Power up local communities to hit climate targets, urges Green New Deal report

From Caroline Lucas' webpage

Powering up local communities with cleaner community energy, local food supplies and strengthened public transport networks is essential if the UK is to hit its 2030 climate targets, according to a new report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on a Green New Deal, co-chaired by Green MP Caroline Lucas and Labour MP Clive Lewis. 

The report marks the culmination of the APPG’s ‘Local Edge’ inquiry, which held evidence sessions to explore best practice solutions at a local level to reduce carbon emissions across three sectors – heat, energy and buildings; food, land use and nature; and transport and air quality – and to identify regulatory changes needed in order to enable local initiatives to reach their potential, scale up, replicate and flourish.  

The UK’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) has committed to cut carbon emissions by 68% below 1990 levels by 2030. While the Government has set bolder carbon reduction targets for 2035 and 2050, meeting the 2030 target represents Parliament’s most immediate challenge – which will be impossible to reach unless it devolves significant powers and resources to a local level, the report argues. 

Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, said: 

We know that every home can be its own power station. But now we need national Government to power up communities with the finance, resources and regulatory frameworks to help them scale up and thrive. If we’re going to meet our immediate climate targets and secure a liveable future – with warm and comfortable homes, renewable and affordable local energy, healthy and low-carbon food, and cheap and clean transport – we urgently need to put Green New Deal policies into practice, with local people and communities at the forefront.

The report links climate aspiration and constitutional obligation – offering a joined-up response to the polycrisis of a climate emergency, cost of living scandal, energy crisis and constitutional dilemma. 

Evidence sessions held by the inquiry discovered examples of transformative local initiatives around the country – but found communities were held back by the absence of the necessary national regulatory frameworks, and finance required to scale them up and reach their full potential. The most progressive examples follow a pattern in which national governments set out statutory climate obligations, but allow localities to determine how best to deliver them. 

One of the most transformative proposals would be for the Government to make its commitment to a 68% reduction in carbon emissions on 1990 levels by 2030 a binding obligation on all public sector organisations and agencies for all their spending, programmes and projects. 

Amongst other recommendations, the report calls for a European-style ‘right of local supply’, promoting the development of more localised energy communities, by allowing community renewables generation schemes to sell directly to local people; changes to grid access charging in favour of more localised energy systems; and energy efficiency funding to be restored to at least 2012 levels.

The report also demands an end to tax allowances for the use of fossil fuel vehicles. Lessons from cities such as Manchester suggest that conflicts between communities and commuters can be minimised if integrated, affordable public transport alternatives are on offer. 

Some of the report’s other key recommendations include: 

• Planning law must be aligned with net zero climate targets and they should be specifically included in local plans. 
• Local authorities must be given a statutory duty to cut transport emissions in their area by 68% by 2030. 
• The duty to deliver integrated public transport services should be returned to local authorities. 
• The ECO energy efficiency programme should be replaced with a revised version of Warm Zones – developing whole-area, rather than individual, approaches to energy conservation. 
• All carbon subsidies (to fertilisers and fuel) must be swapped into support for regenerative and organic farming. 
• A new Local Food Investment Fund should be established to provide strategic support across the UK for investment in localised agri-food infrastructure and enterprise.  
• The 15-acre minimum size threshold for applications to DEFRA’s community supported farm schemes should be scrapped. 

Because of the UK’s over-centralised approach to energy generation, storage and distribution, specific recommendations were made to the energy regulator Ofgem. The report calls for Ofgem to open its Innovation Funding to promote more localised ‘combined heat and power’ systems; to switch to an average cost pricing system that favours more localised and lower cost renewables; and to prioritise the lowest carbon/lowest marginal cost supplies, ending the current situation in which wind turbines can be stood down to keep power stations running. 

The full report can be found here.

Fuel povery Action's 600k 'Energy for All' petition to be presented to Downing Street on Wednesday after rally at Old Palace Yard addressed by Caroline Lucas and Clive Lewis

 From Fuel Poverty Action

Over 600,000 people have signed a growing petition calling on Prime Minister Liz Truss to end fuel poverty by implementing a new pricing structure: Energy For All.  Energy For All would give everyone a free amount of energy to cover the basics like heating, lighting and cooking. This would be paid for by higher prices on profligate energy use; windfall taxes and ending the millions of pounds spent daily on fossil fuel subsidies.

The petition is part of the ‘Energy For All’ campaign organised by Fuel Poverty Action,  and will be delivered to Downing Street on Wednesday 19th October.

Over 20 MPs are expected to attend a rally from 1pm at King George V Statue, Old Palace Yard, Westminster.  Campaigners will then proceed to Downing Street to deliver the petition to the Prime Minister at 2.30 p.m.

Ruth London, Co-Director of Fuel Poverty Action said:
 

The government’s latest measures will leave millions in miserable poverty this winter, and many thousands will die from cold homes. The existing pricing system is fundamentally unfair. The less you use, the more you pay per unit. Even people who are turning their heating off entirely are clobbered with the heavy standing charge. 

Energy For All will take our subsistence money back from the energy  giants who are sucking it out of our homes.  It will make sure that what people receive is based on what they need.  People heating mansions will pay more.  People who use no more than they need will pay far less.  And the government will finally be incentivised to insulate our homes. 

MPs Caroline Lucas and Clive Lewis, and Lord Prem Sikka will be addressing the crowd, alongside people who are facing a cold and miserable winter due to ill health, damp housing and rising prices.  For more information on moves inside Parliament, please see their quotes, below. 

The principle of a free allocation of energy, with higher tariffs for those who use far more than they need, has the support of 75% of the population according to a nationwide ICM survey in June

The idea is supported by a wide and growing range of organisaitons including the TUC, Disabled People Against Cuts, New Economics Foundation, Tax Justice UK, Single Mothers Self Defence, Parents for Future, Women Against Rape, Extinction Rebellion Scotland, Global Women’s Strike, Disabled Mothers' Rights Campaign, 350.org, Lewisham Pensioners Forum, and Just Stop Oil. Representatives of many of these movements will be at the rally on 19 October.
 

 

On Tuesday 18th October Clive Lewis, the Labour Member of Parliament for Norwich South, will present the Energy Equity Commission Bill (a Private Members’ Bill) in the House of Commons Chamber. He will also table an Early Day Motion on the Bill, which Members of Parliament can sign if they are supportive. These initiatives have cross-party support.

Clive Lewis MP, lead sponsor of the Energy Equity Commission Bill said:
 

In an age of climate and economic shocks, there’s an urgent need for a new social settlement that ensures that when it comes to life’s essentials the varying needs of all are met – from energy to housing, from connectivity to healthcare. The Government’s plan will benefit the richest the most, and let oil and gas companies off the hook for polluting and profiteering. Meanwhile, too many households will not have their energy needs met. I support the demand for ‘Energy for All’ because access to energy to meet the needs of a decent life is a basic right. That is also why I am proposing a Private Members’ Bill to introduce a free Universal Basic Energy allowance and a retrofit revolution.

 

Caroline Lucas said: 

 

Millions are already in fuel poverty, yet this Government is failing to provide anywhere near sufficient support to keep people warm throughout this forthcoming winter at the same time as building long term energy resilience.  Rather than spending billions on unfunded tax cuts and subsidies for climate-wrecking fossil fuels, we need to see a windfall tax on obscene oil & gas profits which is worthy of its name, a retrofit revolution to insulate homes and slash bills, and a proper plan to ensure everyone has energy security during the harshest time of the year.

Paula Peters, Disabled People Against Cuts, said: 

 

DPAC supports Fuel Poverty Action's "Energy For All" proposal, it's a vital measure for the safety and wellbeing of disabled and older people in poverty.  There are disabled people who use dialysis machines, ventilators, need to charge power wheelchairs, need the fridge to keep certain medications refrigerated, who are rationing electricity because they cannot afford to charge their equipment to keep them going every day.  People in social care and in energy debt with bailiffs at their doors demanding payment.. Disabled people are in a terrifying  position, barely surviving or dying. 

TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady said:

  

Every family deserves access to affordable, clean energy. But the way we get billed today means that basic energy needs are charged at the same rate as extravagant use.

We need a new approach that gives everyone a free energy allowance for basic needs like heating, cooking and lighting. But when people are powering luxury lifestyles, like heating a private swimming pool, they should expect to pay a higher rate.
 

The government should also put a much higher windfall tax on oil and gas profits. This will help stop profiteering and it will raise revenue that can shield households from the cost of interventions to keep bills down.

Sara Hall, Head of Movement, Tax Justice UK said:

  

Ordinary families are seeing their bills go through the roof at the same time that some big companies like BP and Shell are raking in record profits. A beefed up windfall tax on oil and gas company excessive profits would ensure that these companies aren’t profiteering during these difficult times. The government must use the tax system to raise revenues from the wealthy and big companies, to invest in our economy, in the green transition and ensure everyone has access to energy to cook food, heat their home and keep the lights on.

Caroline Lucas speaks out against SATs at More Than A Score Rally

Caroline Lucas speaks out against President Trump

This is the full version of Caroline Lucas' speech. I recorded it from within the crowd so you can't see her but it is the words that are important.

Caroline Lucas on changing the Brexit conversation

Caroline Lucas' speech at yesterday's Convention

It’s a pleasure to be here today, and to welcome you all to this Convention.

I want to start by saying a huge thank you to everyone who has made it happen at such short notice.
And - perhaps more unexpectedly - I also want to say a genuine thank you to the 17.4 million people who gave the Establishment such a well-deserved kicking in 2016.
Thanks to you, the crisis at the heart of our democracy – and the intolerable levels of inequality and insecurity experienced by so many – can no longer be ignored.
The place that we’ve been brought to by the outcome of the referendum is difficult, dangerous and divisive.
But we mustn’t let that obscure the truth, or distort our analysis.
Many people took the question they were being asked to mean “Should the country go on being run in the way that it is?’
And they voted “NO!” with a collective howl of rage.

That response was justified then - and it’s justified now.
For some, it might have been mixed up with fear, even bigotry, and an impossible longing for the past.
But there was - and is - a core message at the heart of the Brexit vote.
That the status quo in this country is intolerable for huge numbers of people. 
That the social contract is broken and the power game is rigged.
It is right and reasonable to be furious.
The questions we must ask going forward have to start with that acknowledgement.
And with a powerful commitment not even to try to go back to the way things were.

There has to be something better.
Better than both the inequality and the powerlessness we’ve been grappling with for decades and that still haven’t been resolved -
A democratic failure as well as an economic one.

So throughout today, I want us to address three key questions.

First, how do we address the very real grievances that led so many to vote for Brexit in the first place?
Those living in communities with proud histories, but which have been hollowed out by de-industrialisation and decades of neglect, compounded in recent years by an ideologically driven assault on public services in the name of austerity?

Second, how do we make staying and fighting for the Europe we want a pathway to change -  to a society that isn’t just less grim than what we have now, but is genuinely fair, green and fulfilling? 
How do we inspire people with a vision of the way membership of the EU can make a positive and practical improvement to their lives? 
How do we ensure that Project Hope overcomes Project Fear?

And third, how do we renew our democracy?  How do we genuinely take control?

Shift the framework entirely and hand power to people not just for one vote, but forever, so that our country can unite around a new settlement that gains popular consent across the Brexit divide?
Today is about changing the conversation about Brexit. 
It’s about moving forward - humbly, positively and with hope.
And it’s about putting young people, those who will be most affected by Brexit, at the heart of all we’re doing.
Change is coming, one way or another.
Let’s think anew and act anew.  Let’s shape it together.
And let’s start with some honesty about the real causes of Brexit.

Because telling the truth is what sets us apart from the populists - the political insiders who dress up as rebels, and use Europe to distract from their own failures.
People were, and are, angry and frustrated for many reasons.
And they can, at least partly, be summed up in the words of the inimitable Russell Brand: “People saw a bright red button that said Fuck Off Establishment, and they pressed it.”
For many, there was a genuine sense that any change was better than the status quo.
That they had nothing left to lose.
The tragedy, of course, is that they do and likely will.
Particularly those least equipped to cope.
Concerns about access to housing, jobs, and the NHS are real and have to be addressed.
And so too do concerns about migration.
Changing the Brexit conversation means proudly celebrating free movement - and the opportunities it’s given to individuals and to our country.
It was not just a political failure, but a moral failure, that saw the Remain campaign hide away from talking about migration in 2016 - preferring instead to bandy about economic threats, rather than engage in a serious debate on this pressing issue.
It also means making those opportunities of free movement genuinely available to all - when for vast swathes of people today they’re not even imaginable.
But we must also be very honest with people about free movement.
I’ve heard some Remainers say we should re-negotiate it, ask the EU for an exemption if we’re to remain.
That’s simply not going to happen, and it would be an utterly perverse thing to demand from Brussels.
Because we know that migration has been a good thing for Britain - but not everyone has felt those benefits.
And big changes to our communities can be frightening, especially when they happen fast.
We can’t shy away from these concerns.
And we must also act anew by hearing very carefully when they are caught up with something else.
Fuelled by anger at being ignored and neglected.
At the failure of successive governments to deliver jobs and other opportunities.
A future for communities – any kind of future, let alone a better one.

The tragedy, of course, is that Brexit would actually make it harder to address all of these problems.
Not least because - under every single Brexit scenario - there would be less money available to repair and rebuild the social fabric that has been so viciously torn apart.
Britain has become a place of grotesque inequalities
Not just between classes, but geographically between regions, especially between North and South; and between thriving cities and failing towns within the same region.
Last year, the Commission on Social Mobility identified the 30 worst ‘coldspots’ for social mobility - and every single one of them voted to Leave.   I don’t think that’s a coincidence.
Shamefully, levels of interregional inequality in the UK are 50% higher than in similar-sized economies such as France and Germany, a third higher than Italy, and almost twice as high as Spain.
Income levels in London have risen by a third since the financial crash - but fallen - yes, fallen - by 14% in Yorkshire and Humberside.
Nor is growing inequality on its own the full story of the economic injustice people experience.
It’s accompanied by acute insecurity.
A huge rise in debt, a loss of long-term prospects, affects everyone.  
As inequality spins out of control, people in all classes feel helpless.  That’s why the slogan “Take back control” had such resonance.
It promised agency in a system in which the rich and powerful, who clearly do have agency, were telling us that the market rules, and there’s nothing anyone can do.
In short, this is a country where what dictates your success isn’t how hard you work, or how much you care.
It’s not your passion or your commitment.
No.  This is a country where your success is dictated by your postcode, the income of your parents, the year in which you were born.
It’s a country of dead end streets for those with the least, and open highways for those with the most.
The lie at the heart of the Leave campaign was that this downward spiral could be reversed by leaving the EU.

We don't need to leave the EU.
We need to think anew.
We urgently need a new social contract: better jobs, high-quality public services, investment in the green economy, people of all backgrounds and communities treated with respect, and given the opportunity and the power to thrive.

It's not enough to assert that EU migrants bring a net economic benefit to the country as a whole.
That benefit needs to be felt in those areas that experience the greatest changes, with those communities coming together to decide themselves how to invest that funding.
And to reverse the cycles of decline that blight so many parts of Britain, let’s make sure we transform the future with funding that delivers real opportunities and lasting hope.
Thinking and acting anew to tackle inequality and insecurity can help heal our divided country.
So too can an honest conversation about what we have in common.
About a fairer, greener economy that works for us all but also a conversation about who we are as a country - and what we aspire to be.
Those living in once proud communities that have been gutted often feel have very little to lose.
We need to give them something to gain from remaining in the EU.
Likewise, the well-off in non-metropolitan areas who also drove this genuine nationalist vote.
We all need a reason to think anew.
To choose to stay and fight.
The 2016 result should tell us that “project fear” won’t win people over.
They want hope.

If Britain voted again tomorrow, the demographics of this country would probably already have shifted in favour of staying in the EU.
But that’s not enough.
This isn’t just about winning at the ballot box. It’s about winning a different kind of shared future.
To do that, we must urgently learn the lessons of the past.
The mistakes of the Remain campaign mustn’t be repeated.
Mistakes that meant the campaign was seen primarily as defending the status quo, with the political elite pulling the strings.
A campaign that utterly failed to inspire any kind of connection with, or love for, the EU.
Something worth defending – and yes, staying and changing too.
To stand any chance of winning a People’s Vote, we have to abandon all association with a vapid centrism that has failed to deliver for so many people, and would fail again.
We have to think and act anew.
To start using the ideas and language now that will set the tone for a very different kind of referendum campaign.
One that’s hopeful, inclusive, energetic and radical. One we can all feel part of and one that appeals to our hearts as well as our heads.
That builds on the work of groups like Another Europe is Possible, Our Future Our Say, For Our Future’s Sake, and the nearly 200 local groups supporting a People’s Vote.
That shows people - and young people in particular - that there is genuinely a diversity of voices championing our continued membership of the EU.
I welcome the central role give to young people at today’s Convention.

Let’s make sure we listen to those voices and that they are part of owning the way forward.
And we need a referendum campaign that compellingly sets out what kind of EU we want.
An EU of the people, an EU of solidarity.
A vision that galvanises people to stay and fight, not walk away.
One that’s positive about who we are as a country: our ambition and our courage.
It was these values that helped create the European Union.
That helped us emerge from the rubble and destruction of the Second World War into peace with our neighbours ever since - a miracle few would have dreamed possible when the bombs were raining down.

The EU is the greatest international venture for peace, prosperity and freedom in history.
Where in the world has there ever been a better example of collaboration in pursuit of such values?
That astonishing achievement ought to be front and centre of the Brexit conversation – and it’s up to us to put it there.

So too the social and environmental protections, and the remarkable gift of free movement - that precious right to travel and to work and to live and to love in 27 other countries.
And so too, the good angel sitting on our shoulder when it comes to upholding human rights, the friendships across borders, the cultural opportunities, the life without fear and the solidarity.
To have reduced all that to an argument about the cost of a trolley load of shopping was such a tragedy.

Changing the conversation about Brexit has to mean moving on from the facts and the figures, and connecting instead with the feelings, hopes and dreams that will unite us. It’s got to be about who we are as a country, and how we want to be seen.

Now you don’t need to tell me that the EU is imperfect - I was an MEP for 10 years!
It is, at times, a highly political, top-down, opaque and technocratic set of institutions.
One that, actually, could be made instantly more transparent and accountable by live streaming all meetings and publishing minutes, and key papers like trade negotiation documents.
But here I want to challenge the media too.
Not just those with an almost pathological hatred of the EU - but the Guardian, the BBC - the so-called mainstream, the so-called liberals.
Decisions which are made in the EU affect us every single day, the laws that are passed make a real difference; our members of the European Parliament represent us.  
So let’s stop the fake news about straight bananas, let’s stop treating MEPs as though they didn’t exist, let’s talk about politics in the European Union whenever news is made, not just when Nigel Farage stands up and makes another speech attacking the European Commission.

In the medium term, a Constitutional Assembly should be set up to examine the steps needed to democratise the EU - strengthening the role of the European parliament at the same time as respecting national self-determination.
And longer term, the EU must dismantle the habitual domination of corporate power over the will of citizens, and re-politicise the rules that govern our single market and - for those countries that joined it - the single currency.
Such reforms are long overdue and we shouldn’t be afraid to advocate changing the EU at the same time as fighting to stay part of it.
Transforming the EU into a beacon for democracy brings me to my third question - and the serious democratic deficit in our own country.
Brexit laid bare the extent to which our governance structures are derelict.
When citizens were deprived of a credible, representative power that clearly belongs to, or is accountable to them, it led to anger with the most remote authority of all.
The EU was blamed for the UK’s structural elitism, and held responsible as the source of all powerlessness.
Yet Brexit shows no sign of giving us back ‘control’ or changing the way we’re ruled.

A People’s Vote should be the starting gun on the race to genuinely democratise the UK.
Looking anew at the way Britain is governed, not just by the EU but by Westminster as well.
We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe, with disproportionate power held at Westminster, and far too little in our regions and local authorities.
Powers need to go back to the regions of the UK, where people have a better chance of influencing it.  And, if the English want it, to England.
The DUP’s sectarian interests in Ireland are a world away from the interests of Northern Ireland or modern Britain.
The evolving views from Wales have been treated by this Government with contempt.
And it is inconceivable that Remain-voting Scotland should be forced out of the EU against its wishes.
Years of failure to engage with the need for overall constitutional reform has left us with an incoherent patchwork of piecemeal changes.

If we’re to think and act anew, we must open up to new forms of power and politics – better distributed, more diverse, more strongly integrated, and more modern.
Parliamentary sovereignty needs to be better rooted in the people.
One of the best ways to “take back control” is to rid ourselves of a winner takes all politics, and an outdated electoral system that systematically shuts people out.
68% of votes cast in last June’s General Election were effectively wasted – they made no contribution at all to the distribution of seats.
No democratic renewal is complete without proportional representation.
And let’s seriously explore ideas like Parliament moving out of London to a city such as Leeds or Manchester – with the chance to rebalance our economy as well as our politics.
The Palace of Westminster, Gothic, rat-infested, and crumbling into the Thames, has become a powerful symbol of political decay.

If we mean what we say about changing this country for good, then why not make moving Parliament out of London the first in a series of changes which turn the UK into a 21st century democracy?
Let’s learn from the inspiring way in which Citizens Assemblies have been used in Ireland, for example, to facilitate informed debate on contentious topics and build deep consensus and understanding.
And let’s ensure that democracy can no longer be undermined by fake news and post-truth advertising by introducing new ground-breaking digital democracy laws.
Though the Prime Minister would have us believe otherwise, we have a wealth of choices facing us right now.

Amidst all the noise about the meaningful vote and parliamentary amendments, and whether to extend or revoke Article 50, it’s easy to lose sight of the much bigger choices we can make.
The public want to take control - and we must start to deliver that with a People’s Vote.
If we are to break the Brexit deadlock in parliament, we the people must lead the way.

When Theresa May rules something out, it’s often a strong indication that it’s right around the corner. On that basis, a People’s Vote on her Brexit deal might be getting closer by the minute.
So let’s not squander this moment. Let’s look ahead and build on the radical rejection of the status quo represented by the referendum outcome.
A People’s Vote must look, feel like and reflect our wonderful country – diverse, raw, plural, noisy and, above all, run by and for the people.
We’re told Brexit is the will of the people – but it’s relevant to ask ourselves the will of which people?
Over 70% of voters aged 18-24 voted for Britain to remain, as did 62% of 25-34 year olds.
No wonder it’s been called an “unforgivable act of generational theft”.

So I say again, young people must play a leading role in the way forward - because they will live the longest with the consequences.
And let’s make sure the voices of those who once supported Leave but reject Theresa May’s deal are heard too.
Redistributing power fairly and equally must be both one of our objectives and integral to the way we operate ourselves.
It means politicians like me must spend time far more time listening than talking too.
That’s why I have pledged to actively seek out leave voters, listen to their views and identify what unites us rather than what divides us.
Today I’d like to call on you to think anew and act anew by doing the same.

So in conclusion, I simply want to say that never in my lifetime has our future felt more uncertain.
But when people come together and reach for a bigger future, we’ve shown we can change the course of history.
We do that when we act with honesty, humility and courage.
When we look for, and believe in, the good in others. In our shared hopes and dreams.
I’d like to close by sharing some of Seamus Heaney’s words, from the wall of the General Post Office in Dublin, scene of the bloody 1916 Easter Rising.
He has written:
History says, don’t hope
On this side of the grave
But then, once in a lifetime
The longed for tidal wave
Of justice can rise up
And hope and history rhyme
I believe this is one such moment, that another vote is possible and that, together, we can make change happen.

Caroline Lucas tells Hammond to fully fund teachers' salary increase & reverse per pupil funding cuts

Caroline Lucas MP has written to the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, ahead of the Budget regarding school funding:

Dear Philip,

 

I am writing to you ahead of the Budget and following the recent protest by over 1,000 headteachers about the funding crisis in our schools.

 

Yesterday morning I received the ‘Dear Colleague’ letter on school funding from the Secretary of State of Education about the Department’s use of OECD figures on education spending. The purpose of the letter appears to be to rebut the criticism from Sir David Norgrove, Chair of the UK Statistics Authority, that education ministers have made "exaggerated" claims that "do not give the full picture" on school funding. You will be aware of Sir David’s concerns about repeated misuse of statistics, and the Government’s deliberate distortion of data on the schools crisis: “…figures were presented in such a way as to misrepresent changes in school funding. In the tweet, school spending figures were exaggerated by using a truncated axis, and by not adjusting for per pupil spend.” [1]

 

I am writing to you ahead of the Budget to make it clear that Damian’s letter has not allayed my concerns, nor those of the headteachers, staff, parents and children in Brighton Pavilion, and no doubt across the country. Given that Sir David’s letter specifically raises the key issue of adjustment for per-pupil spend, it beggars belief that the letter did not address the Institute for Fiscal Studies finding that total school spending per pupil fell by 8 per cent in real terms between 2009/10 and 2017/18 [1]. Moreover, the National Audit Office have also identified an 8 per cent real-terms reduction in per-pupil funding for mainstream schools between 2014/15 and 2019/20 due to cost pressures [2].

 

It is vital that the Government reverses the per-pupil funding cuts and also fully funds the 3.5 per cent pay rise recommended by the School Teachers Review Body (STRB) for all pay ranges and allowances. Heads are talking about being forced to make redundancies in order to afford well-deserved pay rises for their teachers. 

 

Heads, teachers, teaching assistants, parents and pupils all know the impact of the cuts. There are particular concerns for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). I have received heart-breaking emails from headteachers for many months. Counselling services cut, vital SEND support cut or not provided, staff not replaced, enrichment activities and trips cut back, basic supplies paid for by charity, repairs not undertaken. To provide just a few examples of the most recent messages from headteachers in Brighton Pavilion:

“…if it was not for our parents and friends we would not manage”

 

“Already we have had to rely on parent fundraising to update our reading books”

 

“…significant undervaluing of and mean spirited approach to children's education in this country and the totally inadequate funding”

 

"where do I find the money from?... We don't have the money.”

 

“…the building is falling apart, there is no money for trips, enrichment activities or other things that help to enhance children's learning.”

 

For children with SEND: “we have nothing left to provide for their needs adequately.”

 

“We increasingly rely on volunteers”

I am also receiving representations from sixth form colleges who face a serious shortfall between the funding they receive and the amount they need to educate their students. I urge you to take account of the new report produced by London Economics on behalf of the Sixth Form Colleges Association: Understanding the funding shortfall in sixth form education [2]. It shows the dramatic impact of the government freeze on sixth form funding combined with a sharp increase in running costs. The report found that sixth form colleges need an increase in funding of at least £760 per student in 2020/21 to continue providing a high quality education to young people. The report also found that, in real terms, sixth form colleges received £1,380 less per student in 2016/17 than they did in 2010/11 – a 22 per cent decline in funding [3]. I trust you will urgently address the issue of sixth form funding in the forthcoming Budget.

 

Lastly, and in short, the purpose of this letter is to ask that we do not get the same barrage of lame excuses about OECD spending comparisons on Budget Day. As you will understand from the quotes and information above, they simply do not wash, and I urge you to directly address the issue of rising pupil numbers in schools. Talking about ‘more money’ is an old political trick that fools no-one and leaves this funding crisis unaddressed. Educational standards are in jeopardy. Yet, with the per-pupil funding they need, our schools could deliver great outcomes for all children. Without it we are letting down a generation. The Budget is yet another chance for you to respond as the crisis requires and I sincerely urge you to do so.

 

Best wishes,

 

Caroline

Why is Brent Council fixing a South Kilburn council property rent at 'up to' 80% of the market rent?

Click on image to enlarge

I've been banging on about the meaninglessness of  'affordable housing' when used by the planning officers in the 'London Borough of Brent and Quintain' for some time and you're probably bored with it.

However, the term is used again in LocataHome, the free sheet of council and housing association homers available in five West London boroughs. Locata guidance says:

At the moment Housing Associations rent most of their homes out at Social Rents. Housing Associations will now be allowed to offer some tenancies at higher rents which could be up to 80% of a market rent. This is called “Affordable Rent”. 

Housing Associations will be able to charge the “Affordable Rent” on new build homes and will also be allowed to let some of their existing properties to new tenants at Affordable Rents. Tenants will still be able to claim housing benefit to help with their rent.

The 2 bedroomed flat advertised in the March 12 edition of LocataHomes (No 529) advertises a two bedroomed flat in Gorefield House, South Kilburn at a weekly rent of  £249.23 per week and adds 'Only applicants in employment should bid for this property.' The landlord is NOT a Housing Association - it is Brent Council. It is NOT new build.

As you can see in the above advertisement a similar property at social rent is just under £100 cheaper.

Brent's Draft Housing Strategy of 2017 had an appendix LINK which looked at what people in Brent could afford.  This table shows the gross income required to pay rent at a level of 40% of income.

So at 80% of market rent for a 2 bedroom flat the family would require an income of £54,971 per year. Incidentally 'up to 80%' in rent terms is the reverse of the 'up to' used for broadband speeds. For housing 80% is most likely while the broadband speed is rarely, if ever, reached!

The London Mayor is quoted in the draft strategy document as giving these figures for the London Affordable Rent and you will see that for a 2 bedroomed property is £152.73, around the same level as the Leighton Gardens flat above.

So I have three questions for Brent Council:

Why are you advertising council housing property on South Kilburn at a rent which does not meet the Mayor's affordability criterion and clearly envisages the tenant has an income well above the Brent median income?

On what basis are you charging a so-called 'affordable rent' for a property which is not new build and where you are the landlord?

What Council policy allows you to stipulate that the prospective tenant must be in employment?

Caroline Lucas challenged the whole concept of 'affordable' on Channel 4 News last night:

"The idea that affordable should mean 80% of market rent is nothing less than obscene."

Green MP Caroline Lucas gives her view on what she calls the UK's “housing crisis”. pic.twitter.com/D3KfBVfoim

— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) March 6, 2018

Lucas: May government has no majority and no mandate

Statement from Caroline Lucas, MP

Today’s Queen Speech comes at a time when Britain desperately needs a change of direction – yet all it contained was empty words from a hollowed out Government.

The criminal loss of life at Grenfell Tower and the latest terror attack at Finsbury Park have shown once again the importance of strong communities, the urgent need to invest in public services and the extent to which Britain values courage and compassion. 

Instead we have a morally and politically bankrupt Government - with no majority and no mandate.

The Tories and their DUP partners in crime have no meaningful plans to tackle climate change. They have refused to give our hard pressed NHS workers the pay rise they deserve. They have dodged the opportunity to protect EU nationals’ rights. And they have systematically failed in their duty to keep us safe in our homes and on the streets.

This is an administration utterly out of touch, a government running on empty, and a PM without a shred of authority.

As a Green MP, I’ll continue holding them to account and standing up for what matters – starting with a proposal for a major Environmental Protection Bill and a cross party amendment to the Queen’s Speech that unilaterally confirms that EU nationals living in the UK retain their rights to remain.

Greens: Scrap prescription charges - just what the doctor ordered!

Caroline Lucas has announced the Green Party's plans to scrap prescription charges as part of its commitment to a national health service that’s genuinely free at the point of use.

Lucas said  the Government is fining people for being sick and creating barriers which stop people accessing the medication they need.

GPs have warned that the £8.60 prescription charge in England is forcing some people to make a choice between food and medication.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have already scrapped prescription charges, and the Green Party wants to adopt the same scheme in England.

Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green Party, said:

Every day this Government is fining people for falling sick by charging for prescriptions. GPs have warned that prescription charges force some patients to choose between spending their earnings on food - or essential medical treatment. This is not acceptable. It’s also a false economy because not taking prescribed mediation can cause people to miss work and lead to additional GP or hospital appointments.

Molly Scott Cato, Green South West MEP and Bristol West candidate, added:

The NHS was founded on the principle of universal access to free, publicly funded and provided health care at the point of use. Prescription charges in England undermine that principle and the Green Party would not make people pay for access to vital medication.

Scrapping prescription fees would cost an estimated £550 million annually The Green Party argue these costs could be more than met by getting rid of the NHS internal market – a move which would save an estimated £4.5bn according to the Centre for Health and the Public Interest.

Flash Rally tomorrow to put Environment on the GE2017 Agenda

The environment has been ignored in the General Election campaign so far. 

With 2016 the hottest year on record and Britain facing an air pollution crisis, the Green Party has decided enough it enough. 

We want to know: 'Where is the environment?'

Caroline Lucas, Green Party co-leader, will stage an emergency intervention into the General Election campaign to highlight how the environment has been ignored in the national debate - with no mention in the debates and glossed over in the other parties' manifestos.

The Green Party wants to put the environment back on the political agenda. 

Lucas and Green Party campaigners will visit Labour HQ and 10 Downing Street with a giant Green question mark, asking Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May: “Where is the environment?”. 

The question mark will then be taken to Parliament Square where Lucas will give a speech about the importance of the environment.
Join us to make our message heard!

Tuesday 30 May 2017, at 10.30am (please arrive by 10.25) at Labour Headquarters: Southside, 105 Victoria Street, SW1E 6QT.

Greens call on Corbyn and Farron to meet with them to discuss ways to beat the Tories in the General Election

From the Green Party's national website:

The co-leaders of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley, have written to the leaders of Labour and the Liberal Democrats urging them to unite to stop the Tories ‘wrecking Britain’. Lucas and Bartley are calling for a meeting between party leaders to discuss ways to beat the Tories at the General Election and deliver a fairer voting system.

In their letter to Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron, Lucas and Bartley listed a ‘crumbling NHS’ and a ‘bleak future for young people’ as reasons for parties to work together. They also said that working together is key to prevent an ‘extreme’ Brexit inspired by the Tories, UKIP and the DUP.

The call from the Green Party comes after senior figures in Labour – Lisa Nandy, Clive Lewis and Jonathan Reynolds – called on their party to consider standing aside at the Richmond by election last year.  In that election the Green Party stood aside, helping the Liberal Democrats defeat UKIP-backed Zac Goldsmith.

The Green Party expects to stand in seats in ‘every corner of the UK’ in the General Election on June 8th – but are asking Farron and Corbyn to explore options to stand the best chance of beating the Conservatives. At their recent conference the Green Party membership instructed their leaders to explore electoral alliances with other parties to beat the Tories.

Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley will make further announcements in the coming weeks on their plans, but insist that any agreement between parties must be made at a local level by ordinary members who share an interest in defeating the Conservatives.

Caroline Lucas said:

Britain is at a crossroads – and this election will dictate the very future of our country. The Green Party will be standing on a unique policy platform – opposing the Tories’ Brexit and putting forward big ideas for a fairer economy and the protection of our environment. Our call for a meeting between party leaders isn’t about the Greens standing aside – it’s about giving people in this country the best possible chance of defeating the Conservatives and bringing in a truly democratic voting system.
“For the sake of our NHS, our welfare state and our environment we need progressive party leaders to ditch partisan politics just for a moment and think about how we can best stop the Tories from wrecking our country for generations to come.

Note: I personally would not want to make a deal with the Liberal Democrats after their performance in the Coalition and the decision not to enable re-selection of Labour MPs also presents a problem giving the approach of many of them to Corbyn's leadership.