142 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{A5D5D2E4-BBA5-4D77-89B5-9B35A4D06EC6}"> </QNum></strong> I have a question of clarification for any member of the panel who wants to answer. In the letter received from the wider VAWG sector, the offences they are concerned that victims of coercive control or abuse might be charged with after striking back are triable either-way offences and therefore affected by this Bill, but rape and sexual assault, as far as I understand it, are indictable-only and will remain so. The impact on those more serious cases that have been discussed will therefore be due to the impact on the time to trial and on the efficiency of the courts, which we know will be uncertain and somewhat delayed. Is that your understanding? In some of the evidence we have heard, it sounded like the assumption is that rape trials will become judge-only, but that is not what this Bill is about. <em><strong>Dame Vera </strong></em><em><strong>Baird</strong></em><em><strong>:</strong></em> No, it is not. It has been, I am afraid, ramped up outside these rooms, with all these Churchillian speeches suggesting that jury trial is being taken away, full stop. That is completely untrue, as you rightly say.

   Hansard source
2. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{B0EF6DB3-70D0-43EE-B07E-12CFC59E91BD}"> </QNum></strong> But the victims’ groups who have written in because they are concerned about the criminalisation of women are talking about triable either-way offences, which are directly affected by this Bill. Are their concerns there valid? <em><strong>Professor </strong></em><em><strong>Hohl</strong></em><em><strong>:</strong></em> One thing to remember here is that over 90% of domestic abuse cases are already heard in the magistrates court. VAWG comprises not just sexual violence; it includes domestic abuse, sexual violence and sexual offences. There are some that will be in the either-way category. We have had a really emotive conversation this morning. One of the issues is judge-alone versus jury trials, and there is a lot of emotion on either side. When we look back at the actual research, there is mention that judges may have biases, and a judge-alone trial may disadvantage people. If that is the genuine concern, why are we happy <span id="21" class="column-number" data-column-number="21"></span>to accept that for sentencing and admissibility? Why is it that in all the law we are making to guide admissibility of evidence, we trust a judge to separate between myth and stereotypes and facts, but not a jury? If we are genuine about it, we have to go a lot further around oversight and accountability in the judiciary. It would be odd to just worry about it on that specific issue. I would also like the Committee to consider the evidence around juries. This is not to cast shade on juries but to pause and look at the research, which shows that juries, too, have biases, and there are worries about myths and misconceptions. The research on juries shows that these problems exist there, too. These issues exist with judges and juries. The remedy is not going to be either holding on to the status quo or not. The remedy will be something utterly outside of the discussion we are having that is about accountability and oversight. Some of the measures in the Bill go that way—for example, recording creates transparency, and judges having to spell out the reasons for their verdict also goes towards that. The debate has moved a really long way away from what the research actually tells us, to quite an emotive batting to and fro. If there is space for the Committee to consider that wider evidence, I would recommend it is looked at.

   Hansard source
3. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{FDEF038F-CAF9-4729-AE1D-129F67DC4993}"> </QNum></strong> Riel, in my submission from the Criminal Bar Association, there is concern about risks to judges in public criticism. <span id="46" class="column-number" data-column-number="46"></span>The example given is on sexual offences, but I want to ask about protest-related offences and more political crimes, where the victim is the state or a powerful actor. Would the risks to judges also apply in those cases? <em><strong>Riel Karmy-Jones:</strong></em> Yes. We are already seeing that in immigration cases. We are seeing judges being targeted and threatened as a result of decisions made in immigration cases. The problem is that the judge will set out his decision making in writing; it will be on a transcript; and, under these proposals, it will go to a victim. It is wrong, not for those decisions to go to a complainant in a case, but for them then to be pored over and disagreed with. What does the judge say if they do not believe a complainant victim? They have to say so, and that could lead to huge disruption and upset, whereas with a jury, those people are largely anonymous and protected by reason of their anonymity. It is far rarer for us to get jurors who are targeted and attacked than it will be, in our view. As the Lady Chief Justice pointed out recently, it is far more likely that judges will be targeted as a result of their decision making.

   Hansard source
4. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{ABE77EC3-36EC-40D6-AA9F-85BEC3357A03}"> </QNum></strong> Thank you so much, Claire; it has been really powerful to hear from you. I have heard from a constituent who has a close family member going through all of this, and she has been advised by solicitors to avoid the family court at all costs, describing the potential outcomes as a “lottery” and talking about very patchy training and understanding. Would you back my constituent up on those conclusions? <em><strong>Claire Throssell:</strong></em> Yes, I do back that up. Judges do need training. They are hiding behind the fact that they are independent. They should be independent—they are the law of the land—but they should not be above the laws that they serve, and they do need training. They do need understanding. Like I say, the court is another arena; it is a secondary abuser. We go through the abuse, we take the courage to leave—that is not easy—and we enter a court system where we think, “This is going to be fair; this is going to be just.” We go into these arenas, and there are no guarantees that we can protect our children. We are ripped apart, and our personalities—we go through trauma. We tell people the same thing again and again, but we are not seen, heard, believed or supported.

   Hansard source
5. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

   I warmly welcome the Rycroft review and the Government’s swift action set out today on crypto and on overseas donations, although I would like to see them go much further. The Secretary of State said that he will amend the Representation of the People Bill wherever necessary. As a member of the Bill Committee, I would love to see those amendments tabled while we are still in Committee so that we can give them the line-by-line scrutiny that, as he referred to, is the normal practice of this House. Will he please pull out all the stops to ensure that happens? On stopping the spread of disinformation on social media, Philip Rycroft refers on page 47 of the report to the significant benefits that could come from having a real-time online library of social media adverts so that we get that transparency and that light shone on how all sorts of actors are influencing people below the surface. Does the Secretary of State support Philip Rycroft’s view on that? Will he table an amendment to deal with that problem?

   Hansard source
6. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am delighted to speak on a Bill of such huge importance. I am also delighted to be speaking so positively in support of clause 1. I might have some constructive suggestions to make on further clauses, but I warmly welcome the long-overdue legislative change for votes at 16. The extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds will be hugely positive for our young people and for our democracy. It will be good for voter registration and turnout. It will help to embed healthy democratic habits in young adulthood that will continue into adulthood. It is vital that the voices of young people are giving the respect and the democratic space that they deserve. Voting is a healthy habit that we want young people to form early on. Engaging younger voters in the process of voting creates positive habits for the future. Hon. Members will know that in 2024, turnout in the general election was just 59.9%—narrowly avoiding the 2001 historic low of 59.4%. Not only are too many voters not turning out; the turnout gap between younger and older voters has been expanding. We see lower levels of turnout in constituencies that have larger proportions of young people. Introducing votes at 16 creates an opportunity to improve democratic education, providing a chance to create a seamless transition from learning about and discussing politics in the classroom to engaging in local and national elections. Research has shown that the earlier young people are engaged in voting, the more likely they are to carry on voting later in their lives. In Austria, Scotland and Germany, those who were enfranchised at 16 or 17 were more likely to turn out to vote into their twenties, compared with those who first voted at 18. Enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds also tend to turn out to vote in greater numbers than those voting for the first time who are aged 18 and over. That is likely <span id="114" class="column-number" data-column-number="114"></span>because younger voters are better supported through their first experience of voting while they are at home and in education. By the time those who are 18 or older first vote, many will have already left home—for example, having gone to university—and are likely to be moving home more frequently, and may find it harder to register to vote or know where to vote. Registration levels for 18 and 19-year-olds are just 60%, compared with 96% of those aged 65 and over. The main arguments being advanced against expanding the franchise are that 16 and 17-year-olds are not considered adults in many legal circumstances, such as in criminal law. We have heard comments today about the concept of full legal adulthood. The suggestion is that lowering the voting age conflicts with other legal thresholds of adulthood, such as restrictions on alcohol, gambling and jury service. I point out that adulthood starts in a phased way from 16, as 16-year-olds will pay tax, 17-year-olds can drive a car, and the majority of things that we prohibit 16 and 17-year-olds from doing are public health-faced, such as drinking and gambling. They are aimed at preventing people from developing unhealthy and potentially harmful habits.

   Hansard source
7. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

   I think the hon. Gentleman is in effect making my point for me, which is that adulthood starts in a phased way. There is no simple black-and-white cut-off at which things change from one night to the next. In society, we recognise that many aspects of growing up are part of a process. Voting is clearly a healthy, positive habit, and lowering the voting age to 16 and 17-year-olds will help to support their development. The 16 and 17-year-olds whom I know and meet are thoughtful, interested and interesting. Their thoughts are worth having and are worth listening to. Their voice matters, and I want to know what they think. They have very pertinent and sometimes unexpected views on the key debates and decisions occupying much of our time in Parliament. If we take the grotesquely unfair rip-off system of student funding, with the deeply unfair loans that young people wanting to go to university must take out unless they are exceptionally wealthy, 16 and 17-year-olds are thinking now about those loans as they think about whether university is for them. If we take the debate on whether social media should be banned for those under 16, these people can really tell us what it is like and how it affects them. If we take the debates we have had in Parliament on decriminalising abortion and any number of other vital issues, including the state of the planet and what that means for our futures, young people’s lives are the most affected by the decisions elected representatives take and they will have to live with the consequences of those votes for longer than any of us.

   Hansard source
8. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

   I completely agree with the hon. Member. It is interesting that young people are often better able to engage with climate change than many of us who are older and are preoccupied with the short-term issues right in front of us. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove that we need a proportional voting system so that everybody’s votes are equally taken into account. That would enable us to make policy in a way that focuses more on the longer term and the investments we should make on a generational basis, rather than people, under the first-past-the-post system, being so focused on short-term decision making and on the next general election. Young people are concerned about what sort of world they will inherit—what the world will be like when they are 50—and they are going to have to live with the decisions we make for a very long time. I want to speak briefly about trust in politics. Giving young people votes at 16 tells them that their voices, votes and views are valued, and this really does matter. The 2024 British social attitudes survey, conducted after the general election that year, recorded a new low level of trust, with only 12% of people saying they trust Governments to put the interests of the country above those of their own party. Votes at 16 would be a really valuable sign of trust in and respect for our young people, which is a healthy and important part of defending and bolstering our democracy. At a time when division and polarisation are unfortunately flourishing, it is vital to work with and support young people to make their voices heard, because they do want to bring the country together. There is positive evidence for extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. For example, younger voters in Germany have had a positive impact on family discussions of politics. In a number of countries, 16 and 17-year-olds already have the vote. As has been mentioned, it is also the norm for many voters in the UK. Scottish and Welsh 16 and 17-year-olds are already enfranchised to vote in devolved and local elections, and I would love those in England and Northern Ireland to have the same rights. In conclusion, enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds would not drastically change the electoral landscape, but it would allow young people to have a voice in the decisions that are made for them every day at local, regional and national level. It is also a golden opportunity to improve democratic education, which I believe we will have a chance to discuss that in more depth later in our line-by-line scrutiny, as well as to register young people to vote and to embed that deep democratic respect for the right to vote. I congratulate the Government on taking this forward. Lowering the franchise is a really important opportunity to nurture more active citizens for the future. I will be absolutely delighted to vote for clause 1, <span id="116" class="column-number" data-column-number="116"></span>giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, so we can positively engage the next generation in politics and improve the health of our democracy.

   Hansard source
9. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

   I rise to speak to new clause 9 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion, and to oppose clause 2 stand part. New clause 9 seeks to extend voting rights to prisoners serving sentences of four years or less. That is the sentence length at which a prisoner would traditionally have been eligible for release after serving half their sentence. Extending the franchise to more people in prison would widen civic participation, strengthen our democracy and aid rehabilitation.

   Hansard source
10. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    I have made my position about the new clause clear, but perhaps this is a good moment to discuss a point that I was going to come to later. Various points have been made about the importance of restorative justice and rehabilitation. Imprisonment is a punishment for something that somebody has done wrong. There is a wide variety of things that people may have done wrong and for which they are rightly imprisoned, but should we not use the opportunity of a person’s imprisonment to support, encourage and reward prosocial behaviour? Voting is prosocial behaviour that helps to integrate and rehabilitate the person and connect them back to the society from which they have become estranged through their crime. We encourage prisoners to use libraries to engage in educational opportunities and a whole range of other prosocial activities. In the same way, should we not encourage prisoners to engage in voting?

    Hansard source
11. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, although I am disappointed by his tone and what appears to be a politically motivated attempt to score points rather than to engage with the substance of the debate, which is about whether prisoners should be encouraged to vote. Whether somebody is a victim of a racially aggravated assault, a rape or any other horrific crime, if the perpetrator receives a sentence that comes within the framework of the new clause—I very much hope that it would not be less than four years for a serious crime—we should encourage that perpetrator to participate in voting in the same way as we encourage prisoners to participate in other prosocial behaviours. That is done very widely in many other countries. Imprisonment is the punishment to the individual. The question is whether we should prevent those individuals from engaging in rehabilitative behaviours that reconnect them with society.

    Hansard source
12. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    I confess that I am a little puzzled at the questions that are being raised about specific types of crime. I am not sure whether hon. Members are suggesting that particular types of crime, for example those motivated by racial hatred, should be treated in a particular way in relation to voting, or whether they are simply objecting to the idea of any prisoner being allowed to vote. By raising one particular type of crime in making arguments against the new clause hon. Members are not, sadly, engaging with the substance of the argument that I am making. By way of background—as has been mentioned—in 2005 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s blanket ban on voting rights was unlawful. In 2017 the UK therefore extended the right to vote to prisoners on remand, civil prisoners—normally those in prison for failure to pay fines on time—and offenders on home detention curfew or released on temporary licence. However, that did not go far enough. The strength of our democracy is determined by how many of us participate in it. Against a backdrop of declining trust in our institutions and in democracy, that is more vital than ever. Not only are more than 21,000 people missing out on a key democratic right, they are having their chances of rehabilitation and resettlement harmed. Studies have shown the positive impact that democratic participation by people in prison has on rehabilitation and resettlement. Prisoners who keep the right to vote have an enhanced sense of civic responsibility and are more likely to be successfully reintegrated following release. Let us consider other countries. In Guernsey all prisoners have had the right to vote since 1996. In Jersey, all prisoners serving a sentence of less than four years keep their right to vote, and in 2025 plans were announced to extend the right to vote to all prisoners. All prisoners in Ireland can vote by post. Across Europe, all prisoners have the right to vote—in Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine. In France, disenfranchisement is considered as an additional penalty in some sentences, however the vast majority of prisoners retain the right to vote. In Germany, all prisoners retain the right to vote unless they have been convicted of an offence targeting the state or democracy. It is clear that the UK’s ban on prisoners voting makes us a real outlier among comparable countries. Clause 2 provides for the disenfranchisement of detained 16 and 17-year-olds. I am profoundly opposed to that and would like to see the clause removed, because fostering civic responsibility, civic pride and involvement is particularly important for young people aged 16 and 17 who are in custody—that is, about 420 young people at any one time. Any young person in that position is likely to have been badly let down. That point was made last year by the Children’s Commissioner, who in 2025 published an important report, “The educational journeys <span id="124" class="column-number" data-column-number="124"></span>of children in secure settings”. She found that children in youth custody are “failed before they arrive” and trapped “in a cycle of disadvantage”. The Commissioner made it clear that such young people faced “disrupted education, low English and maths skills, unmet additional needs and high levels of exclusion, compounded by poverty”. She also found that “children in prison have been failed by multiple services long before they arrive in custody, and their time in the justice system worsens their disadvantages and limits future opportunities.” I believe that it is wrong to cut those children—those young people—out of the voting process. They will know more about the failings of the state than many over-18s and their voices should be heard. The Bill is an opportunity to include them and to commit to supporting them to exercise their right to vote, which is a healthy habit that we should support and encourage all members of our society to engage in. As well as being right and fair, such inclusion, coupled with the right support and training for those who look after and educate them, could be a very positive part of their rehabilitation. I sincerely hope that the Minister will closely consider that in the context of clause 2. It is clear that the current voting system for prisoners in the UK needs urgent reform. New clause 9 provides us with an opportunity to talk about how to fix that broken system by normalising democratic participation in our prisons, as so many other comparable countries do; strengthening civic society; restoring faith in our democracy; and supporting rehabilitation among some of the marginalised people in the UK, including some of our most disadvantaged young people.

    Hansard source
13. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    As I outlined in my speech, in many comparable countries, all prisoners are permitted to vote. The proposal in new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion, sets an arguably arbitrary cut-off date, but that is intended to offer balance. As we have to some extent previously covered, if someone is sentenced to four years they still become eligible for early release. That does not lessen the terrible nature of their crime. If somebody is sentenced to four years, they are still eligible to participate in educational programmes, rehabilitation, and a whole range of things that are not in themselves punishments but are designed to assist that person to reintegrate into society. Surely we all, victims included, want to ensure that perpetrators of crime are reintegrated and rehabilitated and do not offend again? That is the driving force behind this new clause: to reduce crime by reconnecting to society people who have been convicted and imprisoned.

    Hansard source
14. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to speak with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. I rise to speak briefly in support of new clause 44, which, as the hon. Member has set out, is a very reasonable and modest proposal. As I said, I very strongly support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, <span id="150" class="column-number" data-column-number="150"></span>but it is crucial that investment in developing political literacy and supporting civic education goes alongside that. That is a message I have heard from young people themselves; from those who have come to Parliament to campaign for this, and those in my constituency who have also called for this. I strongly urge Ministers to make sure they take this crucial opportunity to invest in developing trusted and accessible spaces where young people can explore political ideas, through the formal education system and other structures and spaces that work with young people. The role of youth organisations and youth workers in supporting democratic participation is crucial to remember. We need to do everything possible to build young people’s confidence in navigating democratic processes and in forming their own political ideas. We need to give them support in navigating an increasingly complex political landscape of political information, misinformation and disinformation. That civic education part is a crucial component of, and complement to, the extension of the franchise itself. New clause 44 absolutely strikes the right balance here. This is not about delaying the extension of the franchise. It is simply about saying, on the face of the Bill, that we recognise the importance of civic education alongside the extension of the franchise, and that we ensure there is transparency and sufficient attention given to developing that.

    Hansard source
15. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I am sorry; I may have misunderstood, but is the Minister arguing that she does not support new clause 44 because a range of organisations will be taking part in action to raise awareness of the extended franchise and, therefore, it would not be right for the Government to provide a report only on what they were doing? That is not my reading of new clause 44, which asks the Government to do a report on proposals overall to support raising awareness and civic education. By definition, the Government are probably best placed to have that overview of all proposals, including their own, and those of the Electoral Commission and any number of other organisations, so that we can understand what is being done to support young people as they take on this new democratic responsibility.

    Hansard source
16. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting)

    My reading of the clause is that it does not have to be partial: it calls for a report on all proposals. Therefore, perhaps the Government’s interpretation of the new clause is unnecessarily narrow. Might the Minister commit to going away and reflecting on whether this could actually be compatible and a helpful contribution to supporting the civic education of young people?

    Hansard source
17. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The Minister’s main objection to new clause 44 is that it is for a one-off report. Would the Minister support an amended new clause that would require an annual report looking at the effectiveness of civic education for young people?

    Hansard source
18. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting)

    It might be helpful if I remind the Committee of what the Electoral Commission itself says: “Automated voter registration has the potential to significantly improve levels of accuracy and completeness of the registers and help ensure people can vote in future elections… Significant progress should be made on implementing forms of automated registration before the next UK general election… Pilots in Wales last year show how effective automatic registration can be.”<span id="158" class="column-number" data-column-number="158"></span> I am a little worried that, inadvertently, a false impression of the opinion of the Electoral Commission has been given.

    Hansard source
19. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting)

    If the hon. Member will forgive me, I will cite once more evidence from the Electoral Commission, which does not agree with him that the current system is fine. The Electoral Commission says that evidence from its research shows that “as many as 8 million people across the UK are not correctly registered to vote”. That is a huge proportion—a huge disenfranchisement. The Electoral Commission says: “Introducing more automated forms of registration would remove barriers to voting and make it easier for people to register and vote.” Does the hon. Member not think we should listen to the Electoral Commission?

    Hansard source
20. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting)

    On a point of order, Dame Siobhain. As I am a relative newbie in this House, could you clarify why it is permitted for a request to be made to vote individually on a range of grouped clauses, when everybody is voting exactly the same way on them, such that we have had five separate votes, all of which have gone the same way, and we are about to have four more? Is it possible to stop the waste of time?

    Hansard source
21. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Further to that point of order, Dame Siobhain. I do not object to voting on any of these clauses; I am simply pointing out that there is a more time-efficient way to do it.

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

    Middle East: Economic Update

    The fuel price shock caused by Trump’s reckless war highlights just how risky it is for the UK to be locked into the global fossil fuel markets. The Climate Change Committee recently pointed out that the cost of achieving net zero by 2050 is less than the cost of a single fossil fuel price spike, reinforcing the point that we need to invest in clean, green technologies and get ourselves off being hooked on fossil fuels. The key problem in the UK is that gas is coupled to electricity prices, so decoupling is crucial. Will the Chancellor look at the report last week from Common Wealth, which points out that decoupling could be achieved right now and would save households at least £200 each year?

    Hansard source
23. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Oil and Gas

    There is simply no case for opening new oil and gas wells in the North sea, for approving Rosebank and Jackdaw, or for removing the windfall tax from oil and gas companies. It is inaccurate, irresponsible and immoral for the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), to suggest otherwise in her motion. Expanding North sea drilling will do nothing to support UK energy security or jobs, as the Lib Dem spokesperson—the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings)—and the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) laid out very clearly in their speeches.

    Hansard source
24. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Oil and Gas

    Those Members answered the challenges from the shadow Secretary of State, so I will move on, given the limit on time. Given that the measures proposed in the motion will not secure our energy supply, protect jobs or bring down bills, what will drilling more oil and gas from the North sea do? It will undo so much progress we have made in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. We are proud to have ended polluting coal power in the UK—indeed, I thought the shadow Secretary of State was proud of that—but allowing Rosebank would be the equivalent of running 56 coal-fired power stations for a year, undoing all that good work. Drilling more oil and gas from the North sea will also make some people a lot of money, including those on the Reform and Conservative Benches who take dirty money from fossil fuel donors.

    Hansard source
25. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Oil and Gas

    No, I will not, thank you—I will carry on. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Fine, I will give way.

    Hansard source
26. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Oil and Gas

    I beg the right hon. Lady’s pardon, but they say I am wrong about what?

    Hansard source
27. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Oil and Gas

    My reliance is on the evidence, which shows that 93% of recoverable oil and gas in the British parts of the North sea has already been extracted. Whatever does remain will be sold on the international market to the highest bidder, as many Members have already pointed out. If the proposals in the shadow Secretary of State’s motion were implemented, they would do nothing for energy security and nothing for jobs.

    Hansard source
28. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Oil and Gas

    No, I will not. I will continue for now.<span id="203" class="column-number" data-column-number="203"></span> What the shadow Secretary of State’s motion would achieve is the raising of a lot of money. When war inflates oil and gas prices, fossil fuel bosses cash in. Just five companies made nearly half a trillion dollars in the years after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Of course, those obscene profits should be taxed through the energy profits levy, because nobody should be cashing in on conflict. Again, I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the attention of those who may be watching from home, to the proportion of donations from fossil fuel donors that go to certain politicians in this Chamber. The Chancellor said earlier today that she would crack down on price-gouging and profiteering, so I hope that this work will maintain the principles of the windfall tax in whatever shape it comes. The Government have done good work in driving forward clean energy and banning new oil and gas licences, and I desperately urge them not to backtrack by approving Rosebank, although I understand that they will not be able to comment on that today. I am also deeply concerned about the fact that, despite officially banning new oil and gas licences, the Government are creating a whopping loophole by introducing the transitional energy certificates, aka tiebacks. This is allowing new drilling at a new site on a technicality, because it involves drilling a new well but, rather than installing a new rig on top of it, attaching it to an existing rig with a very long hose, so it is technically not “new”. Opening up new oil and gas wells now is indefensible when we know that every drop of oil and gas burned puts our future further at risk, so I cannot support a Government amendment that “welcomes” these tiebacks. I ask Ministers to assure me that, at the very least, scope 3 emissions will be considered when the Government are deciding whether to grant the transitional energy certificates. Committing to renewable energy means change, and change can be unsettling, but if it is done right, the Government can ensure that it pays off for everyone. I have been campaigning for an energy jobs guarantee to support workers who are currently employed in the oil and gas sector to move into jobs in the green sectors. That could be done by ending the £2.7 billion a year in subsidies that the Chancellor hands the fossil fuel industry in tax breaks, and using that valuable public money to back workers rather than propping up an industry that is in terminal decline. Our dependence on oil and gas is making us poorer—that much is clear—and it is making oil companies richer. There is no future in fossil fuels, so I hope that the Ministers will give no ground to the reckless statements put forward today.

    Hansard source
29. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Visa Brake: Chevening Scholars

    <Question HRSContentId="{8DEF8C79-3DCB-416D-AC53-6648F6B9853F}">14. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{FCA421FE-9676-4578-95D4-87EDA4EF4C3A}">What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the introduction of the visa brake on Chevening scholars. </QuestionText></Question>

    Hansard source
30. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Visa Brake: Chevening Scholars

    Including prestigious Chevening scholarships in the Government’s clampdown on certain study visas is devastating for those who have been shortlisted, including students who are set to join our world-leading programmes at Sussex University. It raises questions about the value that the Government put on nurturing talent, particularly for women from Afghanistan, from whom I have seen heartbreaking accounts of terminated applications. Will the Minister and the Home Secretary urgently revisit that decision?

    Hansard source
31. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Middle East

    The expansion of US use of UK bases announced over the weekend represents an escalation of UK involvement in this war. At a time when we all agree that de-escalation is urgently needed, we are being dragged into Trump’s illegal, reckless war, with huge ramifications for the region and for households in this country. Last week, the Secretary of State said that he would get involved only if there was a “viable, collective plan”, but where is that plan? This afternoon, the Prime Minister said to the Liaison Committee that we must beware of “the false comfort of thinking that there will necessarily be a quick and early end to this” conflict. Given all that, when will we have a Commons vote on the escalating UK involvement in this illegal and reckless war?

    Hansard source
32. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    River Wye Pollution

    Water is life, and rivers are the lifeblood of our landscape, but too often they are in a perilous state. Yesterday we celebrated World Water Day, and last month, on Valentine’s day, I celebrated the work of North Herefordshire constituents who love the Lugg, the river that flows through the heart of my constituency. Those constituents care for our precious rivers: the Wye, the Lugg, the Arrow, the Frome and others. They run businesses and protect wildlife and heritage, and they include river-friendly farmers and citizen scientists. We are united by our desire to save our previous rivers from pollution, because we recognise that healthy communities and healthy economies depend on healthy rivers. We urgently need a water protection zone to protect the River Wye and its tributaries from damage caused by pollution. I am therefore honoured to present this petition on behalf of my constituents who love the Lugg and all the other North Herefordshire rivers. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take further action to save the River Wye catchment, starting with formally evaluating the option of <span id="114" class="column-number" data-column-number="114"></span>introducing a Water Protection Zone across the entire River Wye, as a mechanism to address phosphate pollution and restore the river.” <em>Following is the full text of the petition:</em> <em>[</em><em>The petition of residents of the United </em><em>Kingdom</em><em>,</em> <em>Declares that the River Wye has been in the headlines since 2020 as one of the UK’s most polluted rivers, and that phosphate pollution is especially severe in the Rivers Lugg, Arrow and Frome; further declares that the Environment Agency’s plan for reducing pollution levels in the river falls short of what is needed to fix the problem and restore the health of the river; and further declares that introducing a Water Protection Zone would formally identify all sources of pollution, specify who should do what and by when to reduce and prevent pollution, and restrict or ban certain polluting activities with penalties specified for polluters who fail to take the necessary </em><em>action</em><em>.</em> <em>The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take further action to save the River Wye catchment, starting with formally evaluating the option of introducing a Water Protection Zone across the entire River Wye, as a mechanism to address phosphate pollution and restore the </em><em>river</em><em>.</em> <em>And the petitioners remain, </em><em>etc</em><em>.]</em> [P003172]

    Hansard source
33. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. As an MP, I hear far too often from young trans and gender-questioning people and their families who are unable to get the treatment they need. It is important in this debate to start by being clear what puberty blockers are and are not. They do not, on their own, make any permanent changes to a young person’s gender. Some people who start puberty blockers will go on to further treatments, and some will not. Puberty blockers can give young people time to explore their gender without the added distress of unwanted physical changes. That gives them the time and space to decide if they want to take more permanent steps. Puberty blockers alone do not lock young people into any permanent decision.<span id="8WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="8WH"></span> New prescriptions for puberty blockers were banned indefinitely in November 2024, meaning that the PATHWAYS trial has been the only legal way to get a prescription. The Green party opposes the ban on puberty blockers and always has, because they are a safe and reversible way of reducing gender dysphoria that is recognised by international research and advisory bodies. The list is too long to give in the time we have, but it includes the European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the European Society for Sexual Medicine, and so on. My concern is that the PATHWAYS trial has not been paused because of genuine concern about young people’s safety or because the Government have listened to the constructive concerns of the trans community about how the trial will be run. It now looks like a political decision. If further research on puberty blockers is needed—I understand that most medical treatments benefit from ongoing research—that research must be carried out in a way that does not exclude or disadvantage one patient cohort over others. It should centre the needs of the young people involved. There should not be a cap on participants or an unmedicated control group, and it should take account of all uses of puberty blockers, including on cis children experiencing premature puberty. We so often talk about trans people without including them in decisions made about them. I ask the Minister to reconsider the Government’s path.

    Hansard source
34. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Air Pollution

    <Question HRSContentId="{0B2F7317-65DB-456C-927F-B9AAF7E4852C}">3. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{A466CFA4-AE8C-4A13-9493-22846F7B29B7}">What steps she is taking to help reduce air pollution. </QuestionText></Question>

    Hansard source
35. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Air Pollution

    I published the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, also known as Ella’s law, this month alongside the Ella Roberta Foundation, Mums for Lungs, Clean Air in London, Asthma and Lung UK and Global Action Plan. Together, we affirmed that the right to breathe clean air is a fundamental human right. Does the Minister agree that the Government should include this vital, life-saving legislation in the upcoming King’s Speech, to give clean air the statutory momentum it requires?

    Hansard source
36. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    International Development

    Pitching defence against development is utterly short-sighted—it is a totally misjudged binary. These aid cuts make us all less secure. The Foreign Secretary has talked about this as a difficult choice; in fact, it is the wrong choice. Let us be clear: under this Labour Government, we are seeing deeper aid cuts in the UK than in any other G7 country, which will take us down to the lowest level of overseas aid—0.24% of gross national income—since 1970, which will have hugely damaging effects globally. I have three specific questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, when will she publish the country allocations so that we can see exactly where the axe is falling? Secondly, how will she ensure that poverty alleviation remains the focus of overseas development assistance in this context? Thirdly, how does she square this with the comments of her own Prime Minister, who has previously acknowledged that cutting aid makes the world less secure?

    Hansard source
37. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Climate Change

    I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), my fellow member of the all-party parliamentary group on climate change, for securing this debate. The climate and nature emergencies are the most pressing issue of our time. They go to the heart of every area of Government, and we ignore or sideline them at our peril. A suppressed national security assessment report, partly released in January in response to a freedom of information request, warns: “Every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse”, threatening UK national security and prosperity. Let us give that a moment to sink in. The first job of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, yet there is a yawning gulf between climate reality as recognised in that national security report and the actions that the Government are undertaking. As we have heard, ambitious action now makes economic sense, too. Failing to tackle the climate and nature crises will cost far more in the long term than investing properly now. The Climate Change Committee, the Government’s own specialist advisers, recently crunched the numbers and worked out that for every pound spent on reaching net zero, the benefits outweigh the costs up to fourfold. That is a good return on investment. Crucially, the Climate Change Committee recognises that the benefits of climate action will be felt in all areas of our lives. Warm homes and better public transport will have huge benefits for our health and wellbeing, and will save the NHS money, too. The health service spends £895 million a year just as a result of cold and damp homes. While the Government are grasping the big picture in some areas, such as growing clean energy, for example, all too often that is not being done in a joined-up way. It does not feel like they are aiming for the massive social and environmental wins that acting boldly and thinking genuinely long-term could secure. Last year, the Chancellor scrapped the energy company obligation scheme in the autumn Budget. It required energy companies to pay into programmes that cut fuel poverty. The impact of that cut falls not only on the 8.9 million households classed as fuel poor, but on jobs. The Installation Assurance Authority Federation, a leading representative body in the retrofit sector, found that a staggering 12,100 skilled professionals have been made redundant since the end of the ECO scheme was announced in the Chancellor’s Budget. A further 79,000-plus may be made redundant within the next 12 months. Such fragmented policy making, where a gap is left between an old scheme and a new scheme, puts jobs at risk and undermines ambitions on warm homes. I acknowledge the commitment of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, and of the Minister, to this agenda. I also acknowledge the degree to which they appear sometimes to be thwarted by the <span id="1088" class="column-number" data-column-number="1088"></span>Treasury and others that seem singularly incapable of grasping that building a strong, resilient economy will be an impossibility inside an environment going haywire. They also seem to be thwarted by those who seem unwilling to understand that delaying action and an overreliance on techno fixes, such as carbon capture and storage, are paving the way for a cliff edge of social chaos and economic freefall when we should be planning for an orderly, fair, controlled transition. Continuing to subsidise the fossil fuel industry is downright dangerous when the extraction and burning of fossil fuels is still the main driver of global warming. Burning the fossil fuels at the proposed Rosebank oil field would release more than the combined annual emissions of all 28 low-income countries globally. That is all without any evidence that that oil would bring down costs at home, because prices are set on the global market. Rather than propping up the oil and gas giants, I have been calling on the Chancellor to end the £2.7 billion of tax breaks given every year to fossil fuel companies. Instead she should fund a jobs guarantee to support workers currently employed in oil and gas to move into new green jobs. Climate adaptation must become much more prominent, too. The Government’s climate watchdog has warned us that preparedness for extreme weather in this country is disjointed and piecemeal, and that has consequences for all our constituents, for public services and for the economy. That brings me full circle back to my opening point: the climate emergency has ramifications for every single Department and every aspect of all our constituents’ lives. That is why there was such a large appetite for the climate emergency declaration that I pioneered as a councillor in Bristol in 2018. After adopting my climate emergency declaration, Bristol ramped up its ambitions, and the idea has since spread across the UK and internationally. It shows the public’s appetite to go further and faster to protect our planet for future generations. While recognising the good work done so far, we still need vastly more ambition across government. No stone can be left unturned if we want to operate within safe climate limits.

    Hansard source
38. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Climate Change

    I am just coming to an end. We must leave no stone unturned, whether it is housing standards, taxation, jobs, transport, energy, defence or food. That is my main message today, and I hope the Government are open to hearing it. It is important that we look at climate change across every single Department, because that is how we will build a safer, more positive, more equal and happier country together.

    Hansard source
39. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Fuel Duty

    Our current and persistent reliance on oil for transport, rising costs as a result of instability in the middle east, and the ongoing fuel duty freeze, all have consequences for people who use any form of transport in their daily lives. I agree with the Government—and with the many Back Benchers who have joined in supporting them—that it is far too soon to consider the Conservative motion’s demand for further multiple and ongoing freezes. The fact remains that ending the conflict in the Gulf and the wider middle east is the best way to ease fuel market price rises. The risk of profiteering by fuel providers is a far greater threat to household budgets than fuel duty collected for the public purse. The Conservatives should consider considering the consequences before offering their support for any more of President Trump’s appallingly badly thought-out decisions.

    Hansard source
40. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Fuel Duty

    My speech will continue to put the case for alternative interventions that will help everybody in every family in the constituencies mentioned. Campaign for Better Transport has pointed out to the Chancellor that the total cost of cancelling all the planned increases to fuel duty in line with the retail prices index since 2011 has brought real-term cuts for motorists for 14 years, and cost the Treasury a cumulative £133 billion between 2011-12 and 2024-25. The additional 5p cut, meant as a temporary measure when introduced five years ago, has alone cost £13 billion since then.<span id="897" class="column-number" data-column-number="897"></span> The fuel duty freeze has been regressive. It has helped the richest tenth of households save nearly three times as much as the poorest tenth. The fact remains that the poorest people, who can afford no holidays whether or not the Government agree to this motion, are not driving or owning cars. Yet through all this time the cost of bus and rail travel, upon which those who cannot afford to own a car rely, has continued to rise.

    Hansard source