Building Safety Bill

Debate between Christopher Pincher and Caroline Lucas

Report stage
Wednesday 19th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure him that the 30-year retrospection is what we decided on; it is not a typo and it should not read 25 years.

The prospective limitation period will remain at 15 years, as is currently proposed, which still represents a substantial extension beyond the existing six years. In a small number of cases, the retrospectively extended limitation period will expire very soon following the commencement of the provision. We believe that it is important that the extended limitation period is of practical benefit in the case of all buildings that fall within scope. That is why we have proposed adding section 4B(4) to the Limitation Act 1980 through clause 128, which will ensure that there is always a minimum amount of time to lodge a claim under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act for buildings whose limitation periods will be revived for a very short period of time.

As introduced, the Bill provided for an initial period of 90 days in which action relating to defective premises could be taken when the extension was about to run out. I agree with several of my hon. Friends that 90 days is an insufficient amount of time to take the necessary advice and lodge a claim, which is why we are bringing forward amendments 42 and 43 to extend the initial period to one year. That means that those in any buildings completed between mid-1992 and mid-1993 will always have one full year in which to lodge their claim, once this Bill and its provisions apply. These amendments will ensure that the retrospectively extended limitation period can be of practical benefit in the case of all buildings in scope, and I trust that the House will support them.

Clause 127 expands the scope of the Defective Premises Act to include refurbishment works, and a technical amendment in the next group will ensure that this commences two months after Royal Assent, ensuring that this important new safeguard against shoddy workmanship is taken up as soon as possible. This was a debate that we had, and agreed about, in Committee. I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends, and indeed to colleagues across the House, for debating these matters and for tabling amendments in this area, but I hope that in the light of what I have said from the Dispatch Box they will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

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

I want the Minister to clarify one last thing before he sits down, because although other hon. Members have raised it, I am still not entirely clear what reassurance there is for our constituents who are leaseholders experiencing problems that are not related to cladding. Others have raised the issues of internal partitions, roof spaces and so forth, and the Minister has referred to other legal channels that may be available, but can he tell me clearly now what reassurance there is for leaseholders who are not facing cladding problems but are facing other fire defects? Will the legal protections that he is offering extend to them?

[Christopher Pincher]

We will work with parties across this House—across both Houses—and with interested parties to ensure that these issues are properly understood and debated.

Intelligence and Security Committee Report on Russia

Debate between Christopher Pincher and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

No, it is not.

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

Congratulations on your election as well from me, Mr Speaker.

The Minister, sent by the Prime Minister so that he can avoid scrutiny himself, says that the length of time that the report has been with the Government is not unusual, but will he acknowledge that the report itself is unusual because it is about interference in elections and we are just about to embark on a general election? So if the Government continue to block it after the security services have cleared it, that can only be either because they do not take the ISC Committee seriously or because they have something to hide, and can the Minister clarify which of those two it is?

[Christopher Pincher]

That was another of those questions: there we go again with a little light fantasising. The Committee has produced a serious report—

Foreign Affairs and International Development

Debate between Christopher Pincher and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman and that is yet another hidden cost of nuclear. It is not expressed up front and therefore when comparisons are made between different energy sources the price of nuclear, which would be a lot more expensive if the truth were told, is artificially deflated.

Like nuclear, an obsession with gas is another expensive distraction from a decisive and rapid shift to an efficient sustainable power system. The Chancellor has said that gas is cheap, but he is wrong. It might have been cheap 10 years ago but it certainly is not today. His Government’s own figures show that gas has been the main cause of higher energy bills over recent years and organisations such as Ofgem are all saying that gas prices are likely to continue to rise. Yes, gas can be a bridging technology and play a role in meeting peak demand, but the energy Bill must categorically rule out a new dash for gas both to keep energy costs for householders and businesses down and to meet carbon targets.

A strong emissions performance standard is essential, yet what we have so far from the Government is utterly inadequate. The Committee on Climate Change has also warned that allowing unabated gas-fired generation, as this Government plan, from new plant right through to 2045, carries a huge risk that there will be far too much gas-fired generation at the expense of low-carbon investment.

With fracking, huge questions remain over the impacts on groundwater pollution, health and air pollution, as well as earthquakes. Moreover, evidence from the Tyndall Centre indicates that the exploitation of even just a fraction of the UK’s shale gas reserves would simply be incompatible with tackling climate change.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

The hon. Lady might be aware that the chairman of the Committee on Climate Change has said that if there is a choice between a dash for gas and the lights switching off, the committee would support a dash for gas.

[Caroline Lucas]

If that were the real choice, I dare say that many people would support a dash for gas, but that is not the choice before us. If I had more time, I would explain why.

The fourth essential pillar of an energy Bill fit for the 21st century should be at the heart of our future energy system. This issue relates to another of the coalition’s pledges—to support

“community ownership of renewable energy schemes”.

Medium-scale renewables are the squeezed middle of energy policy and are largely ignored by the main parties, but their enormous potential is illustrated by the situation in Germany where renewable sources are now responsible for more than 20% of Germany’s electricity, with communities generating around a quarter of that. We should compare that situation with that in the UK, where communities generate less than 1% of all renewable electricity. Of major concern are the mind-bogglingly complicated and complex contracts for difference—CFDs—which are likely to destroy prospects for decentralised energy for medium-scale projects between 50 kW and 10 MW that follow a community ownership or co-operative model. Such schemes tend to involve co-operatives, housing associations and local authorities rather than just large multinational corporations. One might have hoped that a coalition committed to localism and the big society would want to promote exactly that form of community ownership of renewables rather than more of the big six.

In conclusion, even if we get the most effective electricity market reform we can hope for, the scale and urgency of the climate threat demands greater national and international leadership. Almost two years ago, the Prime Minister told us that he wanted this Government to be the greenest ever. He said that the green economy was a real opportunity to drive green jobs and

“make sure we have our share of the industries of the future.”

I could not agree more, and that is why we need more action from the Government to deliver that.

We have to ask ourselves whether we are willing to take responsibility for ensuring that the planet we leave to our children and future generations is habitable. As James Hansen, the award-winning leading National Aeronautics and Space Administration climate scientist, has put it:

“The situation we’re creating for young people and future generations is that we’re handing them a climate system which is potentially out of their control…We’re in an emergency: you can see what’s on the horizon over the next few decades with the effects it will have on ecosystems, sea level and species extinction.”

He has also said:

“Our parents did not know that their actions could harm future generations. We will only be able to pretend”

—I emphasise “pretend”—

“that we did not know.”

That is why Professor Hansen and many other experts are calling for a 6% annual cut in carbon dioxide emissions year on year. Others suggest that the figure should be closer to 9%.

The UK’s carbon budgets enshrine a pathway to an 80% emissions reduction by 2050, and the Climate Change Act 2008, to its credit, does at least put in place architecture that we can use to achieve our targets, but that 80% target is simply out of date. When scientific developments indicate that we must go further and faster, Government policy must change to reflect that. The science tells us that global emissions of carbon dioxide need to peak in the current decade and decline steeply thereafter. That means that this Parliament—us here now—has a historic responsibility to rise to the challenge of ensuring that can happen. It is the last Parliament that can take action to avoid runaway climate change.

Failure to stabilise emissions within that framework and that time scale will dramatically reduce our chances of keeping warming below the crucial threshold of 2° C. That is why the coalition Government must use the remainder of this Parliament radically to raise the UK’s ambitions and actions domestically and internationally to lead the fight for a safe climate. If ever there was an issue that required unity, shared purpose and leadership it is surely this one—in the interests of our children and the next generation.

Illegally Logged Timber (Prohibition of Import, Sale or Distribution) Bill

Debate between Christopher Pincher and Caroline Lucas

Friday 4th February 2011 Commons Chamber

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

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

This Bill should be a Government Bill, but the coalition appear to have dropped their commitment to legislate on illegal timber. This week saw the launch of the international year of forests at the UN General Assembly in New York. It saddens me that instead of championing their promises on illegal timber, the coalition instead seem prepared to abandon them. Shortage of time prevents me from talking at length about the importance of our rain forests, with regard to biodiversity, their capacity to regulate our climate and mitigate climate change and their importance for indigenous people, but I will note that in the past 24 hours there has been news that extremely worrying droughts have been killing the Amazon rain forests, leading them to becoming a net emitter of CO₂ in 2005 and 2010.

I will explain a little of the background to the Bill. In 2009, the United States introduced the Lacey Act, which made it illegal for a person or company to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase timber or timber products that have been illegally taken, harvested, possessed, transported, sold or exported. The current Foreign Secretary promised voters before the general election that the Conservatives would do the same.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady tell us how successful the Lacey Act has been in the two years since it was introduced?

[Caroline Lucas]

It is early days, but there is every indication that the Lacey Act has been successful. More to the point, it demonstrates that that kind of legislation is perfectly possible.

I want to talk about why the Conservatives promised that they would bring in a prohibition on the possession or import of illegally logged timber. Let me quote the following words:

“The earth’s rain forests are not only one of the greatest wonders of the natural world; they are the green lungs of the planet. They are also the source of the forest resources that help to support the livelihoods of nearly 1 billion of the world’s poorest people.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 737.]

To those Members who were here last March and have good memories, those words might sound familiar: they were the opening words of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), now the Minister of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, in a speech to support his ten-minute rule Bill—Illegally Logged Timber (Prohibition of Retail, Wholesale and Distribution)—just weeks before the general election. It was a Bill that I would have strongly supported. The reason I repeat his words is to highlight my dismay at the contradictions that are there for all to see of a party saying and promising one thing, but not acting once it has the power to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman has spoken an awful lot today, so I will not give way.

[Christopher Pincher]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Lucas]

No.

In his speech on his ten-minute rule Bill, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle did an excellent job of explaining why UK legislation was needed, stating that

“it is clear that action at European level will not go far enough”.

Quite correctly, he went on to describe the problem with the EU legislation:

“It lacks an explicit overarching prohibition on illegal timber in the EU market... Loopholes are therefore created whereby all downstream companies—the majority of EU traders—are exempt from even the bare minimum of due diligence requirements. A prohibition on illegal timber needs to apply to all companies that make timber available to the market, whatever their position in the supply chain.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 738.]

[Caroline Lucas]

I will not, because of lack of time.

That is all good stuff, and I of course agree with it. A commitment to just such a prohibition was repeated on page 17 of the coalition agreement, which states that the coalition will bring forward

“Measures to make the import or possession of illegally logged timber a criminal offence”.

Given the critical need to act now and the Government’s clear commitment to go further than the EU, I was alarmed to receive a letter last July from a DEFRA Minister stating that

“we will not be pursuing further UK legislative action at this stage”.

Indeed, another Back Bencher showed me a similar letter that went further by dropping “at this stage” and bluntly stating that

“we will not be pursuing further UK legislative action.”

[Christopher Pincher]

Will the hon. Lady—