The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-07-15.
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what assessment he has made of National Audit Office analysis indicating that £29 million will be available for Contracts for Difference contracts in 2015-16; and if he will make a statement.
Matthew Hancock
Indicative CfD budgets, including for Contracts for Difference contracts in 2015-16, will be published later this month.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-07-15.
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what estimate he has made of the annual saving to the Levy Control Framework budget from closure of the Renewables Obligation to large-scale solar from April 2015; what that saving is as a proportion of that budget in (a) 2016, (b) 2017, (c) 2018, (d) 2019 and (e) 2020; and if he will make a statement.
Amber Rudd
In its consultation issued on 13th May 2014, DECC has proposed closing the Renewables Obligation (RO) to new solar PV capacity above 5MW from 31 March 2015. We consider this to be necessary because large-scale solar PV is deploying more rapidly than expected. This poses a substantial risk to our ability to manage the levy control framework budget, and therefore our ability to minimise costs of renewables deployment for consumers.
The impact assessment published alongside the consultation set out the projected impact of proposed intervention on deployment and spend. Option 1 below assumes no action; option 2 is the proposed intervention:
“
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-07-15.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what information his Department holds on (a) the current waiting time following referral for a first appointment at Charing Cross Gender Identity Clinic (GIC), (b) how many people are currently receiving treatment at that clinic and how long the average wait is between appointments; what assessment his Department has made of how many patients Charing Cross GIC can treat in a year according to best practice guidelines and within existing resources; what discussions he has had with the Chief Executive of NHS England on the steps necessary to increase provision of services for trans people; and if he will make a statement.
Norman Lamb
We are advised by NHS England that there are currently seven gender identity clinics (GICs) in England and three providers of gender reassignment surgery. The nearest GIC to Brighton and Hove is located in London. These GIC clinics have considerable experience of delivering this highly specialised service and are able to accept referrals from all over the United Kingdom. At present there are no plans to undertake a procurement exercise to increase the number of providers.
NHS England report that waiting times for pre-surgical assessment at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust one of the three NHS England commissioned providers of gender surgery are currently running at around 12 months, compared to 10 months in 2013-14. The increase in waiting times is due to the increase in demand for the service nationally that has seen referrals increase from 195 in 2011-12 to 300 in 2013-14.
Individual patient waits vary according to the needs of the patient. Currently, the average wait for surgery is just under a year from the point at which funding is confirmed.
Information from the website of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust shows that there are currently 279 patients approved for this surgery and that it carried out 178 male to female gender reassignment operations in 2013-14.
Following a change in staffing, Imperial appointed a new gender reassignment surgeon who will start performing gender reassignment surgeries in September 2014. As a temporary measure, the trust is referring a small number of patients who have waited longer than others to a private provider under a sub-contracting arrangement with that provider, Imperial retain responsibility for managing all patient pathways.
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust has published an update of the position on its website, which can be viewed at the following link:
www.imperial.nhs.uk/aboutus/news/news_044629
The trust is also sending this information directly to patients.
These issues have not been the subject of discussions between Ministers and the Chief Executive of NHS England.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-06-24.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether the UK will support the request from the Palestinian Authority for an emergency session of the UN Security Council on the treatment of Palestinian detainees.
Hugh Robertson
The UK is concerned about the situation of Palestinians in Israeli detention, and we raise this issue regularly with the Israeli authorities. However, the Palestinian Authority has not made a formal request for an emergency session of the UN Security Council to address this issue.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-07-15.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make it his policy to facilitate the establishment of a gender identity clinic in Brighton and Hove; and if he will make a statement.
Norman Lamb
We are advised by NHS England that there are currently seven gender identity clinics (GICs) in England and three providers of gender reassignment surgery. The nearest GIC to Brighton and Hove is located in London. These GIC clinics have considerable experience of delivering this highly specialised service and are able to accept referrals from all over the United Kingdom. At present there are no plans to undertake a procurement exercise to increase the number of providers.
NHS England report that waiting times for pre-surgical assessment at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust one of the three NHS England commissioned providers of gender surgery are currently running at around 12 months, compared to 10 months in 2013-14. The increase in waiting times is due to the increase in demand for the service nationally that has seen referrals increase from 195 in 2011-12 to 300 in 2013-14.
Individual patient waits vary according to the needs of the patient. Currently, the average wait for surgery is just under a year from the point at which funding is confirmed.
Information from the website of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust shows that there are currently 279 patients approved for this surgery and that it carried out 178 male to female gender reassignment operations in 2013-14.
Following a change in staffing, Imperial appointed a new gender reassignment surgeon who will start performing gender reassignment surgeries in September 2014. As a temporary measure, the trust is referring a small number of patients who have waited longer than others to a private provider under a sub-contracting arrangement with that provider, Imperial retain responsibility for managing all patient pathways.
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust has published an update of the position on its website, which can be viewed at the following link:
www.imperial.nhs.uk/aboutus/news/news_044629
The trust is also sending this information directly to patients.
These issues have not been the subject of discussions between Ministers and the Chief Executive of NHS England.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-06-24.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, with reference to the briefing notes issued by the spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights dated 20 June 2014, on the legislative amendment before the Israeli Knesset relating to force-feeding and medical treatment of prisoners on hunger strike, what steps he is taking to ensure that international human rights and international humanitarian law human rights are upheld by all parties.
Hugh Robertson
Officials from our Embassy in Tel Aviv met with an official from the Israeli Prime Minister’s office on 17 June and expressed our concern over the bill. We are continuing to monitor developments.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-07-15.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, where people from Brighton and Hove are being asked to travel to in order to have face-to-face personal independence payment (PIP) interviews; what assessment he has made of the range of challenges faced by people going for assessment for PIP payments who are asked to travel to another town for a face-to-face interview; if he will estimate the cost to the public purse of taxis for people from Brighton and Hove who cannot use public transport to get to PIP assessments up to 90 minutes away from their homes; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Mark Harper
There are currently two assessment centres situated in the BN21 and BN41 postcode area. A third assessment centre based in the BN3 postcode will be opening shortly.
PIP assessment providers must ensure that claimants do not have to travel for more than 90 minutes by public transport (single journey) for a consultation. This limit is an absolute maximum and we expect that only a small minority of claimants will have to make a journey approaching this duration. In the exceptional circumstance where a claimant is unable to make a journey within 90 minutes via public transport the assessment provider will offer either a home visit or the ability to use a taxi.
We are encouraging assessment providers to identify consultation venues that are as local and convenient as possible.
Payment of claimant expenses including taxi fares is the responsibility of the PIP assessment provider, the Department does not meet these costs.
This information is therefore not available within the Department.
The comments made by Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, on Twitter on 1 November 2022.
Great to know that Matt Hancock has worked out a way to represent his constituents from the jungle… otherwise I’m assuming he’ll be returning his MP’s salary?
The speech made by Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, in the House of Commons on 31 October 2022.
It is a pleasure to follow the important speech by the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), with which I agreed. As I said on Second Reading, this is a flawed Bill; it is unclear and it is not robust, and legal experts have said that it is staggeringly imprecise. Nothing that has happened since Second Reading has caused me to change my mind, so I have tabled a number of amendments, and welcome the opportunity to speak to them, starting with amendments 1 and 2, which would remove animals from the Bill’s scope and title. For the record, it is my intention to press amendment 1 to a vote.
As I say, amendment 1 would remove animals from the scope of the Bill, but the intention is not, as the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) suggested, to kick the can down the road; I genuinely believe that we need more time to look more carefully at what kind of regulatory framework we need, so that we can make the most of potential benefits, but also safeguard ourselves against risk. I acknowledge that there may well be potential benefits to the legislation, but I hope that others will acknowledge that there may well be serious risks, and I do not think that the work has been done to get the balance right in the Bill. We need more safeguards that are commensurate with the risks. That is why—for the moment, at least—we should remove animals from its scope. If the Government wish to legislate on gene editing of animals, they need to give much more thought to defining the circumstances in which that is acceptable, and to provide much more detail on how it will be regulated.
I recognise that clauses 10 to 15 are an attempt to prevent the significant risks that are associated with precision breeding, but I do not think that those measures are sufficient. When we debated the animal sentience legislation, the Government were prepared to accept that there should be a mechanism, via the animal welfare hub, through which the impact of animal sentience legislation could be properly considered by independent experts with the relevant skills. There is an urgent need for something similar that allows us to judge whether genetic engineering will be harmful to animals, how it can be better regulated, and how that can be done transparently. The model in clause 11, however, gives the person applying for authorisation and the Secretary of State far too much authority and responsibility, and the proposed animal welfare advisory body is given only a weak, secondary, advisory role. I worry that that suggests that welfare considerations will carry very limited weight in decision making.
It is also of concern that, under the Bill, the full regulatory system is supposed to be set through secondary legislation. That vastly reduces the scope for vital parliamentary scrutiny on issues of animal welfare and gene editing.
The claims made for gene editing mainly focus on increasing productivity and disease resistance. The Government argue that gene editing is simply an extension of traditional breeding, such as selective breeding, but is more precise and efficient. I assume that is intended to be reassuring, but over the last 50 years selective breeding has itself caused substantial health and welfare problems in most of the main farmed species. We have already heard about the concerns about broiler chickens who have been bred to grow so quickly that many suffer from leg disorders, while others succumb to heart disease. Hens have been bred to lay over 300 eggs a year. They have to draw on their own bone calcium to produce egg shells. This results in osteoporosis, leaving them susceptible to bone fracture. A cow producing milk for her calf would normally produce just over 1,000 litres in her 10-month lactation. Many of today’s dairy cows have been bred to produce 10,000, or even 11,000 or 12,000 litres of milk a year. That contributes, unsurprisingly, to many suffering from lameness, mastitis and reproductive disorders, and the animals live with those welfare problems for a substantial part of their lives.
Gene editing for even faster growth and higher yields would exacerbate the suffering caused by selective breeding. I believe it would be unethical to permit it for increased productivity, and it simply should not be necessary for disease resistance. The proper way to reduce diseases that are generated by keeping animals in poor conditions is to move instead to health-oriented farming systems, in which good health is inherent in the farming methods. Indeed, gene editing could lead to animals being kept in even more crowded and stressful conditions, as they would be resistant to the disease risks that are inherent in those conditions.
I cannot be the only Member who has been lobbied hard to remove animals from the Bill’s scope. I urge the Government to listen to the public and look again at this. They should return the legislation on this subject only once they have given much more detailed consideration to the issues that I have raised. Another of those issues is that nobody involved in drafting this legislation could, I imagine, have honestly envisaged it applying to, for example, domestic cats and dogs. Yet, without clarification, that is exactly what the current drafting could result in.
Our constituents want to be confident that there is consistency in the Government’s ambition for improving animal welfare. They want to know that gene editing cannot be used as some kind of techno-fix and that it will not entrench intensive farming, with its inherent environmental and animal welfare shortcomings. If my amendments are a step too far, I would urge Ministers, as a form of compromise, to bring forward an amendment of their own in the other place that will at the very least limit the scope much more explicitly to farmed animals. In the meantime, my amendments 1 and 2 would remove animals from the scope of the Bill.
Let me move on briefly to a few other amendments in my name. New clause 7 is about informing consumers about what they are buying. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the labelling of this new class of GMO and to do so in consultation with key named stakeholders. Clear labelling is something that we know consumers want. The Food Standards Agency found that:
“Consumers wanted transparent labelling…if genome edited foods reach the UK market.”
My new clause does not prescribe what form that labelling should take; the groups and organisations that it lists for consultation are much better placed to determine that. They include the FSA, food producers, retailers, consumers and anyone else the Government think appropriate. In other words, it would allow for co-operative, sensible, well-informed approaches. I hope Members will back new clause 7 on that basis. Finally, labelling—in either the form set out in my clause or some other form—could represent a step towards resolving the differences with the devolved Governments, which we have already heard about, for whom, for example, alignment with EU standards is a major priority and a current source of disagreement with Westminster.
Amendments 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are a group designed to ensure that regulation is sufficiently robust when it comes to authorising activities involving so-called precision-bred organisms. They seek to convert the powers afforded to the Secretary of State into requirements. In addition, amendment 8, alongside amendment 7, would require obligations relating to supply chain traceability. Without amendment 7, the Bill fails to mandate any such traceability for the new category of precision-bred organisms.
That would be inconsistent with the current long-standing requirement for mandatory traceability for GMOs and would create significant trade barriers for organic businesses in the UK wanting to export products to, for example, the EU or Northern Ireland. The UK organic sector is worth £3 billion, so it makes no economic sense not to amend the Bill and ensure mandatory supply chain traceability. Traceability of genetically engineered organisms is also essential to support recall in the event that novel allergens or toxins, or other safety issues emerge after release.
I believe the Bill is badly conceived and badly drafted. My amendments are all designed with one of two things in mind: to bring either clarity or robustness to the regulatory framework for precision-bred organisms. It is with that intention that I lent my name to a number of other amendments, on behalf of the official Opposition in particular. I hope that they might support mine in the same spirit.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-06-11.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether Ministers or officials of his Department have (a) met the Attorney General of Nigeria since January 2012 and (b) had any conversations about the sale of the OPL 245 oil concession in Nigeria involving Shell and ENI with (i) the Attorney General of Nigeria and (ii) any other senior official of the Nigerian government.
Michael Fallon
Details of meetings held by Ministers and Permanent Secretaries with external organisations are published quarterly and can be found at Gov.uk.
Information on meetings by other officials is not held centrally.