorities to divest from fossil fuels.

Earlier this week, Friends of the Earth published evidence that at least £12.2 billion of local government pension funds is invested in fossil fuels. The clarity that I seek to provide with my amendment is needed because fossil fuels are obviously not covered by the environmental misconduct exemption in respect of illegal activities, because obviously extraction currently happens legally. It is needed because decisions to divest could easily be brought into the scope of clause 1 because a fossil fuel company, especially in the case of state oil and gas firms, could easily meet the threshold for association with a foreign Government. Majority state-owned or controlled oil or gas firms such as Saudi Aramco, Equinor, Petrobras and Gazprom, or other companies that are highly associated with a foreign Government, would obviously be considered to be affiliated with certain countries, which would affect decisions about things like pension funds.

The ability of pension schemes in particular to divest from fossil fuels under current legislation and guidance is well established and compatible with fiduciary duty. The consideration of whether to divest often includes the discussion or consideration of individual states as examples of why divestment is desirable. Campaigners will often publicly cite examples of states where fossil fuel extraction is taking place as a reason to divest from fossil fuel assets, even if the divestment sought is much broader. This is reasonable and entirely responsible given the financial risks associated with things such as carbon bubbles and stranded assets, let alone the climate crisis more broadly, and it is currently lawful. But if the legislation is passed, such consideration runs the risk of being judged to have been influenced by the political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct and thus bring divestment decisions within the Bill’s scope. If the Minister does not intend fossil fuel divestment to be covered by the Bill, it must be explicitly excluded, not left to run the kind of risks that I have outlined.

On environmental misconduct, some sorely lacking clarity needs to be injected into the Bill, hence my two amendments. The Bill has an exemption that is limited to environmentally harmful behaviour that

“amounts to an offence, whether under the law of a part of the United Kingdom or any other country or territory”.

Much environmentally destructive activity takes place entirely legally; indeed, that could even be the rationale for a boycott or a divestment campaign. During the passage of the Environment Act 2021, the limitations of due diligence measures that targeted only illegal deforestation were made clear—for example, because a significant proportion of deforestation due to soy or palm oil in Brazil or Indonesia respectively could take place legally, or because it would be incredibly difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal deforestation.

My amendment 8 would expand the environmental grounds on which a public body is allowed to make certain economic decisions beyond activities that are currently simply an offence. Without it, the exemption is unworkable at worst and will undermine good practice at best. Let me explain. Several pension experts who gave evidence in Committee warned that the Bill will impact on environmental, social and governance investment decisions and cut across pension schemes’ fiduciary duty. Those experts included the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’ Superannuation Committee and the Local Government Association. It is now standard practice to consider ESG factors when looking at investments, and there is widespread concern that the environmental misconduct exemption is so weak that it does not provide the exemptions that Ministers claim it provides. In turn, this is a threat to adherence with things such as the United Nations principles for responsible investment or, indeed, the sustainable development goals. It fails to recognise that investors often consider divergence from best practice, and not simply breaches of law, and it fails to reflect the fact that in countries with, for example, opaque legal systems, the establishment of whether an offence has occurred may not be straightforward.

There is also a risk that a campaign directed at persuading public bodies to boycott or divest on environmental grounds could end up coming within the scope of the legislation. That could happen if, for example, case studies are judged to constitute the criticism or disproval of a foreign state, or if they identify where an environmentally harmful activity such as logging in the Amazon is taking place. The Government are fond of claiming that they have the very best environmental credentials, so why would they want to scupper the potential for public bodies to demand higher environmental standards—for example, in their supply chains or from their pension fund managers—with a poorly worded reference to “environmental misconduct”?

My amendment 8 would tackle that and provide for a proper exemption. My amendment 9 would extend the definition of “environmental misconduct” to include damage, regardless of whether it was legal or illegal, as well as species, habitats and the natural world. It replicates word for word the definition of “natural environment” in the Government’s own Environment Act 2021; as such, I hope that it provides the consistency and clarity that are not currently afforded by the current wording. I would be especially interested to know why Ministers did not use that wording in the first place, given that it is already in the 2021 Act, and why they are not aiming for a consistent definition of “natural environment” across different legislation.

To conclude, my amendments are designed to properly protect the exemptions that Ministers claim are in the Bill, in line with definitions in other legislation.

Points of Order

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Rosie Winterton

Tuesday 18th April 2023 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero oral questions this morning, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) claimed that the Scottish Green party Minister Patrick Harvie had said:

“oil and gas workers in Aberdeen should simply get on their bikes and look for other jobs”.

I have confirmed with Mr Harvie that he never said that or anything like it. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Minister to urgently correct the record?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of her point of order. Did she notify the Minister that she intended to raise it?

[Caroline Lucas]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Good. As she knows, Ministers are responsible for the accuracy of their statements, not the Chair. That said, if a mistake has been made, a correction should be given. However, that is a judgment for the Minister to make, rather than the Chair, but the hon. Lady has put her view on the record and I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will hear what she has said.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Rosie Winterton

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

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

The Bill is dangerous and undemocratic and has united a broad church of organisations in opposition. Even if all the Lords amendments that I rise to support today are agreed to, there would still be a huge amount in it that causes me concern. Our task today, though, is to try to improve what is before us.

Lords amendment 72 would play a key role in updating our existing hate crime laws to give our police forces and courts the vital tools that they need to tackle violence motivated by misogyny. By including sex or gender in hate crime reporting and sentencing, with exceptions for more serious sexual violence offences to ensure that sentences for them remain higher, it would give our police and courts the ability to track and hold to account those who target people for crimes purely because of who they are. As we have heard, selected police forces have already identified when crimes are motivated by hatred of someone’s sex or gender. They have already seen an increase in victims’ confidence to come forward and report those crimes.

The Government’s position is that making misogyny a hate crime goes against the Law Commission’s advice, but as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) set out extremely eloquently, that is not entirely correct; the Law Commission was not commenting on the Bertin amendment. In line with concerns raised by the Law Commission about changing the burden of proof in relation to sexual or domestic offences, the amendment creates a carve-out whereby it would not apply to such offences. It uses the wording “sex or gender”, which is in line with the approach proposed in the Law Commission’s report on hate crime, and which would ensure that all crimes motivated by misogyny, or indeed misandry, are captured by the new law rather than leaving loopholes that could undermine the system.

This simple but powerful change would send an incredibly important signal. It would be part of the cultural change that we have been talking about. It would give women and girls the same protections that we give to others who are targeted solely because of who they are. It would show how seriously we take crimes motivated by misogyny. Frankly, the Government have been kicking the issue into the long grass for too long. It is time to step up and do the right thing by women and girls.

I will speak briefly to Lords amendments 114 to 116. As numerous organisations from Liberty to the End Violence Against Women Coalition and the Runnymede Trust attest, serious violence is a human rights issue. It devastates communities across the country and demands an evidence-based approach that works with, rather than against, those communities that bear its brunt. There is simply no evidence that serious violence reduction orders will protect communities from harm, however, and there is a wealth of evidence that they will sanction injustice and discrimination and risk fracturing public trust in public services and in the authorities. There is a risk that they will entrench the harms of ineffective, suspicion-less stop and search and that they will expand the injustice of the doctrine of joint enterprise, with a disproportionate effect on over-policed and marginalised groups, including young women experiencing domestic abuse and criminal exploitation.

It therefore seems entirely right and sensible that a robust pilot be carried out and that decisions to roll out SVROs nationally be informed by its findings and come before Parliament, as Lords amendments 114 to 116 propose. The amendments, which I support, reinstate democratic oversight of laws engaging rights and equalities issues and affirm the importance of an evidence-based approach to tackling serious violence.

I turn to Lords amendments 141 and 142. I have received emails from a number of constituents about how tens of thousands of women are being propositioned by predators offering free or discounted accommodation in exchange for sexual favours. Only one person has ever been charged for that kind of crime, because the law is woefully inadequate, leaving men to get away with sexually exploiting renters in need of a home. The Lords amendments specifically criminalise such landlords; they also implement financial penalties on websites and platforms. That is why they have my support.

Environment Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Rosie Winterton

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

For the last time, and then I will need to make some progress.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am very conscious that a lot of Members want to speak and that the debate has to finish at 4.36 pm, so I think we need to bear that in mind.

[Caroline Lucas]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is only my second intervention, and it will be my last for the moment.

On environmental principles, may I ask the Minister about the consultation on the policy statement? As I understand it, the Government’s response to it is still delayed. Can she tell us when we can expect to see it and why it has been delayed for so long?

Finance Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Rosie Winterton

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We have just under 30 minutes before I want to bring in the Minister and we have four more speakers. I do not want to set a time limit, but it would be helpful if speeches did not go over, for example, eight minutes.

[Caroline Lucas]

This debate could not be more important. The Arctic is on fire; 2020 is on course to be the hottest year on record; and 16 of the 17 hottest years on record have been since 2000. There is such a thing as being too late. This is a pivotal moment, because the actions that we take over the next few weeks and months will either lock us into high-carbon dependency for decades to come, in which case we can say goodbye to any chance of avoiding the worst of climate catastrophe, or they will start to lay the foundations for a greener, safer, fairer future as we emerge from the peak of this pandemic. These decisions could not be more consequential and nor could the issue be more urgent.

New clause 34 would require the Chancellor to review the impact of the Bill on human and ecological wellbeing, including the wellbeing of future generations. I am grateful to colleagues for their support. Ministers might like to note that the Scottish and Welsh Governments are already members of the Wellbeing Economy Governments partnership, a global collaboration of nations and regions whose leaders and Finance Ministers recognise that economic progress in the 21st century means delivering human and ecological wellbeing as the overriding priority.

If we are going to build back better, we need to put improving the health and wellbeing of people and nature first when it comes to economic policy making. That should be the primary objective of every Budget, every Finance Bill and every short-term measure that the Chancellor announces next week as part of his plans for economic recovery. I hope that today we can take a small step in that direction by requiring that the Bill be assessed against its impacts on human wellbeing and the health of our natural life-support systems.

My new clause is also a step towards putting the provisions of the Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill into action. That is the subject of Lord Bird’s Today for Tomorrow campaign, which is supported by dozens of colleagues across both Houses. I am pleased to have introduced a private Member’s Bill in this House to match Lord Bird’s in the other place. That would bring about a future generations Act. I pay tribute to Jane Davidson for all her work in the Welsh Assembly on that issue.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister talked of addressing inter-generational injustice, yet so far the Government’s economic response to covid has doubled down on business as usual. Young people are at the forefront of the campaigns for a transformative green new deal, yet all they are being offered is a bargain-basement imitation, with none of the necessary boldness, vision or resource.

My new clause 34 also considers the interim report of the Treasury’s own Dasgupta review on the economics of biodiversity. It recognises, as Professor Dasgupta has written, that economies

“are embedded within—not external to—Nature.”

So we urgently need a new economic rulebook. As Dasgupta explains:

“Unlike standard models of economic growth and development, placing ourselves and our economies within nature helps us to accept that our prosperity is ultimately bounded by that of our planet. This new grammar is needed everywhere, from classrooms to boardrooms, from parish councils to government departments.”

I would argue that it is needed in this Bill as well. The good news is that just 6% of the public want to return to the pre-pandemic economy. Many of them know that GDP is a poor measure of the things that really matter and that we should not let policy be guided by it. The Government must change course and put public health above private wealth.

As for what an assessment of human and ecological wellbeing would look like, the Treasury could do worse than start with the seven wellbeing goals in the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015: prosperity; resilience; health; equality; cohesive communities; vibrant culture; and global responsibility. All this comes with a “sustainable development principle” to guide delivery. Even the inventor of GDP was adamant that it should not be used as a measure of wellbeing, because GDP goes up when things that are detrimental to human wellbeing go up. For example, a motorway pile-up is a nightmare for everyone involved, but a boon for GDP, as new vehicles are bought and possessions are replaced. It is little wonder that the majority of people want the UK Government to pursue health and wellbeing ahead of economic growth.