argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Northern Ireland Protocol — House of Commons, 2022-05-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): Can I press the Foreign Secretary on why she is laying the ground for a trade war with our largest trading partners just as the Bank of England is warning of an "apocalyptic" rise in food prices? Those are the tactics she is using and the threats she is making. Will she meet the UK Trade and Business Commission to discuss our recommendations for a way of removing the bulk of checks in the Irish sea with a veterinary agreement and standards protection? The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) has made that same point. The Foreign Secretary says that she wants a wider agreement, but why not start with that veterinary agreement and with standards—unless she is in fact aiming to dilute and remove standards?
Tackling Short-term and Long-term Cost of Living Increases — House of Commons, 2022-05-17
Topic: Energy
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. I wonder whether he shares my anger at the news this week that the Government have underspent their net zero budget by a staggering quarter of a billion pounds, at exactly the same time as our constituents are struggling to keep their homes warm and deal with accelerating fuel poverty.
COP26 Presidency: Priorities — House of Commons, 2022-03-02
Topic: Environment
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): The Glasgow climate pact and, indeed, the COP26 priorities contain a commitment to keep 1.5° alive, yet the UN Environment Programme production gap report warns that Governments plan to produce more than twice the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than is consistent with 1.5°. Real climate leaders do not license new oil, gas or coal and no amount of climate checkpoints will change the climate reality. Will his Government scrap their checkpoint as inconsistent with climate leadership and rule out new fossil fuel licences once and for all?
Russian Oil Import Ban — House of Commons, 2022-03-09
Topic: Energy
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): The Government are right to get off Russian oil and gas—I welcome that—but wrong to propose replacing it with new domestic production. Our dependence on fossil fuels is what got us into this energy crisis in the first place, and that is why many of us, including the International Energy Agency, are calling for no new licences. The real insanity is trying to get out of one crisis by plunging ourselves into another. More extraction from the North sea will keep our bills high and drive us past safe climate limits, and fracking will not help. Will the Secretary of State use this moment to launch an emergency green revolution? Will he get serious at last about energy efficiency, and will he wean the UK off not just Russian oil and gas, but all oil and gas now?
Executions in Saudi Arabia — House of Commons, 2022-03-14
Topic: International Affairs
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): May I press the Minister? Does she not see any contradiction between rightly ending dependence on Putin’s Russia for fossil fuels and then seeking to replace them by going cap in hand to another murderous tyrant, who executes his own people and to whom we sell arms that are being used to kill civilians in Yemen? Is she aware of reports in the US that Saudi Arabia is pressurising President Biden to repay access to oil by supplying more military support for its war in Yemen? Can she assure us that this Government would not tolerate a "more arms for oil" deal with that murderous regime?
Adaptation — House of Commons, 2022-06-15
Topic: Environment
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): We rightly talk about the adaptation finance gap, but as the Minister will know, according to Oxfam the economic costs of loss and damage could be up to £580 billion a year by 2030, yet rich countries are continuing to drag their feet. Will the Government work to ensure that Egypt succeeds where Glasgow failed, so that the £100 billion in climate finance is not just met but exceeded, and so that a new loss and damage finance facility is established at COP27?
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-15
Topic: Agriculture
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): The Secretary of State keeps using this language about precision breeding, but he will know that that is neither a specific technology nor a scientific principle. It relies on the creation of a hypothetical class of GMOs that could have occurred naturally. He will know that there is opposition to that definition from everyone from the environmental non-governmental organisations right through to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and to the Roslin Institute. Given that level of disagreement about the very principles of how he is framing this Bill, will he take it away and look at it again?
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-15
Topic: Environment
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): The Secretary of State will know that section 20 of the Environment Act 2021 requires him to be able to affirm that this Bill does not weaken any existing environmental protections. Given that he has more or less just said that it precisely does, because it will weaken the EU legislation that we were following and will erode the existing regulatory system, how can he then sign section 20 in good faith?
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-15
Topic: Agriculture
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): I believe that this is a flawed Bill—it is not strategic, it is not clear and it does not do what it says on the tin. Ministers breezily assert that it will deliver access to wonderful new markets, while failing to acknowledge that it actually risks hindering access to our closest significant market, the EU, as we create a divergent regime for regulating genome-edited products. As we have heard, consequences for trade with Northern Ireland are being ignored. With the Scottish and Welsh Governments currently taking a different approach from that of England, the Bill is a recipe for consumer confusion and significant operational difficulties for retailers across the UK These big questions are critical, but in the short time that I have, I shall spell out how the Bill falls down on some core principles that render it flawed and not fit for purpose. Those principles are scientific coherence and clarity, properly defined criteria—or the lack of them—and transparency On coherence and clarity, in its title and text the Bill uses the phrase "precision breeding", yet that is neither a specific technology nor a scientific discipline. It is a marketing term: a vague colloquialism for a number of recently developed genetic engineering technologies, which do not form a coherent group of methods, and do not justify being called "precise"—not when the scientific literature contains reports of genetic technologies such as genome editing creating unexpected and unwanted mutations, genetic errors, altered proteins, and extensive deletions and complex rearrangements of DNA in plants. [Interruption.] I will not give way yet The Government give a nod to that uncertainty with their caveat that genetic editing of animals will not take place until animal protection can be safeguarded. Engineering the DNA of animals raises major animal welfare and ethical concerns. A wealth of problems are set out by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report on gene-edited farm animals. As I understand it, there is nothing to prevent biotech-created disease resistance being used as a sticking-plaster for the intensive factory farming practices that are the underlying cause of disease emergence in the first place. That is why, given the current drafting, animals should be removed from the Bill’s scope, full stop.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-15
Topic: Agriculture
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. As has been said, she clearly has expertise, but I am looking at the scientific evidence that has been put before me, and it is being suggested that the mistakes that can be made in this area, especially when it comes to nature, appear very different from those that are seen in nature I move on to the principle of properly defined criteria. Using a term that lacks any proper definition looks like an attempt to obscure the full scope of the proposed deregulation. The terms "precision breeding" and gene editing help promote a particular narrative—that the process is just a simple "cut" or "tweak". The Government are also at pains to stress that any changes might have occurred "naturally" and do not involve the insertion of transgenes—so-called "foreign" DNA I have read that this is to some extent smoke and mirrors. The Bill seeks to deregulate all manner of genetic manipulations, and genome editing can sometimes involve the insertion of foreign DNA. As I understand it, the argument is that in such cases the inserted DNA gets removed before the product goes to market. That may well be the intention; but by using poorly defined criteria in the title and wording of the Bill, the Government are asking us to pass bad legislation.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-15
Topic: Agriculture
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): I am not making a blanket statement in that way. I am saying that if a whole load more safeguards were built into the Bill and if it were not based on a set of definitions that are being criticised by the scientific community, I would have rather more confidence in it than I do right now As we have heard, several learned organisations have challenged the Government’s creation of this hypothetical class of GMOs that could have "occurred naturally" or could have been created using traditional breeding. The Institute of Food Science & Technology has called the approach "overly simplistic", and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics was "not convinced that this is either the most proper or most popular framing" The Roslin Institute found it "exceptionally challenging", while the Royal Society of Biology said: "No clarity can be achieved using this principle—we would not recommend using it as the basis for regulation." In response to last year’s public consultation, there was a clear view that this is a fundamentally flawed and unscientific basis for regulation Turning to transparency, there are no provisions in the Bill for the labelling of genetically engineered or so-called precision-bred food, despite this being what a majority of the public want, as the Government consultation made clear. In that consultation, 85% wanted genetic technologies used in farming to continue to be regulated in the same way as other GMOs. There are significant concerns over the commercial drivers of genome editing in farmed animals, for example. This makes labelling really important, not least if Ministers want citizen and market trust, and buy-in to any new regulatory regime. The public register idea is welcome, but it needs to be accessible as well as comprehensive, and it should include all genetic engineering events and organisms used in UK agriculture. Reduced data collection is worrying. Data that is not collected cannot be analysed. Ministers are simply assuming that risks are non-existent or vanishingly slight, but there is nothing scientific about such wishful thinking In conclusion, we need a national conversation. Regulation and innovation need not be at odds, but products of agricultural genetic engineering, including newer techniques, should be subject to a robust and transparent regulatory and governance framework. This must include a strong traceability and labelling scheme that protects the interests of organic farms and allows consumers to make a choice in the supermarket. This legislation lets down consumers, farmers, the environment and animals. Rushing ahead with a badly conceived and designed Bill because the Government are simply desperate to claim some kind of success on post-Brexit deregulation is unacceptable, and I urge them to bring back something better.
Fossil Fuel Extraction — House of Commons, 2022-04-26
Topic: Environment
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): In this global week of advocacy for fossil fuel non-proliferation, I call on the Government to deliver on the climate leadership that was promised, while the UK still has the COP26 presidency, by helping to initiate a negotiation process on an international fossil fuel treaty to phase out fossil fuels. I will set out the context for this treaty, the idea for which originated several years ago with parliamentarians in the global south and that has now been endorsed by more than 200 worldwide. I will lay out some of the reasons why such a treaty is necessary and ask the Minister some key questions about the Government’s strategy for ending fossil fuel production According to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, the burning of coal, oil and gas accounts for around 86% of all carbon dioxide emissions in the past decade. There is global consensus that, on scientific, economic, public health, justice, moral and countless other grounds, we have to end our deadly addiction to fossil fuels, and we have to do it fast. At the Glasgow climate summit, under the UK’s ongoing COP presidency, for the first time since the original UN framework convention on climate change was negotiated in 1992, fossil fuels were finally referenced in the outcome text, albeit by committing only to a "phase down of coal". But the fossil fuel age is well and truly over, and the only debate to be had is how quickly, successfully and fairly we act: whether we urgently transition to a zero-carbon economy or decline into climate chaos.
Fossil Fuel Extraction — House of Commons, 2022-04-26
Topic: Environment
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): I think I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The truth is that although mistakes have certainly been made in Germany in the past, the idea that new nuclear now can help the UK get to net zero fast enough is simply misguided; it is too costly and too slow, and it simply will not get us where we need to be quickly enough. What is clear, however, is that phasing out fossil fuel production, and fast-tracking progress towards safer and more cost-effective alternatives, will require unprecedented international co-operation I want to begin with a quick reminder of the science and with what climate experts are saying about fossil fuel production. Last year’s United Nations Environment Programme production gap report concluded that in order to limit warming to 1.5°C, the world will need to decrease fossil fuel production by at least 6% per year between 2020 and 2030. At the moment, there is no collective means of reaching that hard scientific deadline together, of accounting for the global impacts of choices made unilaterally by individual nations on our shared planet. Yet a universal and equitable approach is critical, as the Tyndall Centre’s own production phase-out report warns. It says: "For a 50% or better chance of 1.5°C, our analysis shows that all producer countries must peak their production immediately and begin an uninterrupted decline. Expanding production in wealthier producers would either shift poorer producers (in fact all producers) onto more steeply declining pathways with earlier end dates, or put the temperature commitments beyond reach." Let us be absolutely clear: the UK is one of those wealthier producers, which together produce more than a third of the world’s oil and gas. Moreover, the UK has a moral responsibility to go further and faster than the vast majority of the world, because our historic cumulative emissions are so much greater. Tyndall analysis finds that the UK must reduce our oil and gas production by 50% in six years, which equates to an 8.3% reduction year on year, and must cease it completely by 2034—and that is just for a 50% chance of staying below 1.5°C once equity is factored in.
Engagements — House of Commons, 2022-02-23
Topic: International Affairs
Questions:   Following last week’s Q&A at the Shepley Village Association, and after receiving a huge number of complaints from constituents, it is clear to me that speeding is a major problem not just in Shepley, but across all parts of Dewsbury, Mirfield, Kirkburton and Denby Dale. Does my right hon. Friend agree that rather than action being taken after people have been killed or seriously injured in collisions, prevention is better than cure and the Department for Transport circular 2007 needs a long overdue review?; The River Wye, pollution, flooding, house building and the wider environment are all important to my right hon. Friend, so will he meet me to discuss the future of the Environment Agency?
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): Yesterday, when I asked the Prime Minister about Russian meddling in UK elections, he looked very shifty before claiming that he was not aware of any. Yet, when he was—[Interruption.] Yet, when he was Foreign Secretary in 2017, he appeared at a joint press conference with the Russian Foreign Minister. When Lavrov claimed that there was no evidence that Russia had interfered in UK elections in any way, the now Prime Minister corrected him by saying that there was no evidence of "successful" interference. Can the Prime Minister tell us what evidence he has seen of unsuccessful interference? Has he actually read the Russia report, which is very clear that there is credible evidence of interference? [Interruption.] Given that, as his Defence Secretary said earlier this week, information is as powerful as any tank, can he explain why he is turning a blind eye to allegations of Russian disruption—
Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges — House of Commons, 2022-04-21
Topic: Government Operations
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): The right hon. and learned Member is making a very powerful speech. On procedures, does he agree that there is a bigger point about Parliament’s governance structures? Our whole system of checks and balances is completely out of date. It is beyond ludicrous that the arbiter of whether the ministerial code has been broken is the person who is accused of breaking it—in this instance, the Prime Minister. Does the Leader of the Opposition agree that we also need a wider look at those governance structures, which are simply not fit for purpose?
Action on Climate Change and Decarbonisation — House of Commons, 2022-07-05
Topic: Energy
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): I am all in favour of fossil fuel companies creating funds, but would not another way of achieving that be for the Government not to give oil and gas companies such an extraordinary subsidy, as part of the windfall tax—the so-called 80% investment allowance, which incentivises precisely the opposite kind of behaviour that the hon. Gentleman is speaking so eloquently about?
Action on Climate Change and Decarbonisation — House of Commons, 2022-07-05
Topic: Energy
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. Does he share my surprise that in a debate on energy costs there has been no reference yet to nuclear power, which is eye-wateringly expensive? We are just hearing that Hinkley Point is going to be a year late and cost yet another £3 billion. Does he agree that the money that is being sunk into nuclear could be much better spent in exactly the kinds of ways he is describing, such roll-out of energy efficiency in homes and renewable energy?
Action on Climate Change and Decarbonisation — House of Commons, 2022-07-05
Topic: Energy
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): The issue is not just that the Government are not bringing forward good stuff fast enough—in other words, the delivery gap that the Committee on Climate Change referenced. The Government are also doing bad stuff. The Committee on Climate Change said that the Government’s plans for more new oil and gas projects in the North sea did not make economic sense. Will the Minister listen to that committee, which is there to give him advice, and look again at the reckless idea of extracting yet more oil and gas from the North sea? That will not get our prices down, and it will not help with the cost of living crisis.
Extreme Heat Preparedness — House of Commons, 2022-07-18
Topic: Environment
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): I thank the Minister for his response. As he says, this week the UK is likely to have its hottest day on record, with the Met Office issuing its first ever red warning for extreme heat for England, and Wales already recording its hottest day These brutal temperatures pose a very real threat to life and infrastructure, as well as to education, travel and, most importantly, health. It is indeed disappointing that the Minister did not offer his own statement about what the Government were doing, instead of waiting to be dragged here by an urgent question. Although the heatwave has now been declared a national emergency, there are real questions about how seriously the Government are taking it and how prepared they are. They seem to be turning up with a watering can when what we need is a giant fire hose Will the Minister say exactly how many Cobra meetings on the heat emergency the Prime Minister has missed, and why? What practical support have the Government offered to the NHS, care homes and schools, beyond the guidance in the heatwave plans? For example, what financial resources are they offering? Ten months after the consultation closed, where is the Government’s national resilience strategy? Will the Government agree to maximum workplace temperature limits to give workers legal protection against working in high temperatures, and ensure that employers allow staff to work flexibly in the heat? Will he condemn those on his own Benches who have, unbelievably, sought to make a cultural wedge issue out of even this subject, with Conservative Members calling those who want to take precautions "cowards" and "snowflakes" The Government can hardly say that they have not been cautioned about the risks. The Committee on Climate Change has warned that heat-related deaths could triple by 2050, yet in the words of the chair of the Adaptation Committee, adaptation in this country is "under-resourced, underfunded and often ignored." None of the 42 adaptation-specific recommendations have been implemented in full. The committee reports that more than half a million new homes that are liable to overheating have been built in the UK over the past 10 years, even after the issue was first raised. What exactly are the Government doing to close the gap on adaptation? Finally, when will the Government finally join the dots and stop pouring fuel on the fire? It is beyond perverse that Ministers wring their hands over extreme heat one day, and give the green light to new oil and gas extraction the next. Will the Minister rule out any new oil and gas licences in the North sea, and scrap yet more subsidies through the investment allowance as part of the energy profits levy? Will they finally turn the tap off new oil and gas?
Oil and Gas Sector — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Energy
Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Left): The UK already has the lowest tax take anywhere in the world from an offshore oil and gas regime, so it is perverse that the Government’s new investment allowance will essentially incentivise yet more oil and gas exploration at a time when we know that we absolutely need to leave fossil fuels in the ground. Given that the Secretary of State himself has said that it will take up to a decade to extract sufficient volumes from fracking, will he undertake to speak to his Treasury colleagues and make sure that fracking at the very least is excluded from this perverse investment allowance?