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

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Climate Change

    Will the hon. Lady give way?

    Hansard source
27. 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
28. 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
29. 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
30. 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
31. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Fuel Duty

    I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

    Hansard source
32. 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
33. 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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
34. 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
35. 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
36. 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
37. 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
38. 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
39. 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
40. 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