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

1. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Fuel Duty

   I have not yet outlined my plans; I have merely complained about the rising cost of bus and rail fares that has accompanied continued freezes in fuel duty. I will move on to my next point. I am very aware of the manospherical gender ratio there has been in the Chamber throughout the debate, and that is pertinent to this point. Hon. Members must remember that, in any given family with a car who are just about managing, the poorest and most disadvantaged members of that family will most likely be the spouse and children of the main driver. Those people, in any part of the country, including in rural areas, often have little or no access to the basic mobility that a car can provide. They are dependent on good public transport services—often absent. They are dependent on safe streets—often absent. They are dependent on transport services to access their jobs, daily lives and essential services when the car is in use by the main driver. Members should not forget that.

   Hansard source
2. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Fuel Duty

   My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I confess that I am not used to being intervened on in this fashion as I am such a minority in the Chamber, but someone has to make these points and I will continue to do so. The point about buses is well made. We need bus services and we need controls on bus fares, which we did not have until recent years. These are ongoing injustices that have compounded over the years, while people buying fuel from the pumps have been somewhat protected. But I am not saying there are easy answers.

   Hansard source
3. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Fuel Duty

   We need more robust interventions on fares as well, and we need much more help for bus companies to be able to switch to electric vehicles and to electrify their fleets. I raised many of those points on the Bus Services Bill Committee. I shall now give way to the hon. Lady.

   Hansard source
4. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Fuel Duty

   I have incredible sympathy for the people whose cases have been outlined in this debate. I am setting out a case for action that is going to make a difference, including de-escalating the conflict in the middle east—a conflict that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) briefly supported. I will move on to the alternative plans. Transport & Environment recently reminded us in its briefing, ahead of the spring statement, of the investments and initiatives that are really needed to help people in transport poverty. The Social Market Foundation has pointed out that despite over £100 billion being spent on cuts and freezes to fuel duty, it has made little impact on transport poverty. We have to find ways that are better value for money. Transport & Environment has suggested salary sacrifice public transport travel cards, reinstating £2 bus fare caps, and, in the current context, targeted payments for vulnerable people and direct support for small businesses, sole traders and low-income households. That would ensure that help reaches those most exposed to the energy price rises, rather than repeating the regressive tax cuts that have taken place.

   Hansard source
5. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Fuel Duty

   I agree that those are good initiatives. I also celebrate the initiative of the Scottish Government, led by the Green party, to make bus fares free for people under 22. Young people desperately need that support because they rarely have access to the family car, as I mentioned. All these interventions represent good value for money. This month, analysis by the Climate Change Committee has reminded us that we can significantly reduce the UK’s exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets if we just think a little further into the future and get things done. The Committee estimates that the transition will cost around £4 billion a year to make our climate targets. That is the cost of one oil shock like the one we are experiencing now, but it would deliver huge benefits, including resilience, the next time this happens, and we can predict that it might.

   Hansard source
6. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Fuel Duty

   I would very much like to continue with my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker. I agree with the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). We will never truly protect the families who are struggling with daily living costs, driven by fossil fuel dependence, if we do not get our economy and our transport system completely off the addiction to oil and gas that they suffer from. I remind the House that every £1 invested in achieving climate targets is estimated by the Climate Change Committee to generate between £2 and £4 in wider economic benefits. These include major public health improvements and NHS savings that could reach another £130 billion by 2050. These are all excellent investments that have been resisted for years and years by people who should know better. Finally, I would like to quote the Social Market Foundation. It has said that Government policy to keep freezing fuel duty has “inadvertently” hurt drivers, “with policies that end up encouraging car use,” argues that “the bigger issue is a lack of investment in alternatives to driving, keeping people reliant on costly cars.” The Conservatives should consider that if they wanted to carry out the measures that they ask for without corresponding consequences for public services, health and wellbeing, they might have considered that air travellers pay no fuel duty at all in this country. Air travel demand is driven by the most wealthy passengers, with the broadest shoulders, including those in the private jets owned by Conservative party donors and other owners of private jets. The Conservative motion could have gone further, and been more practical and less short term in its thinking altogether. Green MPs will not be supporting the Conservative motion and I am grateful for the time that the House has given me to explain why.

   Hansard source
7. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{A1BE4F4B-4868-4093-B7C8-DDD5DA828F34}"> </QNum></strong> Mr Bentley, I was really struck that you said twice in your answers that anything that makes voting easier for people has to be a good thing and should be supported. Mr Stanyon and Ms Yule, do you agree? <em><strong>Peter </strong></em><em><strong>Stanyon</strong></em><em><strong>:</strong></em> Within the bounds of making sure the system is trusted, which goes back to the points that Emily made. Yes, it should be as easy as possible, but that cannot be at the cost of the integrity of the system.

   Hansard source
8. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{0F5AA729-253D-4ED9-A430-898CA24998FA}"> </QNum></strong> Mr Bentley, having made that statement, do you agree that automatic voter registration makes it easier for people to participate in the democratic process?<span id="14" class="column-number" data-column-number="14"></span> <em><strong>Councillor Bentley:</strong></em> Yes, it does, but don’t forget that we have the right not to vote in this country. I make the same point again: we should test that with the public. It is their information we are talking about, and we should test that with them. It does make it easier, yes, but I think it is a question for the public to be consulted on.

   Hansard source
9. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{55360147-A553-4F5C-94A3-B5885804C402}"> </QNum></strong> To be clear, automatic voter registration is not compulsory voting; it simply makes people more able to vote. It is not forcing them to vote at all, so it would be a mistake to conflate the two. <em><strong>Councillor Bentley:</strong></em> It is not, but you are automatically taking their data, and I think you need to ask permission for that.

   Hansard source
10. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{F34E03FF-0222-4F99-9A48-5410896C71F7}"> </QNum></strong> Voter ID has clearly made it harder for people to vote—tens of thousands of people have been prevented from casting their vote in recent years—and it was introduced on the basis of virtually no evidence of cases of personation. Do you agree that the cost to people’s capacity to participate in the voting system from the introduction of voter ID far outweighs its argued benefits, and therefore there should be no voter ID requirement? <em><strong>Councillor Bentley:</strong></em> Perhaps I should answer that first. It should be no problem to prove who you are—if you want to vote and take part in the democratic process, why shouldn’t you? I happen to vote by post, but if I did not, I constantly carry a driving licence, or I could find my passport. If you do not have either of those, what should you have? You can apply for a voter authority certificate from your local authority. I do not see harm in doing that, and I think it keeps everyone safe when they go to the ballot station and makes sure that the person voting is the person entitled to vote.

    Hansard source
11. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{C6F30496-7BA4-44D1-B674-5893C8184194}"> </QNum></strong> Thank you. Mr Stanyon, are you concerned about the effect of voter ID on the exclusion of people from voting? <em><strong>Peter Stanyon:</strong></em> Yes, but I think the system in place has been developed to allow voter authority certificates and the like to be there to provide a safety net for those individuals. This is a difficult one for me to answer, because it comes into a policy area and involves personal views. The crucial bit from an administrative perspective is that whatever system is there for voter ID provision has to be smooth for the voter, and that could definitely be improved with the introduction of digital ID, for example.

    Hansard source
12. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{4639BBED-8A1A-4F2E-8C78-6041925CEEF2}"> </QNum></strong> I would like to ask your view on several things under the heading of political finance and disinformation. On political finance, could you comment on the benefits of a ban on crypto donations, on the potential benefits of a cap on individual donations, and on the potential benefits of an annual spending cap—not just a cap on spending during the regulated period—to avoid gaming of the system? On disinformation, do you think the Bill does enough to tackle disinformation? Perhaps you could comment on proposals for an advert repository and for a ban on deepfakes. Do you think that a ban on deepfakes needs to operate not just during the regulated period, but also outside it? <em><strong>Dr Garland:</strong></em> I will address those questions in that order. On crypto, yes, we would support a ban, or at least a moratorium, because there are many risks with crypto. They mirror the same risks in political finance across the board, but crypto is moving quicker than our regulations are keeping up, so we would very much support that being looked at. On a donations cap, we are very out of step with most other European democracies, and comparable democracies, in having no ceiling at all on donations. That is a huge risk area and speaks to the risk around foreign donations as well. There is also a huge risk in how the public view our political finance regime. We heard earlier that confidence is pretty low. People see that millionaires have more influence in their democracy than they do, because we have moved so swiftly to an era where there are many multi-million pound donations. Having no ceiling at all is a risk, so I would very much support a donations cap. That can be supported by spending limits all year round, because quite often, the campaign does not limit itself to the regulated period. I would support that. I would say that deepfakes are probably something for the other people you will be hearing from this afternoon; we have not looked at that area in detail. We have looked a lot at the imprints regime, and although I am very supportive of extending the imprints regime, it does not tell voters everything. An ad library would mean that we can increase transparency for voters, and enable them to see things such as who is paying for the ads and who they are targeted at. Often, that can highlight misinformation as well, so I would strongly support the amendment about an ad library.

    Hansard source
13. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{3CDD472B-71E2-45D1-9FFA-3EC9121F476F}"> </QNum></strong> I would like to return to the question of your experience of having the franchise extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, and particularly to the topic of political literacy. You have given a few examples of work there. What conversations are happening nationally to ensure maximum co-ordination and investment in supporting political literacy, particularly with the extension of the franchise? Is there anything further you would like to say on that? Do you feel that the Bill sufficiently addresses the issue, and what lessons can be learned for supporting political literacy among over-18s as well? Is there more to be done in that space, and what has your experience been in that arena? <em><strong>Robert Nicol:</strong></em> Registration at 14 and votes at 16 have been embedded for quite some time, but I view this Bill—if it was to pass—as an opportunity to promote registration further. We are proud of the registration levels that we have been able to achieve, but there are still gaps and we want to make sure that we can narrow them as much as possible. I would welcome any involvement in trying to re-promote that across the franchise when the legislation does come into place. The question of wider political literacy is quite interesting. We have heard much about the missing millions and so on in the Electoral Commission’s reports. No doubt, every single electoral registration officer wants to make sure that, for everybody who is eligible and wants to be registered, that facility is available to them in the format and means that best suit their needs.<span id="33" class="column-number" data-column-number="33"></span> The answer to political engagement and literacy will probably not come from a middle-aged guy. It will come from within our communities; that is where the engagement really has to happen. I think I am right in saying that there are particular funding streams available for some community groups around this. That has to be the appropriate way; the message that we are getting out there has to be delivered by trusted voices—people who are trusted in their communities to give accurate information. Some of the stuff that we give out is complex and difficult to understand. There is no single message or delivery method that will get that to everybody who needs it, so it is wider than just administrators in terms of enthusing the electorate, both to be registered and to actually take part in the process. <em><strong>Malcolm Burr:</strong></em> It much depends on how much effort is made by everyone in the system. It is one thing having the right to vote, but our rights are arid without the feeling that participation makes a significant difference. It is always a work in progress. As an electoral administrator, it is a work in progress largely with our schools, and with the Electoral Commission, which does good work producing materials, generally. But of course, not all young people are in schools; you have to use other local media to encourage participation and show what the exercise of your right means practically. As an anecdote, I always try to invite as many young people as the rules will allow to election counts. You see then where the process goes; you see what is done with your vote and how it makes a difference—along with other votes, obviously—and what candidates then say when they are elected or not elected, and what they talk about. It is very important to show that system and the difference that voting makes. In Scotland, we have the experience of the independence referendum in 2014. That showed, in respect of all groups, that when the electorate feel there is an issue at stake, they turn out in huge numbers to vote. That is the example of that. As Robert Nicol said, accessibility is also important. We tend to think of accessibility in terms of voters with disabilities, but accessibility is beyond that; we have to look equally at how we reach hard-to-reach groups in the younger franchise. It is a combination of good publicity, good education and good appreciation, as much as possible, of how the voting system and casting your vote affects and changes things. It is a whole process. Sorry for the long answer. <em><strong>Karen Jones:</strong></em> I have two points, if I may. I do not disagree with my Scottish colleagues. Young people helping to co-design some of the communications and engagement methods is important. I think Robert made the point about people of our generation maybe not being the obvious people to go and engage with young people, so there is an opportunity there to involve young people in how we go about those exercises. An evaluation report about the experience in Wales referred to the timing of some of these activities. Young people have periods when they are very busy sitting examinations and so on, so there are periods within a year when it is possible to get better levels of engagement. That was a practical lesson that we drew from the experience in Wales.

    Hansard source
14. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{669F129C-C076-40FF-A05B-F51B60C76715}"> </QNum></strong> You both mentioned disinformation. Do you think the Bill does enough to tackle disinformation? Are there additional measures that are not yet in the Bill that you would welcome—for example, a real-time repository of online adverts, or further measures to tackle online disinformation? I am open to your suggestions. <em><strong>Harriet Andrews:</strong></em> For me, part of that democratic education piece would include support for young people to engage with disinformation. A really important part of preparing them is preparing them to engage with that work on disinformation. Also, as I said at the very beginning, we need to think about where the sources of information for young people are. I worry that if we focus too much on just, “We need young people to be educated about how to engage with disinformation,” and we do not try to create places they can go to that are trusted sources of information, we are putting a huge amount of pressure on young people to deal with a really complicated information landscape.

    Hansard source
15. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{E0903363-19F1-45BF-A485-6607941FCFE9}"> </QNum></strong> Thank you both for your work. You have made a powerful case for the danger of not better regulating disinformation. Can you share any lessons observed from how other countries have perhaps done this better? We have talked about the proposal for a repository of digital adverts. We have talked about deepfake labelling. What about other forms of disinformation, such as bot campaigns? Secondly, do you agree that we need to regulate not just during the regulated period but all year round, because disinformation has corrosive effects all year round? Thirdly, do you have any comments on the need for better enforcement of existing imprint laws? Finally, you referenced the Rycroft review, which of course covers only foreign interference. Are we paying enough attention to domestic disinformation? <em><strong>Azzurra Moores:</strong></em> There were lots of good questions there. You ask what more could be done on bots. Chris raised a proposal to increase the Electoral Commission’s investigative powers. For those of you looking at the amendment paper, that is new clause 25 tabled by Emily Darlington. Tackling bots is going to be really complicated, but we think a really important first step is to give the Electoral Commission investigative powers on the back end of platform data, to try to understand the scale and scope of the problem. Part of the reason we cannot do much more at the moment is that we have a real evidence gap—a real evidence deficit. We need to start giving our regulators, which are on the frontline, more ability to understand the scale of the problem. For us, that would be a first step. I am intrigued to see what the Rycroft review publishes. Demos gave evidence to Rycroft, and we highlighted that foreign misinformation is obviously impacting our democracy, but so is domestic misinformation. We are waiting to see what he publishes before going further on that. On international counterparts, we have recommended that this Government establish a critical election incident protocol, modelling what happens in Canada. It is quite a complicated protocol, and it is proposed in new clause 26, but essentially, if there was any interference with an election—if there was an information crisis that impacted the integrity of the election—there would be a published protocol on what officials would do to react to that. We are a real outlier here in the UK, compared with the other Five Eyes nations, in not having a public protocol. We think this elections Bill is another really important opportunity to say, “We know there are vulnerabilities. We know there are risks. We need to <span id="86" class="column-number" data-column-number="86"></span>establish transparent public protocols so that, should any of these interferences happen, we have a set of measures that mean we know how to react in that instance.”

    Hansard source
16. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{5A7D251D-00A3-483E-8696-28A5362DFC00}"> </QNum></strong> You have answered many of the questions that I had. Thank you all for your work. Briefly, do you have a view on where the cap on political donations should be, or how it should be set? That is a question for each of you. And should we have a cap on annual spending, to get away from the gaming of the system around regulated periods that Dr Power referred to? Where should it be set, and how? <em><strong>Duncan Hames:</strong></em> We propose that a cap of £50,000 annually from any one donor is reached by 2030. That would still be much higher than in a number of other jurisdictions that have introduced donation caps, such <span id="93" class="column-number" data-column-number="93"></span>as Canada, France, Italy and—from July—Australia. If it were phased in, with a cap reducing year by year between now and then, that would provide time for political parties to adapt. We have done our own modelling, which I would be happy to share with the Committee, in which we look at the effect of that cap on overall party fundraising. I think you will find that, although we have recently had an arms race in campaign spending—not least because the spending limits were raised so dramatically just before the last general election—political parties fought all sorts of elections and referendums in the previous decade without needing anything near the kind of money that was available in the last general election, when nearly £100 million was spent. <em><strong>Dr Power:</strong></em> I agree that we absolutely need a cap on donations. I am less wedded to a level as much as to the idea that there needs to be a cap that people can get around the table and agree to, and which seems fair. To not have a cap on donations risks much more than to have one. It is absolutely essential. We have seen the effect that can have in countries that do not have caps on donations, particularly the USA, and the effect that the very rich can then have. What I mean by that is not an effect on the outcome of politics but an effect on the process of politics. You end up with about 400 individuals accounting for 75% of total party donations. Given that we are discussing the Representation of the People Bill, that is not a situation in which people are represented. It is essential that we find some way—in a Bill called “Representation of the People”—to fix the system properly such that the people feel represented. A cap on donations is essential and well within the remit of the Bill. On a cap on spending, I align with the 1998 CSPL review, as well as Jack Straw when he introduced the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. He said that there has been an “arms race” in spending and that we should always set a spending limit below the extent to which we expect to spend at an election. Until 2023, that limit was set at £19.5 million, if you stood a candidate in every constituency, which does not happen. If we say that the limit was £19.5 million, that should have been the baseline, and there was no good justification for it to be uprated in 2023—in fact, I think there is a good case for bringing the limit down further still. It would not have an effect on the good that money does in a system, which is to enrich debate and to allow political parties to get their positions across.

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

    Middle East

    In the Foreign Secretary’s statement—all six pages of it—there was not a single word of criticism of the illegal, reckless action of Trump and Netanyahu in launching the strikes that have set off this conflagration in the middle east. If the Foreign Secretary is not prepared even to criticise that, what hope can the British people have that the UK Government are standing up to the aggression of Trump and Netanyahu behind closed doors? Can she assure us that she and her Government are showing more backbone behind those closed doors? And can she assure us that she is investing in building a special relationship with allies we can really rely on, who believe in human rights, diplomacy and peace?

    Hansard source
18. 16 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Topical Questions

    In 2020, the now Prime Minister proposed legislation to ensure that any UK military action could take place only if there were a legal justification, a viable objective and the consent of the Commons. Does the Secretary of State endorse the principles outlined by his party leader, and will he therefore support my Armed Conflict (Requirements) Bill?

    Hansard source
19. 16 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Strait of Hormuz

    The Minister and the Prime Minister have talked about the UK being willing to participate in a “viable, collective plan” to reopen the strait of Hormuz, but does the Minister really think that President Trump has a viable plan, given that he had no plan for the illegal war, nor any legal justification for the war he has launched? Given that, will the UK be absolutely unequivocal that we will not give in to Trump’s bullying demands, but will instead stand up for British interests, and will we make it absolutely clear that we will not be dragged into a catastrophic, illegal war in the middle east?

    Hansard source
20. 12 Mar 2026·Parliament·Hannah Spencer

    International Women’s Day

    Four weeks ago today, I was in college, a plumber learning how to plaster, and today I am in Parliament as an MP. Being here is the honour of my life, but I do not want this to be unusual or exceptional. I truly believe that anyone doing a job like mine should get a seat on these Benches. Where I am from, we are taught to look after each other, to look out for each other, to stick up for each other and to stick together—to see each other as human. I am so proud of that humanity and that people in Gorton, Denton, Burnage, Levenshulme, Longsight and Abbey Hey feel that way too. It is in our blood and in our bones—we see each other as human. Where I am from, we give a nod to the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst. We remember the farm worker and seamstress Hannah Mitchell, the trade unionist Mary Quaile and the mill worker Annie Kenney—and, of course, Elsie Plant, who is from just down the road from me and who I named one of my beautiful greyhounds after. I think of these brilliant women a lot, and especially today as we debate International Women’s Day. I think of many others, too, from pits, slums and factories; the women who changed the system so that I could be here; the women of colour whose names we will never know because history did not bother to recognise or remember them. But we do today, because <span id="559" class="column-number" data-column-number="559"></span>without their struggle, their fight and their determination to stick together, none of this could be possible. It is bittersweet to recognise these brilliant people but to be reminded that we still need to try to be them. The constituency that elected me is the 15th most deprived in the country. It has suffered decades of neglect and broken promises. We see that every day right in front of us, in the litter and fly-tipping, the state of housing, the struggle for a job you can build a life on, the filthy and polluted air, and the reduced life chances—the sheer unfairness of it all. My constituency has been hit hard by the ongoing cost of living crisis. None of this is fair, none of it is right and none of it happens by accident. So I very much share my predecessor’s strong commitment to tackling health inequalities and putting local people and all our communities at the heart of decision making. That is how we begin to turn things around, to give people agency and a genuine chance of a better today and a better tomorrow. To the girls I saw photos of, going to school on International Women’s Day dressed as Hannah the Plumber, with their overalls and spanners, and the trademark hair. To the 10-year-old boy at HideOut who rock-climbed an incredibly high wall with me, saw me become suddenly very terrified of how far up I was, and said, “Don’t ever give up. And if it’s scary looking down then just look at what’s in front of you.” To the women in my life who have had my back and fought for equality alongside me. To the men I work with—especially the lads on my plastering course, who dealt with my new-found spotlight in the middle of our training very well. To those men who will suffer the effects of this unequal society through their mental health. To the veterans I know who were willing to risk everything, and came home and found that society was turning its back on them. To the white working classes, who are always lumped into one group and never appreciated. To everyone who will have nowhere to sleep tonight, or will barely exist in a cold, damp and insecure home. To my trans siblings who get blamed for everything. To the Muslims everywhere, who are constantly, and often violently, scapegoated. To the disabled people who cannot access the world because of structural inequality that is completely fixable. To the people of colour, who have to work harder at everything. I do not always get it, and I will not say that I always understand it, but what I do know is what it feels like to be looked down on, to be let down and left behind, to be less worthy because of something about me. Our struggles may be different, but our humanity is the same. We always stick together, we always fight for each other, and that is what I want us to take forward from International Women’s Day, and to do that every single day. The cleaners, bus drivers, nursery workers, foster carers, home carers, unpaid carers, teaching assistants, bin collectors, warehouse workers, delivery drivers, school dinner staff, lollipop wardens, supermarket workers, posties, library staff, kitchen porters, farm workers, mechanics, ground workers, scaffolders, electricians, plasterers and plumbers—we deserve to be here; every single one of us. And I will make space for you to come and join me, to get to have your say.<span id="560" class="column-number" data-column-number="560"></span> From the bustle of Longsight market, the many Irish pubs in Levy, Sue’s chippy, and Tony at California Wines in Gorton, to the amazing young people at HideOut, the best hash brown butty at Cafe Plus in Denton, and the women-led social enterprise at Dahlia Café on Burnage Lane—you are the best of our brilliant communities. I want to put Gorton and Denton on the map by championing the positives about our community: the spirit, the warmth, the grit, and the way we help each other out every single day. Whether it is our neighbours where we live, or our siblings in places like Afghanistan, Gaza, Sudan and Iran—wherever we are, we deserve to live freely as the human beings that we all are. We do things differently in Manchester, and it makes me proud every single day. Now I want to make Abbey Hey, Levenshulme, Burnage, Longsight, Gorton and Denton proud of me. Thank you so much for putting your faith in this plumber and newly qualified plasterer. Together, we can make hope normal again, and we will look after each other, whoever we are, because where I am from, that is just what we do.

    Hansard source
21. 10 Mar 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    It was a privilege to be here for the powerful and effective speech from the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). When literally thousands of venerable members of the legal profession are saying so clearly that jury trial restrictions will not be effective or practical and may be counterproductive, and that they threaten our rights, surely the Government must listen. The Green party’s reasoned amendment sets out clear reasons for the awful court backlog that is letting down so many victims—it talks about Conservative underfunding over many years—and sets out the missing resources that will help to properly solve it. It is rare for us to agree with some colleagues on anything, but the fact is that we are all right on this point. We need alternatives to the restrictions on jury trials in the Bill, including intensive listings, more sitting days, legal aid investment, better buildings and better services to deliver defendants to court. The Green amendment also raises the question of whether these measures are yet another part of the Government’s wider attack on civil liberties. They are building a toolkit for tyrants also out of digital ID, <span id="250" class="column-number" data-column-number="250"></span>facial recognition surveillance on our streets and the erosion of fundamental asylum rights—all things contrary to our British values and which should not be packaged up for this or any future Government to use against minorities, protesters and dissidents. This is all so dangerous. Can the Minister truly deny that the growing acceptance by juries of defences of proportionality or necessity in some protest cases was not a factor in the inclusion of the unnecessary and dangerous curtailment of jury trials in the Bill? The category of triable either-way cases where jury trials will be restricted includes several of the specific offences created or made more serious by successive Governments in the wake of successful non-violent protest action. By successful, I mean non-violent actions that have—yes—caused inconvenience but which did what non-violent direct action is for: directly aiming to prevent harm to people or the environment, or to create a stir that raises public awareness of serious injustice. Actions made into more serious offences have included interference with infrastructure, blocking roads or demonstrating in airports, specific tunnelling offences, conspiracy to lock on to each other during protests, or symbolically using statues in actions, as well as some kinds of noisy protests—for being annoying. Along with the wider principle here, I am so concerned, in connection with rights and liberties around dissent and resistance to state power, that juries could no longer be able to judge the public interest or proportionality of the actions of defendants of these kinds of charges. Such people have achieved so much progress throughout our history—that, nobody can deny. The Bill should not affect our citizens’ rights in this way. It should be about real investment in our courts to ensure that justice is not delayed for the victims, who we all care about.

    Hansard source
22. 10 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Topical Questions

    Given the recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report that says that the Treasury’s excessively narrow focus on fiscal rules leads to dysfunctional policy making, and given recent global events showing the uncertainty of fiscal forecasting, does the Chancellor recognise that it is time to move to a more flexible and strategic approach to fiscal rule-making and fiscal policymaking?

    Hansard source
23. 9 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Middle East: Economic Update

    The Iran crisis highlights the urgent need to speed up the UK’s energy system transition to clean, green, cheap renewables and energy efficiency. The last time that energy prices went through the roof due to illegal international aggression, in 2022, normal people paid the price while huge energy giants raked in billions of pounds in windfall profits. Will the Chancellor guarantee that in responding to this crisis, she will do everything possible to protect ordinary households and ensure that no energy company makes profits from this war?

    Hansard source
24. 9 Mar 2026·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Immigration Policy

    Aside from the cruelty of asking people who have fled war and persecution to re-justify their already-recognised refugee status every 30 months, how does the Minister plan to pay for this huge additional administrative burden? As we have heard, the Refugee Council has estimated that it will cost £725 million over 10 years, but he contests that estimate. Perhaps he can tell us how much he thinks it will cost, and why—when our NHS and schools are crying out for funding—he is spending taxpayers’ money on scapegoating migrants instead.

    Hansard source
25. 9 Mar 2026·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Social Cohesion Action Plan

    Muslim people across the country face intensifying, dehumanising and often violent racism every day. Now that we have a definition, I am desperate for the conversation to move towards action. How quickly will the Government now move from definitions towards a clear and funded road map for action, including proper monitoring and accountability?

    Hansard source
26. 5 Mar 2026·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Local Museums

    The hon. Member is making an important speech, and is particularly talking about small independently run museums. Does she agree that, since many local museums are owned and run by local authorities and face the risk of closure because of severe underfunding, the Government must ensure that local authorities have sufficient funding to keep those local museums open, especially given that all the research shows that they have a huge benefit in our local economies? In Bristol, for example, our arts and culture sector created nearly £900 million of economic and social value this year.

    Hansard source
27. 3 Mar 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Spring Forecast

    The result in Gorton and Denton shows that voters want bolder action from politicians against sky-high privatised bills and rents and want no families to be left struggling in poverty. Will the Chancellor listen and scrap her dysfunctional fiscal rules, starting with scrapping the overall family benefit cap, which still means that over 200,000 children are not getting the help they need to live if not a nice life, at least one without needless grinding hardship?

    Hansard source
28. 3 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    West Bank: Illegal Settlements

    The Minister says that he is concerned by the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements and the expansion of settler violence, and he says that he is considering concrete steps. He refers to previous actions, but it is now many months since the last concrete action by this Government. Actions speak louder than words. It is now way past time to end all settlement trade and impose new sanctions on those responsible for this violence.

    Hansard source
29. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Middle East

    My party and I stand with all the brave Iranians who condemn the vile regime in Iran. We also condemn the deeply irresponsible and illegal attack by the US and Israel on Iran, which was launched in the middle of nuclear negotiations and led by Trump—a clearly unstable loose cannon—and Netanyahu, a war criminal. The UK must stand unequivocally against this reckless action. <span id="599" class="column-number" data-column-number="599"></span>Will the Prime Minister publish the legal advice that he received on the initial American and Israeli strikes, not just the more recent advice on the defensive posture? Will he also commit to a vote in this House on any UK involvement in this war?

    Hansard source
30. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Point of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) incorrectly attacked the reputation of Mothin Ali, deputy leader of the Green party, by saying that he had protested in support of the ayatollah. He certainly did not. Mothin Ali attended a CND and Stop the War anti-war protest, in support of his principles of being anti-war, pro-democracy and pro-diplomacy. What advice can you give me about correcting the record regarding this serious false accusation?

    Hansard source
31. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill

    Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the resounding victory of my hon. Friend the new Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) in the by-election was a victory for hope over hate? And does he not recognise that he sounds like an extremely bad loser?

    Hansard source
32. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill

    Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that I like to start with the positives and the areas of common ground. I warmly welcome the fact that this Bill has come forward and a number of measures in it. It is very positive that the Government are taking forward votes at 16—something that the Green party has campaigned for since the year dot. It is really good that there is some commitment to improving transparency on political funding. I very much welcome what the Secretary of State was saying earlier about getting rid of the political control of the strategy and policy statement over the Electoral Commission. I also welcome the increase in the commission’s fining capacity. Those are all really positive measures, but there is much more to do. We need stronger action to stop disinformation, get dirty money out of politics and improve trust in our political system. Briefly, on votes at 16, let me say that 16 and 17-year-olds are engaged, active, interested and really passionate about the political system. It is right that they should be—they will have to live with the decisions that we make for longer than any of the rest of us—so I very much welcome the extension of the franchise. As young people themselves say, it is crucial that the investment is made in supporting political literacy, both in schools and more broadly, to ensure that young people—and all of us—have the political literacy to engage actively in the political process, which is an increasing challenge because of the grave threat of disinformation. We have heard from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) and a range of other Members about the problems, and there is a clear need to place duties on the large online platforms to ensure that AI-generated or manipulated content is flagged and controlled. While the Rycroft review is very welcome, it is not enough, and serious concerns remain about external influence on our politics. I repeat my call for a Mueller-style investigation into Russian and other influence on British politics. We need to know what attacks were made in 2016 and since so that we can have greater clarity and transparency over our politics. I warmly welcome the points made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) about the importance of a transparent register of political adverts. We need to know who is saying what to who so that there is transparency, because currently we do not know that, and really disruptive and disinformative things are happening. As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) said, we must have, at a minimum, a cap on donations and a full ban on crypto-donations. That is critical. It is really quite extraordinary that the Thailand-based crypto investor Christopher Harborne has been allowed to <span id="671" class="column-number" data-column-number="671"></span>donate £9 million to Reform UK—I notice that its Members are still not here. We also need annual spending limits, so that our politics is not distorted by money being spent around the edges of elections, for example. What else is missing? We need to scrap voter ID, which is a barrier to political engagement and has no justification, and we need increased investigative powers—more money and teeth for the Electoral Commission. It is a profound irony that the Representation of the People Bill does not tackle the fundamental problem with our representation. True representation of the people requires seats to match votes and every vote to count equally, so I call on the Government to take this opportunity to bring forward proportional representation. Ensuring that everyone’s vote counts equally is the principled thing to do, and it is the popular thing to do.

    Hansard source
33. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Representation of the People Bill

    I will not, because of the time. The British Social Attitudes survey shows that a majority of all political supporters are in favour of proportional representation, and of course, it is pragmatic and will improve our politics—

    Hansard source
34. 24 Feb 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

    I pay tribute to all the young women who have risked so much to stand up and push for justice in relation to the vile and corrupt web around the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and to the crimes and abuse that they suffered as children. Let me turn to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Transparency about the workings of an organisation is a key way to prevent corruption—sunlight is the best disinfectant—although I appreciate that a police investigation is ongoing and must not be jeopardised. Green MPs support the Liberal Democrat motion. We note that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) apologised and gave his reasons for saying—when he was in office in 2011—that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was doing an excellent job. That was during the debate held in this House by the late Paul Flynn, the formidable former MP for Newport West, to whom other Members have referred. The royal family is sheltered from scrutiny in too many ways, and it is now very clear what a risk that poses. We have heard many examples of MPs facing restrictions on what we can ask about royal activity, but it is reasonable and right that we should scrutinise fully <span id="212" class="column-number" data-column-number="212"></span>any work that they do on the country’s behalf, and consider how those restrictions might be removed. As I understand it, section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 exempts communications between relevant authorities and members of the broader royal family—not just the King—from being released under freedom of information requests. It really is one rule for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us, a situation which the Minister condemned earlier. I believe that that serious transparency loophole for royals must be closed. It could mean, for example, that if trade envoy positions are filled by members of the royal family, it would—predictably—be significantly harder for the press, public and MPs to ensure that things are above board, and to get details when things go badly wrong. One example of the effect on transparency is demonstrated in <em>The Guardian</em> today. In a profile piece, the author Andrew Lownie, who wrote the biography “Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York”, talks about stacks of his freedom of information requests being rejected by different Departments. That is why the Humble Address is so important: it would uncover whether those restrictions in the FOI Act were part of the equation in making the appointment. My early-day motion 2769, which has the support of MPs from six political parties, calls on the King to release all communications between members of the royal family and the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. Obviously, that is just the start of what is needed, which is why I am very grateful for this motion. If the reports that the royal family were aware of concerns about Andrew’s financial dealings ahead of his appointment are correct, there are serious questions about whether and how that knowledge matches the King’s statement following Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest, in which he suggested he had only recently learned about his brother’s misconduct. It is reasonable to raise those questions and find out what advice was given from the palace—including from the King—for or against the appointment. The royal family’s reactive co-operation with any investigation cannot be enough, because it suggests that they are waiting to be asked by the police, rather than proactively checking their records and visitor logs, speaking with palace and Royal Lodge staff to encourage them to share information with the authorities, and ensuring that there is an effective whistleblowing policy within the palace. We also need to be able to scrutinise the exact provenance of the £12 million payout from Andrew to the brave, late Virginia Giuffre. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should never have been a trade envoy for this country, but that is not the only matter that requires urgent transparency. His relationship with the child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein has turned the nation’s stomach. We also need to know who in the royal household knew what and when, as well as what he did when he was trade envoy. As part of that, I hope that the Minister will make it clear today that royal freedom of information exemptions—which have for too long allowed royal power to act in the shadows, and to conceal important truths from MPs and the public—also need to go.

    Hansard source
35. 24 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Online Harm: Child Protection

    I had understood that the hon. Member’s party was keen on public consultation, and there is clearly a lot of public concern about the very real problem of online harms and the need to protect children. I am therefore puzzled by the fact that she is seeking to control the parliamentary agenda in just a couple of weeks’ time with rushed-through legislation and without any substantive proposals or consultation. If she is concerned about the scope of the consultation the Government have announced, why not try to amend that scope? Why not emphasise the importance of parents in particular having their voices heard rather than rushing through legislation that will probably be quite flawed if there is not sufficient time to ensure that everybody’s voices are heard in this conversation? It feels like politicking, to be honest, rather than a substantive engagement with the details of the issue.

    Hansard source
36. 24 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Online Harm: Child Protection

    I have received contact from hundreds of parents in my constituency and from some young people sharing their huge concern about online harm caused by engagement with social media, so I fully understand the sense of urgency in the Chamber and the desire for quick action. The Government said in January that they would consult. They reiterated that they would consult, and they reiterated that commitment 10 days ago. I understand that the consultation is due to start in March, and the Minister has talked about bringing measures through before the summer. Can he commit to acting with real urgency and bring that consultation forward? What is the delay? Will he commit to bringing legislation—

    Hansard source
37. 24 Feb 2026·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities

    I was waiting for the appropriate point to pre-empt the fact that the hon. Lady is clearly talking about banking hubs in rural areas. In my constituency of Waveney Valley, the market town of Bungay has been told that it cannot have a banking hub because there is already one seven miles away in Harleston, but of course in rural areas, proximity does not necessarily mean accessibility when it comes to travel times or public transport access. Does the hon. Lady agree that, in determining the criteria for banking hubs, real accessibility in rural areas needs to be accounted for, and there needs to be flexibility in the system to achieve that?

    Hansard source
38. 24 Feb 2026·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Access to NHS Dental Services

    The <em>Daily Mirror</em> reports that of the nearly 1 million urgent dental appointments that have been commissioned by integrated care boards since April, 900,000 have not been taken up because of strict rules around the scope of treatment. Meanwhile, in my constituency and around the country, too many people are going without the treatment that they need. Will the Minister update us on when the Government expect to meet their targets on urgent appointments?

    Hansard source
39. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    The Government should have brought this Bill forward as soon as they were elected 19 months ago, but they failed to do so. They could have listened to the families and children—with more than 200,000 children affected—enduring the overall benefit cap before making their final plans, but they failed to do so. Ministers still could have listened to the many hon. Members, including myself, who said on Second Reading that the policy was too narrow. They could have widened the scope of the Bill, but they failed to do so. The Bill is not wrong, but it fails to do right by far too many children. I speak in support of new clause 1, which has wide cross-party support. It would mandate a full assessment within six months of the families left in poverty by the failure of the Government to tackle the overall benefit cap, showing its impact on each of our constituencies and the families we represent. We need to know who is left out from the help provided in this Bill, including those who are left in poverty. We also need to know the wider impacts as the change takes hold. That includes the removal of exemptions, because this Government are seeking at the same time to remove people from the few qualifying benefits that exempt people from the cap, including disability benefits. This wider attack on benefit claimants threatens to make the gap in the Bill even worse.

    Hansard source
40. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman sincerely for that intervention. When I raised this matter on Second Reading, Ministers gave answers that echoed, rather horribly, the prejudicial, stereotypical arguments that we heard moments ago from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), implying that leaving the cap in place would incentivise people to work, when we know that it really only drives people into poverty. We also have excellent proposals in new clauses 3 and 4, which have the same goal. I appreciate fully the request for consultation and the provision of cost estimates in new clause 4. New clause 3 is very helpful in looking at the impact of the Bill on families with disabled people and on mental health, which are all important considerations. The debate on Second Reading and today, and the amendments, reflect a near consensus across many parties —excluding the Conservative party—that the Government are not going as far as they should. The fact is that the overall benefit cap is just as cruel and just as driven by prejudice and stereotype as the two-child limit, and the Conservatives should never have introduced it. Those affected include nearly 1,000 families in my constituency—a high proportion due to our excessive housing costs.<span id="131" class="column-number" data-column-number="131"></span> That is the point: whatever extreme examples those on the right wing of politics wave around, these families do not get to keep and enjoy the funding they get from social security; instead, it goes straight out again on the absolute basics. Sky-high rents are responsible for most of the higher living costs putting people on benefits, with the money they receive, often on top of hard-won low wages, going straight out and into the pockets of landlords. This cap punishes the wrong people. Today I want a clear commitment from the Minister to set out how the Government will collect data, analyse it, and report back to this House very swiftly on the families that they are not helping with this Bill. Then I want a clear commitment for the Government to fill this huge gap in their child poverty strategy, which is something that many charities agree with. Some might call this a U-turn, but through another lens it can be seen as a very welcome last-minute equaliser. Real help and more support, not spin and delay, is what these children’s lives deserve.

    Hansard source