Showing every spoken contribution, including 142 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 21 May 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Business of the House

   Earlier this month, I was delighted to at last receive a response from the Department for Work and Pensions to a letter I wrote on 25 November last year, raising a constituent’s case. That is more than a five-month delay; the original acknowledgment said that it aimed to respond within 15 days. Such a delay is unacceptable, and this is by no means an isolated case; I have had multi-month delays in several other cases. What are the Government doing to improve departmental complaint processing times, so that constituents and MPs get a response within a reasonable timeframe?

   Hansard source
2. 21 May 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Middle East: Economic Response

   I would like to start with the positive. I know that care workers in my constituency of North Herefordshire will really welcome the increase in mileage rates, and I welcome the measures that the Chancellor has announced that seem to be starting to tackle profit shifting, which is a key problem related to tax avoidance. Does the Chancellor not recognise, however, that struggling families need help year round, not just short-term sticking plasters in the summer holidays? The Green party is calling for free bus travel for everybody under 22, year round. We are calling for free school meals for all children, to help all families year round. The cost of living crisis requires year-round action. This could be funded easily by taxing wealth fairly. Will she take that year-round bold action to tackle the cost of living crisis properly?

   Hansard source
3. 21 May 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Middle East

   The Minister recognises that the Netanyahu Government are imposing a stranglehold on any possibility of Palestinian self-determination. The expansion of settlements and the ongoing horror in Gaza are all completely unacceptable. He said: “I have been clear that we are prepared to take further action and will not hesitate to do so”, but he comes to the Chamber again and again to hesitate. It is nearly two years since the ICJ judgment. We should have banned settlement trade years ago. It is nearly one year since the sanctions—that he repeatedly referred to today—came in, and what have we seen in that year? Ongoing horror in Gaza, in the west bank and in Lebanon. The time for hesitation is over. When will the Government stop repeatedly hesitating and take action?

   Hansard source
4. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Hannah Spencer

   Engagements

   <Question HRSContentId="{A088AE9F-D5F4-4305-A6ED-7A898DE39DD3}">Q7. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{3A4A3C65-A327-499A-8BDD-27E7DFA780C2}"></QuestionText>In Gorton and Denton, we have to pay full price for a pint, but here, for some reason, it is cheaper. Some MPs drink before voting, and that really shocked me when I came to Parliament, because this is our workplace. Does the Prime Minister agree with his own <span id="543" class="column-number" data-column-number="543"></span>MPs who have defended their right to drink cheap alcohol at work, or does he agree with me that MPs should not be drinking on the job, given that we vote on huge things like the climate crisis, disabled people’s rights, housing and child poverty?</Question>

   Hansard source
5. 20 May 2026·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

   Defence Readiness

   It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd). The first duty of any Government is to keep the public safe. This duty must shape everything we do in this House, and it must shape how we think about defence. There is no doubt that Britain today faces profound defence challenges, as we have heard in this debate, from international instability to cyber-threats and increasing pressure on our energy and supply chains. But if we are serious about defence, we must also recognise that the types of threats that we face are changing. In debating security, we must also look at whether our most vulnerable people are protected from extreme heat, whether our communities can cope with flooding, and whether we can secure food, water and energy in an increasingly unstable world. Today, the Climate Change Committee published its report on climate adaptation, and its warnings could not be clearer. We are on a path to 2°C of warming by 2050. That means that in just a couple of decades or so, nine in 10 of our homes will be at risk of overheating. Peak river flows may rise by 45%, water supply shortfalls may exceed 5 billion litres per day, and 40° heatwaves will become the new normal across the UK, potentially leading to an additional 10,000 heat-related deaths per year. The CCC is also clear that without action, warming of up to 4° by the end of this century remains a possibility, which would be catastrophic, with temperatures in the UK nearing 50°, infrastructure pushed beyond what it was ever designed to withstand, and profound consequences for public health, economic stability and social cohesion. Those are not distant projections, Madam Deputy Speaker. My constituents and yours are already having to live with the consequences of climate breakdown. We see it in the thousands of deaths caused by the increasingly regular heatwaves, in the communities repeatedly devastated by flooding, and in rising food prices, rising insurance costs and growing pressures on the services and systems that people rely on every day. None of this should come as a surprise. Earlier this year, the Government’s own Joint Intelligence Committee warned that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse pose serious risks to national security, threatening food and water supplies, disruption to infrastructure and supply chains, increased flooding, risks to public health and wider economic instability. It also warned of the cascading effects of displacement, conflict and competition for resources. Yet despite the scale and seriousness of warnings by the Government’s own advisers, and despite repeated calls for parliamentary time, this House has still not been allowed a dedicated opportunity to debate its findings or scrutinise the Government’s response. Our children will have to live with the consequences of inaction. It would be a dereliction of duty to let political dramas around by-elections and leadership contests distract us from this most fundamental responsibility. The evidence is clear, and we are not without options. Today’s report sets out practical, costed solutions: better cooling for hospitals, schools and care homes, so our most vulnerable are protected during extreme heat; stronger flood defences and investment in natural flood management for our communities; a serious <span id="617" class="column-number" data-column-number="617"></span>approach to water security, so shortages do not become routine; support for British farmers, so British food production remains viable under changing conditions; retrofitting homes so they are fit for a warmer climate; and infrastructure built to withstand climate impacts rather than fail under them. The economics are equally clear. The cost of action is about £11 billion a year, but the cost of inaction could rise to between £60 billion and £260 billion annually. This must be a turning point. We can no longer treat climate adaptation as a secondary environmental issue; it is a matter of national defence, a matter of economic security and, above all, a matter of protecting people. However, it needs to be far higher up the agenda for the Government and for Parliament. That is why I am calling for a dedicated climate protection unit in No. 10, with the sole purpose of working across Departments to fund and drive forward the recommendations in this report. I am also supporting amendment (g) to the King’s Speech on the threats that nature collapse poses to national security. Defence is not about responding after disaster strikes; defence is about reducing risks before crisis becomes catastrophe. If the first duty of Government is to keep people safe, climate adaptation cannot sit at the margins of the King’s Speech, but must be placed firmly at its heart.

   Hansard source
6. 14 May 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Business of the House

   It is clear that the tired old first-past-the-post voting system is utterly unfit for purpose. This winner-takes-all system means that a party can secure a huge majority of seats on a minority of votes, which poses a major democratic risk. It is long past time we had proportional representation is this country, so that every vote is represented equally and seats match votes. Will the Government finally take the opportunity to legislate for proportional representation in the Representation of the People Bill, which is set to return to this House, so we can have a fair voting system in which every voter’s voice is heard and given equal weight?

   Hansard source
7. 13 May 2026·Parliament·Hannah Spencer

   Debate on the Address

   I am grateful to be taking part in this debate on the Loyal Address, and honoured to be doing so on behalf of the Green party. This is only the second time I have made a speech here, so I hope you will all bear with me if I get any protocols wrong. In my maiden speech, I gave a shout out to those in the many professions and communities that have not been well represented here in Parliament in the past. I made a promise to help give them a voice. Today, it feels especially important to keep that promise, because there is, sadly, not enough in the King’s Speech that will make their lives significantly better. That is why we Greens have tabled a reasoned amendment—for all the people working hard to raise a family or just get through each day, because everyone deserves a safety net and a chance to get ahead, and for everyone who wants things to be different. One in three households in Gorton and Denton live in fuel poverty. The UK has some of the leakiest homes in Europe. I know that, because I have worked on <span id="84" class="column-number" data-column-number="84"></span>thousands of them in my previous job as a plumber. If we want to cut energy bills for good, we really need a properly funded and properly regulated national home insulation scheme, and to go even bigger on renewable energy. That is where investment should be going, not into nuclear power. The King’s Speech includes some steps in the right direction, but it is nothing like the transformative, progressive programme that this moment demands. It does not rise to the climate and nature crisis that is happening now. It is a crisis that cannot be separated from the inequality and cost of living crises that are happening too, because it is always the poorest people who suffer the most, here in our country and around the world. While certain people will claim climate action is pushing up bills, we know that is not true. We know that some of the people who are saying that are being bankrolled by the very companies causing climate destruction and ripping off our constituents. The representation of the people Bill must go further on cleaning up politics, because a greener, more affordable and more secure future is possible if we stand up to those vested interests, and if we are prepared to admit that obscene wealth is damaging our country. People out there are so angry at the gap between the super-rich and all the rest of us getting even bigger, and they want something equally big to be done about it. They do not want any child to go hungry, and they know that a free hot school meal for every child up to the age 16 is possible if extreme wealth is taxed fairly. They want public transport to be more affordable, and they know that we could start by giving free bus passes to all the under-22s—again, paid for by our tax system being made fairer. They want everyone to have a roof over their head, to get a doctor or dentist appointment without struggle, and for the NHS to be run for the public good, not to line shareholders’ pockets. They know that change is possible only if this Government—a Labour Government—taxed extreme wealth fairly. Our Green amendment includes new powers to control rents. Greens welcome the changes in the renters’ reform Act, and the plans for more social housing, but far too many people are still struggling to pay their rent and make ends meet. Alongside taking action to bring down energy and water bills, it is time to get a grip on the cost of renting. I was elected to give voice to a politics that truly represents everyone. This is the first King’s Speech I have been in Parliament to hear, and honestly, what I am hearing is not going to give everyone the meaningful change that we and they all know is possible. The Greens will not hesitate to use our individual and collective voices over the coming months to welcome progress when it is made, but also, crucially, to demand the change that people were promised—the change that people deserve to have.

   Hansard source
8. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)

   Huge apologies for my lateness, Sir John. I wish to speak in support of new clause 2 and lend my support to new clauses 6, 23 and 25, all of which seek to honour the commitment that the Government made in their manifesto at the last election. I have huge admiration for the hon. Member for Warrington North, both for her courageous and clear speech on Second Reading and for tabling new clause 2, which seeks to honour that commitment. I am heartened by how many Labour Members have added their names to the new clause, and I hope that the Government will listen. New clause 2, which is detailed, would introduce specialist courts. It sets out the different ways in which guidance can deal with the difficulties that courts currently have in dealing with issues such as coercive control and honour-based abuse, and would make sure that the courts deliver justice in a timely and compassionate way. It is so important that we look at the many practical ways of dealing with the cases that we need to hear, for victims of domestic violence and sexual offences, that do not completely remove the right to select a jury trial, as the Minister has admitted the Bill will do, and that do not adjust the thresholds in courts so as to effectively abolish the centuries-old principle of jury equity. That principle is important to our democratic right to protest and to protect our fellow citizens from unjust prosecution, including by authoritarian or tyrannical future Governments. The new clauses in this group outline how much can be done to make court processes support victims in a practical, kinder and more compassionate way. They would make the processes more trauma-informed, and more effective and just, as they would bring more successful prosecutions in cases of sexual and domestic violence. I also support new clauses 8 to 10, which would mandate training in such matters and which we will discuss later.<span id="559" class="column-number" data-column-number="559"></span> A goal of the Government’s reforms is to increase speed, and the new clauses would achieve that by focusing specialist courts on these important cases. We have debated extensively the many other practical measures that could speed up justice more generally and clear the backlog, which is getting in the way of far too many of these cases. I really hope that the Government are listening and that we can vote on these issues today. I hope they will go away and listen more to the victims groups that are determined to put forward practical measures to deal with these things without affecting our fundamental rights, and introduce clauses that will do that—and remove clauses 1 to 7—on Report. That is the right thing to do. The issues have been laid out clearly during the Committee’s debates, and the Government now have an important choice to make.

   Hansard source
9. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)

   The Minister and I have both talked about making choices. The brass tacks are that the Minister has chosen to make huge changes to our court processes, but not to introduce this change in the Bill. There is still the chance to introduce measures into the Bill on Report and make different choices. Will she consider that?

   Hansard source
10. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    Having recognised that, as Sir Philip Barton said this morning, there cannot be any doubt that there was pressure to get this “done as quickly as possible”—that is, to jump through all the hoops, to confirm an announcement that had already been made that Mandelson was appointed as ambassador—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> That first bit is a quote; the next part of the sentence is my words. It simply stretches the bounds of reason to breaking point to suggest that pressure on timeframe, within the context of an already announced decision where there was no contingency plan, had no impact on pressure on the content of that decision—

    Hansard source
11. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    <em>rose</em><em>—</em>

    Hansard source
12. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Hansard source
13. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    I will aim to be brief and to the point. I pay tribute to the moving, powerful and thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) at the beginning of the debate. I do not underestimate the bravery that it takes to stand up and speak out, and I really welcome and value all Labour colleagues who resist the Whip with courage today. What is at stake today is trust, honesty and integrity—those issues go to the core of what our politics should be about—and the behaviour of a Prime Minister who promised to restore honesty and integrity to government. I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), who said powerfully that our constituents do care about honesty, truth, trust and integrity. It is well known that I have many criticisms of the Prime Minister and this Government, as do constituents across the country. Yes, he has repeatedly shown poor judgment. Yes, he has betrayed the hopes of those who voted for real change in 2024. Yes, I am deeply frustrated that we are having to spend so much time debating these issues, when our constituents face pressing daily concerns and a cost of living crisis to which we should be giving more attention. Yes, I think the Prime Minister should resign. However, that is not what we are here to discuss today. Our decision is not even on whether the Prime Minister misled the House, still less to judge whether it was an intentional or reckless misleading—our decision today is whether the Prime Minister has a case to answer on whether he may have misled the House, and it is absolutely clear that he does. Looking at the detail of the motion, it cites three quotes from the Prime Minister’s own words. The first is his assurance about “full due process” being followed in the appointment of Peter Mandelson. Just this morning, we heard yet more evidence from Sir Philip Barton, the primary civil servant in the Foreign Office at the time. He was categorical that the normal process is that vetting comes first and appointment comes later, but it was the opposite way round in this case. The Prime Minister, as the motion says, made it clear that his position was that Mandelson’s position was “subject to developed vetting”, and that, “No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case.”<span id="vol784_col316" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="316" data-volume-number="784" data-external-id="31DCA0D4-9F2A-4AEE-B814-0E7954E4BD07">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.]</span> That is clearly not a tenable position. Some colleagues on the Government Benches are asking us to believe, although it is perfectly clear that considerable pressure was put on the timescale—within the context of the already announced appointment of Peter Mandelson, within the context of there being no contingency plan if the vetting process failed him, and within the context that it would have been a complete foreign affairs crisis for that vetting process to have failed him—that there was still no pressure whatsoever on the process.

    Hansard source
14. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    The hon. Gentleman has said a lot today, and there are others still waiting to speak. It is clear that there is a case to answer here. The decision we have to make is not whether we are definitively certain that the Prime Minister misled the House, but whether we feel that there is a case to be answered, and therefore whether this matter should be referred to the body that is in existence to deal with these issues: the Privileges Committee. As many Members have commented, the Prime Minister could and should refer himself to that Committee. It would clearly save a great deal of heartache within the Labour party. If he will not do that, all of us—whatever our party—owe it to our consciences and to our constituents to refer him to the Privileges Committee and to vote for this motion.

    Hansard source
15. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    Is it due process to make a public announcement of an appointment before vetting is completed? Is it not the case that having made a public announcement, the Government created pressure on the process?

    Hansard source
16. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    <em>rose—</em>

    Hansard source
17. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    <em>rose—</em>

    Hansard source
18. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Animal Testing

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) and the petitioners for securing the debate. Nearly 120,000 people from up and down the country have supported this petition and many of my constituents in Waveney Valley have taken the time to write to me about the debate. Such a level of public engagement reflects a clear and growing concern that the continued use of animals in testing is not ethically or scientifically justified. Let us be clear about the scale of the issue. In 2024, more than 2.6 million scientific procedures involving living animals were carried out in the UK, with 2,646 using dogs; 82 using cats, 1,936 using monkeys, and 11,483 using horses. Behind those horrifying numbers are sentient beings subjected not to abstract procedures, but to confinement, physical invasion, distress and pain. Investigations by organisations such as Animals International and Animal Aid have documented those practices in stark detail. Footage emerging from UK laboratories lays bare a deeply troubling reality: animals immobilised in slings, straining against restraints or confined for months in barren cages while subjected to <span id="246WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="246WH"></span>repeated invasive procedures. Dogs, overwhelmingly beagles, as we have heard, are routinely force-fed substances through tubes pushed down their throats or made to inhale chemicals via tightly strapped masks, while others endure surgically implanted catheters delivering infusions into the veins. Those are not short-lived interventions, but prolonged procedures, often involving twice-daily dosing for months, with consequences that can include vomiting, diarrhoea, seizures, internal bleeding, organ failure and paralysis. Yet the studies continue regardless. Some animals are kept alive until they reach the brink of severe physiological collapse, or even heart failure, and even those that survive are invariably killed so that their organs can be dissected and examined. This is not incidental suffering. It is systemic, deliberate and embedded within the process itself. The Green party has long been clear that we should reduce suffering for all animals, guided by the evidence. I am pleased by today’s strong cross-party support for that in welcoming what the Government have set out, but calling for the stronger ambition that we must see under Herbie’s law. The way we treat animals reflects our values as a society. We have a responsibility to recognise animals as sentient beings and reduce suffering whenever it occurs. However, this is not just an ethical question, but a scientific one. We are often told that animal testing is essential for human health, yet over 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals never make it through to approval for human use. That extraordinarily high failure rate points to a system that is not only causing harm to animals, but failing to deliver for patients. The evidence is clear: animals are not reliable proxies for human health, and differences in biology mean that results often do not translate. Substances that are harmless to us can be toxic to other species, and vice versa, meaning that outcomes can mislead in both directions. At the same time, the science is moving on. Non-animal methods, such as advanced cell models, organ-on-a-chip technologies or AI-driven approaches, are increasingly able to deliver results that are more accurate and more relevant to humans. Those are not distant possibilities; the methods are already being used and are improving quickly. The UK should be leading on this issue. The Government have already accepted that there is no legal requirement to carry out animal testing and that regulators can approve medicines based on non-animal data, yet progress remains too slow. If we are serious about change, we need a proper plan to move away from animal testing altogether. That is why Herbie’s law matters. Named after a rescued beagle, it would set out a practical framework to phase out animal testing by 2025 while supporting researchers and industry to transition to modern alternatives. It is practical and achievable, and it already has strong support across Parliament and among the public. The calls to suspend generic new licences, and to review existing ones, also merit serious consideration. Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, experiments on animals are authorised through licences. Concerningly, those can take the form of broad five-year service licences granted to research organisations, and they can allow experiments to continue even when non-animal alternatives become available during the licence period. Furthermore, even though the law requires <span id="247WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="247WH"></span>a harm-benefit analysis before animal use is approved, under those broad licences the specific substances to be used, and therefore the harm that the animals will face, are not always known at the point of approval. It is difficult to see how that meets a statutory duty. This debate is not about being anti-science. Far from it: it is about recognising that better science is available. By shifting investment and policy support towards human-relevant methods, we can improve outcomes for patients while ending unnecessary suffering for animals. The petitioners are right: the system is failing both animals and humans. We have the evidence, we have the technology, and we have the public backing. What is missing is the pace of change, so I urge the Government to suspend all new generic service licences for toxicity testing immediately, to conduct a full review of every current licence held, and to deliver urgently on their promise to replace animals in science. That is the change that we and animals deserve.

    Hansard source
19. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Animal Testing

    I thank the Minister for setting out the progress that the Government are making but, from what I have seen of the “Replacing animals in science” strategy, its targets focus on reducing or eliminating experiments on certain types of animals. Does he agree that we actually need to be ending experiments on all animals, as has been expressed by Members from all <span id="263WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="263WH"></span>parties today? Will he therefore engage with campaigners arguing for Herbie’s law, who have suggested a more ambitious strategy that would achieve exactly that?

    Hansard source
20. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I am happy to have you back in the Chair today, Dr Huq. I wish to oppose the clause and the schedule. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden for pointing out so clearly that the restrictions on appeals will push down hardest on the least advantaged people and will compound injustices in wider society, as well as the injustices put in place by other clauses. I will not reiterate in detail the evidence we heard, or the speeches I made previously, about the risks of more errors due to the speedier but rougher and readier justice of the magistrates courts being applied to more cases, or the risks arising from higher sentences. However, clause 7 adds yet more risk to the potential harm from reducing the right to select a jury trial in clause 1 and the restrictions put in place by other clauses. This is counterproductive for the overall courts workload, too. As others have pointed out, the clause will introduce a multi-step process. We heard in oral evidence from Emma Torr of Appeal that the “multi-step process…will only increase the workload of both the magistrates and Crown courts. To give a very brief outline of how it works at the moment, the defendant or the solicitor can fill out <span id="460" class="column-number" data-column-number="460"></span>a very simple form, which results in a quick rehearing at the Crown court. It takes a couple of hours at most and even less for sentence appeals.” She also pointed out that the Law Commission had carefully considered the matter last year in a consultation paper that ran to 700 pages. She said: “Its independent analysis was that the removal of the automatic right to appeal will increase the workload of the magistrates court and the Crown court.”<span id="vol_col83" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="83" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="F02FE7FE-AF6A-4674-A1A7-C8DB9999A5D4"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, </em>25 March 2026; c. 83, Q174.]</span> In our oral evidence sessions, we heard clear views about the lack of legal aid in magistrates courts for people without representation to meet fairly the test set for appeals. Fiona Rutherford of JUSTICE told us: “Without a lawyer being present, and of course without there even being the right to appeal directly, you are leaving a whole load of defendants, who may well be wrongly convicted or may get the wrong sentence for the crime they have committed, floundering…I simply don’t know who will inform these people about how they will put grounds of appeal together, what grounds of appeal even are, how you formulate those, what key points you need to make in them to persuade a Crown court judge sitting alone in a room with just some evidence papers and how to put your best case forward.” <span id="vol_col86" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="86" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="1E6ADF7F-8014-4CB3-BE95-7A273F38C900"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, </em>25 March 2026; c. 86, Q184.]</span> These are serious matters of injustice. I do not know how the least advantaged defendants will be able to do anything to use the application to the High Court for judicial review, which seems to be the only remedy that the Minister has put forward to us today. I do not know how many miscarriages of justice are acceptable to the Minister, but I believe that these measures must not form part of the Bill, because of the impact that they will have on the right to justice for too many people.

    Hansard source
21. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I will speak briefly in support of the amendment, to which I have put my name. Later, I hope to speak about the real difference between viewing evidence—seeing it given in real life, or going into the room where evidence is given—and being able to review it more dispassionately later in writing. Given that we are now producing transcripts, the amendment would be an important measure to provide them free to victims who may want to see what has been said in court, without having to attend court and see it in a more triggering, more visceral way, and without facing a financial penalty. It is important that the amendment is agreed to, along with everything else, to allow for a more compassionate way to treat victims.

    Hansard source
22. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting)

    It is great to see you back in the Chair to help us to make our way through the Bill, Ms Jardine. New clause 28 is a probing amendment, and I shall not press it to a Division when the time comes. To give the context for why I have tabled the new clause, I will lay out the experience faced by a young child—I cannot give many details of the case, as the Committee will appreciate. This young child was below school age when they became the victim of and witness to abuse. They gave clear evidence on video at the time that it had happened, and while the case was investigated and awaiting trial in <span id="500" class="column-number" data-column-number="500"></span>court, they continued with their childhood. Their mother helped them to move on from the abuse, and she says that the memory of what happened not being constantly brought back was a key part of their recovery. However, during the court case some years later, they were made to rewatch the video. By hearing their younger self talk about the abuse, they were, essentially, properly traumatised for the first time, as they for the first time properly understood, with a real, more mature understanding, what had happened to them in detail. That case made me realise that the process of being cross-examined and watching back original, video-based evidence in chief, even just while the prosecution team refreshes their memory of their evidence, can do victims real harm. Although I can see why it may be necessary to cross-examine a witness on what happened, based either on their memory or facts stated in the evidence, I feel strongly that putting them through the additional trauma of rewatching it themselves is not necessary and should certainly not be routine, and that that should be in the law or guidance. My new clause would amend sections 27 and 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which are intended to relate to special measures and directions. It would ask that witnesses not be obliged to watch video recordings of their earlier evidence, and would allow transcripts, as a potentially less traumatic alternative, to be submitted for cross-examination. It would also ask for notice of questions for cross-examination to be provided in good time. Although I understand that there is no legal obligation for the videos to be rewatched, I know that it is happening even when concerns have been expressed. I want to make sure that it is clearer in the law or relevant guidance that no witness or victim is obliged, against their will, to relive the crimes committed against them. As I said, the new clause is probing. I am grateful that the Minister has looked into the issue, and has today committed to updating the guidance. I have corresponded with her departmental colleagues who are leading a review of the victims code, passing to them more details than I can mention here on that particular case and some ideas for how relevant guidance around special measures could be amended, as that could take the place of changes in primary legislation. I hope that my bringing this point to the Committee is constructive, and I thank the Minister for her attention.

    Hansard source
23. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I support this clause quite strongly. We heard powerfully from Claire Throssell in oral evidence how important its impact could be. Most Members will have experiences like mine through casework of cases where this clause could help. I have heard from parents and family members so distressed at <span id="515" class="column-number" data-column-number="515"></span>how their cases have been determined, despite clear evidence, where this presumption was obviously given far too much weight in decisions. These words in legislation, which were added and have had an influence on decisions, need to go. I want to read parts of correspondence I received after the announcement in October 2025 that this measure was going to be changed. My constituent described it as an enormous relief. They were very impatient to know exactly when this was going to come forward. I am very pleased that we are discussing this now before the end of the Session. My constituent said: “I have personal experience of the impact the current legal framework can have. I am unable to provide specific information as a very close family member is still going through Family Court hearings to protect a child in a case of domestic abuse. However, as recently as January this year”— this was in 2025— “the aforementioned person was advised by two independent firms of solicitors to avoid the Family Court at all costs, due to the ‘presumption of involvement’, allied with the inconsistent and regionally patchy training and understanding by Family Court judges in domestic abuse (in spite of changes to the Domestic Abuse Act in 2021), referring to potential outcomes in Child Arrangements as ‘a lottery’.” I really do support this clause. I also support the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Chichester, which will help to tackle training gaps and which also reflect experiences that I can recall from casework. They are based on high-quality work and requests from organisations that work directly with victims and survivors, who have asked for these changes. I hope that the Minister will look at making changes that further strengthen the Bill in this way.

    Hansard source
24. 22 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Engagements

    The Prime Minister appointed Mandelson in a desperate and doomed attempt to pander to Donald Trump, despite knowing about Mandelson’s friendship with the paedophile Epstein, and his links to foreign states. The Prime Minister resisted vetting, and then took a “dismissive” and extraordinarily incurious attitude to it, compromising national security, and now he has thrown a civil servant under the bus to save his own skin. All this from a Prime Minister who pledged to restore trust and integrity in Government, but who has repeatedly betrayed the trust of voters and let the country down. Does the Prime Minister not recognise that the best thing that he can do to restore trust and integrity is to take true responsibility and resign?

    Hansard source
25. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    The Minister has already said “particularly complex or lengthy”, and just then she said “complex and lengthy”. Having rejected an amendment that would have set a limit of five months, will she think again about defining both complex and lengthy more rigorously in the Bill? The explanatory notes say “complex and lengthy”, but we do not have a definition of complex or a length limit. I think we need to hear more about that from her.

    Hansard source
26. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I will speak as quickly as I can. I support the amendments tabled in this group by the Liberal Democrats, which would limit any increase in the sentencing powers of magistrates beyond 12 months; amendment 34, which was moved by the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden; and the Liberal Democrat and Conservative amendments that would ensure that, if that limit is not accepted, any further changes are made by the affirmative resolution procedure. I am sure we will all remind the Minister that Sir Brian Leveson specifically made his reforms to jury trials contingent on not increasing the sentencing powers of magistrates. He stated that specifically in paragraph 71 of his report. He also stated: “My strong recommendation is that the maximum should remain at 12 months.” That followed, in paragraph 70, another important caveat that the Government seem to have overlooked: “While removing the right to elect for certain offences may streamline the judicial process and alleviate the burden on the higher courts, it raises concerns about balancing the right of the defendant with the broader interests of justice.” We have to admit that the Government are taking a risk with the moves they are making. The magnitude and volume of that risk increase with the number of extra cases that are pushed to the magistrates courts through other provisions in the Bill, while the consequences of that risk increase with the higher sentences made possible under clause 6. This is not a step we should take alongside those other steps. They increase the risks to justice. In oral evidence, we heard from Claire Davies, the leader of the south eastern circuit, who said of magistrates courts: “There are errors and mistakes made, but if the length of sentence is extended, it will potentially increase that risk.”<span id="vol_col51" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="51" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="0487301E-80B4-4406-9B58-548E431862F7"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, </em>25 March 2026; c. 51, Q99.]</span> We also heard from Emma Torr, from APPEAL, who described<span id="411" class="column-number" data-column-number="411"></span> “swift and speedy justice in the magistrates court. It is often rough and ready; we are talking about cases being tried by lay justices, some of whom may be experienced but some may not be, and we are also talking about less experienced judges. You often find in the lower court, the magistrates court, that advocates are more inexperienced and tend to be at the start of their career.”<span id="vol_col86" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="86" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="1E0F26FD-83F6-42E3-9EB3-1B7C76A83E47"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, </em>25 March 2026; c. 86-87, Q185.]</span> This point was also emphasised by Fiona Rutherford, the chief executive of JUSTICE, who said: “There is a question mark about the accuracy of the way in which magistrates are making decisions.”<span id="vol_col82" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="82" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="F02FE7FE-AF6A-4674-A1A7-C8DB9999A5D4"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, </em>25 March 2026; c. 82, Q174.]</span> These are the risks we are talking about compared with having a judge and jury. Risks also come from the surrounding bureaucratic situation, which could lead to more defendants being unrepresented. When the shift is made, we will be leaving them without legal aid, because of the changes in the income requirements. We heard from Fiona Rutherford of JUSTICE that without this representation there could be additional risks to victims. The Minister needs to admit that this part of the Bill goes too far. On top of the other things she is doing, she is adding more consequence, not just more volume, to the risk equation. That is a poor step to take. Clause 6 should not stand part, and I support all the amendments.

    Hansard source
27. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    It is very good to see you in the Chair this evening, Ms Jardine; thank you for looking after us. I will speak very briefly in support of the amendment, to which I have added my name. I have spoken already about the many risks piling up with the Bill, and this amendment is one essential mitigation for some of those risks. If the Government press ahead, they cannot ignore it.

    Hansard source
28. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    West Bank: Illegal Settlements

    Israel is acting illegally in supporting settlement expansion, in committing genocide in Gaza, and in attacking Lebanon and Iran. As the Secretary of State says, all those actions are flagrant violations of international law. She says that we must “put pressure” on Israel, but she is doing nothing. Time and again, she and her Ministers come to the Chamber to condemn, but take no action. When will she ban settlement trade? When will she stop all military co-operation with Israel, which is conducting these illegal attacks? When will she take action?

    Hansard source
29. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Hansard source
30. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

    In reference to the point that the hon. Member has just made, is she familiar with the YouGov poll that regularly asks the UK population how well they think Keir Starmer is doing as Prime Minister? Is she aware that the latest data shows that 70% of the UK population think that he is doing badly?

    Hansard source
31. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

    Before I begin my remarks on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US, I want to stress my profound respect for the victims and survivors of the disgusting child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. I very much hope that they are in the minds of all of us in the Chamber as we have the debate. We should remain mindful that the chain of events that has brought us to this point stems from their bravery in standing up and speaking out to expose Epstein’s crimes. What is at stake here is the future of the Prime Minister; there are certainly questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment. The Prime Minister’s sole defence appears to be that he just was not told, but it is clear that he did not understand the security vetting process, and actually he did not want to understand it. He did not want to do the security vetting process in the first place. He created a culture of political pressure that overrode that process. Finally, he has thrown a civil servant under the bus for failures that should be placed clearly at his own door. The Prime Minister did not clearly understand the process. There was a process of UKSV doing the developed vetting and then of the Foreign Office considering that. We have had Sir Olly Robbins giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee today, saying that there was a degree of grey area and that the case was borderline. He said that he only had a verbal briefing—he did not even see the piece of paper that made it clear that UKSV felt that Mandelson should not pass developed vetting—and that he decided that mitigations could be put in place in that system. It is clearly a process that the Prime Minister did not understand, despite the fact that at least one hon. Member has said today that this was very clearly notified to him in advance. The Prime Minister did not even want to do the process. Again, it is clear from Olly Robbins’s testimony that, even before he took up his position, there was a tussle between No. 10 and the Foreign Office about whether to undertake the vetting at all, with No. 10 just wanting to rush through the appointment and the previous permanent secretary having to dig his heels in to insist that the vetting was done. The FCDO was subsequently hassled by No. 10 to get the appointment done before Trump’s inauguration, without any curiosity or caveats about whether the vetting was passed. The Prime Minister asked no questions. He displayed terminal professional incuriosity and wilful ignorance. That is totally unacceptable.<span id="225" class="column-number" data-column-number="225"></span> It is clear that no value was placed on the vetting process by No. 10, despite the PM now claiming that he is completely staggered that he was not told about it. Indeed, Olly Robbins today said that No. 10 had a “dismissive attitude” towards the vetting, putting in place a culture that established “a very, very strong expectation” that vetting would be passed. There was no culture of paying attention to due process; there was simply a culture of getting a political appointee in post as quickly as possible with minimal scrutiny. That did not apply just to Mandelson, either. Again, as we heard today from Olly Robbins, it applied to Matthew Doyle, with a request coming from No. 10 to put him into a position without even informing the Foreign Secretary. Now, the PM has a temper tantrum and sacks the civil servant because he is furious about that. The country is furious with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has previously said that he takes responsibility for mistakes made in his team, but there is no accountability on show today. There is no responsibility taken by the Prime Minister. This is just one of numerous errors of judgment by the Prime Minister. He should resign.

    Hansard source
32. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Middle East: Economic Update

    I am relieved that the Government are now committed to breaking—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em>

    Hansard source
33. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Middle East: Economic Update

    I am relieved that the Government are now committed to breaking the price link between expensive gas and cheap renewables, but given that the proposed solution is voluntary for electricity generators, how will the Chancellor ensure that the proposals that <span id="173" class="column-number" data-column-number="173"></span>she and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero are putting forward will actually deliver substantially lower bills? If I send them to her office, will she consider the proposals from the think-tank Commonwealth for a mandated, not-optional, fixed-price model to ensure that billpayers are not left at the mercy of the volatile international fossil fuel market?

    Hansard source
34. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
35. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    Green-led Bristol city council received glowing peer review from the Local Government Association this month, specifically noting how moving to a committee system has strengthened democratic engagement and transparency. It also, by the way, enables cross-party co-operation, and an honourable mention goes to the local Lib Dems in Bristol. Does the hon. Lady agree that if independent, non-political reviewers can see the benefits of a committee system, the Government should not be imposing the more tribal, less co-operative leader and cabinet model on councils?

    Hansard source
36. 20 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Security Vetting

    The Prime Minister says it is “staggering” and “unforgiveable” that he was not told about the vetting, but what is really staggering and unforgiveable is that he appointed Peter Mandelson before the vetting—that he appointed Peter Mandelson knowing about his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. What is unforgiveable is that the Prime Minister was more concerned with pandering to Donald Trump than with standing with the victims and survivors. The Prime Minister has not accepted a simple “sorry” from his civil servant—he thinks that is inadequate. The country thinks that a simple “sorry” is inadequate from him. Will he take personal responsibility for his staggering and unforgiveable errors of judgment—and resign?

    Hansard source
37. 16 Apr 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fifth sitting)

    It is great to have you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am looking forward to today’s debates. I have not tabled any amendments to clause 3, but I want to talk about some necessary changes to the clause that fit in with this group of amendments. I hope the Committee will have patience with me. I want to raise again the principle of jury equity, which the Government are effectively abolishing by abolishing the right to elect a jury trial completely. I previously asked whether the Minister had considered the Bill’s impact on jury equity when drafting it, but she did not answer. I also asked whether the Minister could tell us whether we can honestly expect a judge triaging a case under the provisions in the Bill ever to allow a jury trial on the grounds on which some people currently choose one, which is to allow for the possibility of jury equity to achieve real and proportionate justice, rather than the criteria in clause 3. This issue is complicated, and trying to fix it in the context of a Bill that includes clause 1, which abolishes the defendant’s right to choose, is tricky, which is why I spoke so strongly against it. The principle and the right of juries in respect of jury equity comes out of common law. I mentioned the 1670 case, and the High Court has commented that it has been a well-established principle in common law ever since then. As it is not in statute it is, by tradition, relatively unspoken. I spoke of the case of Trudi Warner, who tested the principle through her desire to make sure that the information about jury equity was seen by people taking part in a protest. She did that not just in case they spotted the plaque in the Old Bailey, but through the demonstration that she passively took part in.

    Hansard source
38. 16 Apr 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I appreciate the Minister’s comments, but will she clarify what she meant by a particular category of offence? I could not have been clearer in my speech that I did not want to make an exception for protesters. I spoke specifically about people being prosecuted in cases where it was the powerful versus the underdog. Will she clarify what it is she is rejecting?

    Hansard source
39. 16 Apr 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fifth sitting)

    On a point of order, Dr Huq. I alerted the Minister earlier to the fact that I was going to say this. I want to ask what can be done to correct the record in respect of the Minister’s comments about a case that I referred to in my speeches on Tuesday and that Tim Crosland referred to during evidence. On Tuesday, the Minister said that “some of the cases he mentioned, including the Elbit Systems trial, which the hon. Lady mentioned, contained an indictable-only charge, meaning that the case would receive a jury trial, as that one did in fact.”<span id="vol_col140" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="140" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="66A49EEA-8B48-47DD-AB4A-87D7F728B86B"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, </em>14 April 2026; c. 140.]</span><span id="234" class="column-number" data-column-number="234"></span> I am afraid that the Minister was referring to a different case from the one I was referring to. The recent case that has been in the news surrounding a retrial was related to a break-in at Elbit Systems in August 2024. The November 2022 jury acquittal that I referred to was about protesters who threw red paint symbolising blood at the London headquarters of Elbit Systems in October 2020. In that case, none of the offences was indictable-only; they were all related to criminal damage. I just wanted to put that on the record, and I hope that the Minister will accept that correction to her comments.

    Hansard source
40. 16 Apr 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I have to add my voice to the point that this is an unsatisfactory situation. We have heard time and again from the Minister that the decision about allocation will be made based only on the length of sentence, but in proposed new section 74C(7)(a) to (g) on reallocation—(g) allows for any other matters—there are many points that are quite subjective where decisions could be made on reallocation, and that could have a similar impact on someone’s life. I do not think we have all the answers we need about how this will work.

    Hansard source