142 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I welcome the Government’s commitment on violence against women and girls. Tragically, evidence shows that migrant women face hugely significant violence. Does the strategy, which will be out on Thursday, ensure that all survivors can access refuges and essential services regardless of their immigration status, including those with no recourse to public funds?
I am sure I am not the only Member who feels that we are a bit through the looking glass, with the Minister today and the Minister who answered the urgent question last month insisting that no UK arms have been found in Sudan, while Amnesty International reports that small-arms targeting systems and engines for armoured vehicles from the UK have been found in Sudan. I think we can be confident that they are not being used for peaceful purposes, so will the Minister reconsider a ban on arms exports to the UAE, or at the very least set out how the Government—specifically how—are conducting due diligence when licensing arms transfers to the UAE?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for presenting the case for Fairtrade, and for fairer trade practices overall, so compellingly. I also pay tribute to everybody who has been part of the Fairtrade campaign for many decades. I have been involved in it for at least 30 years, and it is a fantastic example of a widely supported public campaign that has, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, found its way into our schools and communities, and also into our supermarkets, making it easy for people to choose Fairtrade products. That is fantastic and to be celebrated. This is not just about individual shopping choices, important though they are; it is also about ensuring a level playing field for all producers, so that good environmental, human rights and workers’ rights practices are not an optional add-on but fundamental to the way we do business. That is why I warmly welcome the <span id="211WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="211WH"></span>Brew it Fair campaign and the petition handed in at Downing Street yesterday. I was involved in the delivery of a similar petition a few months ago with the Corporate Justice Coalition. Again, that had well over 100,000 signatures from citizens across the country calling for mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation. We have to ensure that the positive practice encapsulated by Fairtrade is not just an optional extra, but how business is done. More than 80 MPs have signed an early-day motion in support of the Fairtrade tea campaign and mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation. The reasons for supporting such legislation are clear. Introducing that horizontal legislation that obliges all UK businesses to take steps to prevent human rights and environmental risks in their supply chains, all the way down to smallholder farmers and workers, is the single most cost-effective measure we could take to support sustainability in the food system and to improve the UK’s international reputation for action to create a climate- compatible, sustainable, rights-supporting economy. We have some legislation on supply chain transparency, but it is insufficient and riddled with loopholes. Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires companies to report on their operations, but not to take reasonable steps to address and prevent the problem—and prevention must be central to this. Schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021 applies only to commodities identified as key drivers of the UK’s deforestation footprint, such as cattle products excluding dairy and cocoa, palm oil and soy. That is important, but it is narrow in scope. Human rights and environmental due diligence should not be addressed in silos, where businesses often face the challenge of potentially trading off one sort of risk against another. If we had mandatory requirements on human rights and environmental due diligence, that would provide the consistency and level playing field that businesses need. Businesses that already source their food responsibly—whether voluntarily or because they are covered by the direct scope of the European corporate sustainability due diligence directive—would not be put at a competitive disadvantage by mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation in the UK. If the legislation were designed correctly, it would reduce the risk of abuses or poor practices in supply chains, put farmers and workers on track to earn a decent livelihood to keep their families’ heads above water, and help end issues such as gendered, racial and pay discrimination, forced labour, child labour, undignified and unsafe working conditions, the denial of workers’ rights to freely associate, and lack of care and consideration for water sources and biodiversity. All those problems could be better prevented if we made such a change in the law. I warmly welcome the Department for Business and Trade’s responsible business conduct review. It is a critical opportunity to introduce comprehensive, inclusive and enforceable legislation on human rights, labour rights and environmental protection in supply chains, and it is crucial that we take it forward. Finally, I want to echo a point that a couple of other Members have made. We need to ensure that trade is fair. We need to ensure that these fundamental rights are built into the normal way of doing business. The UK’s foreign aid budget is a crucial element in supporting <span id="212WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="212WH"></span>this work. It is vital that we restore it, so that we play our part in supporting and enforcing human rights globally. Will the Minister tell us whether the responsible business conduct review will include mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation, and will he respond to my point on the aid budget?
Before I start, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me assure you, in relation to the comments made by the previous occupant of the Chair, that I will be mentioning a Member of this House and I have given him advance notice that I will be doing so. Our democracy is under threat. We cannot and must not fail to defend it against the bad-faith actors who seek to attack it. Today I will concentrate the bulk of my remarks on Kremlin-linked Russian interference, starting with the long-time right-hand man of the habitually absent Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), Nathan Gill, who was at the very top of Reform UK in Wales. Mr Gill is now sitting in jail serving a sentence of 10 and a half years for taking Russian bribes from Putin’s operatives to parrot Kremlin propaganda about the war on Ukraine. The leader of Reform UK, the Member for Clacton, is desperately suggesting that Mr Gill was a bad apple, as he and his organisation scramble and evade following Gill’s bribery conviction, but that simply does not wash. Gill was not the only pro-Brexit politician in Europe spreading Kremlin talking points about Ukraine. Indeed, the Member for Clacton himself echoed Moscow’s narratives on the war in Ukraine, accusing the west of “provoking” the war. It is also worth remembering his frequent appearances on Putin’s propaganda TV channel, Russia Today, between 2010 and 2014, on which he made no criticisms of the lack of democracy in Russia or its position on Ukraine.
That is not the Green party’s position. The Green party’s position, which I clarified in a point of order in this Chamber just last week, supports our membership of NATO at this time of extreme threat on Europe’s borders. It has long been known that the Kremlin seeks to interfere and undermine democratic politics in other countries, with online bots and cyber-disinformation. The need is urgent. In June 2025 the Government published a strategic defence review, which stated: “The UK is already under daily attack, with aggressive acts—from espionage to cyber-attack and information manipulation—causing harm to society and the economy.” Russia was called “an immediate and pressing threat”,<span id="581" class="column-number" data-column-number="581"></span> including in key areas such as cyber-space and information operations. These concerns are not new. Credible evidence of Russian interference in UK elections was flagged in the Intelligence and Security Committee’s 2020 Russia report. In 2022, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office put out a press release that revealed that a Russian spy agency had targeted UK national infrastructure in a “calculated and dangerous” hacking campaign, and that Putin was sowing “division and confusion among allies.” The Foreign Secretary at the time was Liz Truss, who said that she would not tolerate it, yet she, and the moribund Conservative Government of which she was a part, did not open an investigation into the ISC’s Russia report on Kremlin-linked influence in the UK. Obviously, Liz Truss should never have been anywhere near the levers of high office, but why have this Government not acted as the US did? The 2017-19 Robert Mueller special counsel investigation was a criminal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. We need something similar here. The US report concluded that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election did occur in “sweeping and systematic fashion”, and that it “violated U.S. criminal law”. In 2016 we had the Brexit vote, which has so harmed and divided our country, and it is well known that the Kremlin wants a weakened, fractured EU, so where is our version of Mueller? The upcoming elections Bill will be critical in addressing the dodgy influence of foreign money in UK politics, not least via cryptocurrency, on which I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell). Reform UK is the first British political party to accept donations in crypto, despite UK National Crime Agency investigators recently saying that cryptocurrency has turbocharged money laundering. The NCA also points out that the cryptocurrency backed by the Reform donor is used for the Russian war effort. Reform UK’s record £9 million crypto donation is just the latest offering from abroad. Last Sunday, <em>The Observer</em> reported that two thirds of the funds given to that organisation in this Parliament have come from donors with overseas interests. That demonstrates why it is so urgent that the forthcoming elections Bill is robust in stopping dirty money. We have not yet seen the Bill, but as well as urgent controls to prevent big overseas donations, the Bill must, among other things, streamline national versus local spending limits with a per-seat cap on total spending, have a limit on major donations, give the Electoral Commission the power to prosecute and reinstate its independence. It is also crucial that we have rules requiring the submission of all online and offline advertisements to the Electoral Commission as soon as they are published, with data on who has sponsored the ad readily available to the public. As things stand, we get only partial transparency after an election has happened. That is too late. Today’s debate is crucial. As we have heard, it has many strands: the impact of foreign interference on security, trade and our democracy. I reiterate the critical point that defending our democracy must mean the UK Government finally investigating Russian interference in our elections. Not to do so is effectively to send a message of permission, and that is intolerable. The <span id="582" class="column-number" data-column-number="582"></span>stakes could not be higher. I urge the Minister to tell us when we will get the long-overdue Mueller-style inquiry into Kremlin-linked interference in our democracy.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) for securing the debate. I declare an interest as an officer of the all-party parliamentary human rights group. I will start by highlighting the work of environmental human rights defenders and indigenous rights defenders, who are in need of our continued support. Their vital work protecting the land, health and livelihoods of their communities can be extremely dangerous. The 2025 Global Witness report documented the killing of 146 such defenders, the majority in Latin America, including 48 in Colombia, which has had the most killings globally for the past three years in a row, followed by Guatemala, where 20 defenders were killed last year. That is shocking. Two thirds of the cases are linked to land or land reform, and indigenous people are disproportionately targeted. To mention two emblematic cases, Berta Cáceres from Honduras, a celebrated indigenous Lenca leader and Goldman environmental prize winner, was murdered in 2016 for her resistance to the Agua Zarca hydroelectric dam. Her case became a major international warning about the risks faced by activists. Fikile Ntshangase, a South African activist, was shot dead in her home in 2020 for her leading role in a campaign against a coalmine. These women were incredibly brave—absolute icons and leading lights of international human rights work. There are so many other unsung heroes doing the same. Claudia Ignacio Álvarez, from Mexico, whom the all-party group recently hosted, has faced threats and forced displacement for her work defending rural and indigenous communities. In Indonesia, Dewi Anakoda, <span id="190WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="190WH"></span>an indigenous Tobelo woman, has received death threats and been violently attacked for helping journalists to expose the destruction of the neighbouring uncontacted Hongana Manyawa people’s territory resulting from the mining of nickel for electric vehicles. It is vital that the renewable energy transition does not come at the expense of communities whose rights and environments are often very negatively affected by the mining of critical minerals. Co-ordinated global action is necessary to avoid replicating the terrible errors of the fossil fuel age in critical mineral mining. In that connection, I note concerns expressed by some non-governmental organisations about the UK’s recently published critical minerals strategy. The Government still have a window of opportunity, through the Department for Business and Trade’s review of responsible business conduct, to ensure that we stop environmental devastation and human rights abuse in critical mineral supply chains. I hope that that will recommend the adoption of mandatory supply chain due diligence to protect human rights and the environment, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that. There are many other human rights issues to mention. It is vital that we all work together to resist the push-back against women’s rights globally, as well as the horrific ongoing human rights abuses in Gaza and Sudan. It is so important that the UK Government step up to the plate and do their duty. I finish by asking the Minister the question that I did not manage to ask the PM today. Given that it is Human Rights Day, and given that the UN has made absolutely clear that the global cuts in foreign aid are having a severely detrimental effect on the protection of human rights around the world, will the Government restore the UK’s global aid budget to defend human rights?
The Green party welcomes the Bill. It is right in principle to end the failed, long experiment in surrendering public services to the private market. We are pleased to see an extended role for the passenger watchdog set out in the Bill, and clear requirements for business plans and strategies to be published and consulted upon. I want the measures in the Bill to include deep scrutiny of those plans and strategies. Passengers, rail workers and locally elected representatives must use their voices to have more control over what Great British Railways offers, both in advance and during the development of these plans and strategies. I am pleased that the duties laid out for Great British Railways include consideration for “potential passengers”. That will help to better include many people when they use the railways, such as disabled people, people with buggies, older people, people for whom toilet access is more than crucial and others for whom accessibility barriers are still too high on our railways. This and the public interest duty should help to create social benefits for people for whom the cost of rail travel is prohibitive, including young people, who need more connectivity and access to jobs and training. However, the Bill still lacks on its face a specific duty to grow passenger numbers. We have an integrated transport strategy on the way, but the Bill contains a mode shift target for freight without including one for passengers. The Bill needs to say more about the need to plan for new capacity and services on the basis of creating maximum potential to reduce car dependency, to shift people away from the most polluting and socially unequal modes of transport, not just to respond to current demand or congestion on the railways. Public ownership is popular with the vast majority of people. Before the last election, it was even backed by 60% of those who intended to vote Conservative. It is a strong desire for people in Brighton Pavilion, for whom the legacy of privatisation is too often one of expensive and unreliable services, with big gaps in accessibility. I believe strongly that local voices, such as those in Brighton, must be more in control of our public services. We need more clarity on how mayoral, local and combined authorities will be able to control investment plans and services. During the passage of the previous rail Bill, I argued that there should be public ownership of rolling stock companies. I understand that decisions are being made for future rolling stock not to be purchased through the evil twin of the private finance initiative. However, the fact remains that the current rolling stock is a scandal. Rolling stock leasing companies—ROSCOs—paid £275 million in dividends to shareholders in 2024-25, and those payments are up by 59% in five years. That is outrageous profiteering and a drain on public finances, <span id="256" class="column-number" data-column-number="256"></span>so I urge the Government to cut that waste, find ways to bring our rolling stock into public hands and look at a windfall tax on the current ROSCOs to address this injustice.
To the credit of those on the Conservative Front Bench, one line in the reasoned amendment mentions the need for a duty to grow passenger numbers. A number of hon. Members across the House have mentioned that today. Will the Minister come back to the House on the question of a duty to raise passenger numbers?
Thank you for your excellent chairing, Sir Edward. I hope the Government have been given serious pause by the 2.9 million signatures on this petition, over 5,000 of which were from constituents in Brighton Pavilion. So many people are right to be so concerned, because such a scheme carries extreme risks to our privacy.<span id="24WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="24WH"></span> If this scheme is introduced, it seems impossible that we can be protected from any future Government who are determined to utterly disregard a lot more of our basic human rights. This iteration of digital ID could, through a unique identification number, link our most sensitive biometric information to our names, ages, nationalities, addresses, medical information and housing and criminal histories, enabling a detailed profile worthy of the Chinese Government to be put together, which utterly undermines not only our right to privacy, but many other things. We ought to be protected from the state having access to and control over all that information. I hope that the Minister understands that private citizens are already starting to gain perspective on how unsafe our data is in the hands of private companies. The reaction to digital ID shows that we are now very concerned about the difference when a state has access to all that information and what a future state might do. We have already seen issues of data sharing between police forces and immigration enforcement. Migrants have been scared to come forward and report basic crimes around their right to safety because of that kind of overreach. The eVisa scheme has caused awful failures—people stranded at airports; people losing job opportunities because of the failures of the basic IT—but this is far more serious than that. Right hon. and hon. Members owe it to our constituents to protect them from not just this Government, but what all future Governments might do. Combined with the recent clampdown on protest rights, the proposed removal of trial by jury and the capacity of the state to track and identify us through facial recognition, this adds up to a toolkit for authoritarians that we must not give away. It must be stopped. It is a house of dynamite.
People might have heard the Government claiming that other countries have had digital ID for many years and then heard about the security flaws in the Estonian system or the hackers in Estonia, India, Norway and Poland who have created enormous data breaches. I have dwelled a lot on state power, but let us not forget that creating such a database is an enormous risk. All the eggs are in one basket when it comes to criminally inclined people who would take our data and hurt us that way. I was wrapping up when I was intervened on, and I will try not to use too much more time. The risk management calculations here are so clear. The consequences of things going wrong—whether it is state intrusion, criminals taking away the data, errors or data theft, so that people lose their identities to somebody else—become much higher when something like this, where everything is linked together, is created. I said that it was a house of dynamite and a toolkit for authoritarians. It is hugely expensive, and I hope the Minister will clarify the final cost. According to the OBR, £1.8 billion is only the beginning of the cost.
I cannot. This is the expensive leopards-eating-faces party of policies. It must be stopped. It is too risky to go ahead with. The Government need to answer so many questions to make anybody happy with it.
This week, it is the 14th birthday of Khaled, the son of the British-Egyptian former political prisoner Alaa Abd el-Fattah. Khaled will not see his father in person as Alaa was prevented from travelling to the UK by the Egyptian authorities in November. While I am sure the Leader of the House will wish Khaled a happy birthday, will he also assure me that the Government will help ensure that his father can travel here as soon as possible?
Yesterday I co-ordinated 36 MPs and Members of the other place in calling on the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to include in the forthcoming animal welfare strategy a timebound plan to end the use of farrowing crates and cages in farming. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the strategy will be brought out, as the Government committed to do, by the end of the year? Will there be a statement to this House, before rather than after the House rises for Christmas, that the strategy will include an end to the cruel use of farrowing crates and cages?
The hon. Lady is making an important case for upgrading Ely junction. Would she agree that alongside that, as per Network Rail’s business case, we need to upgrade the Haughley junction in my constituency, so that we can realise the many benefits of moving freight on to the rails from the port of Felixstowe and through the east to the midlands?
I appreciate the focus on victims, but has the Secretary of State considered the risks of removing juries when charges involve state or corporate victims if we are to preserve dissent, whistleblowing and protest? Given that big concerns have been raised about representation among judges, is he concerned about the potential for damaging attacks on, and politicisation of, individual judges and their decisions?
What action will the UK Government take as a consequence of Israel’s flagrant violation of international law in establishing and expanding settlements? The lack of action creates a culture of impunity in which Israel feels able to green light the expansion of the E1 settlement, creating division between the west bank and east Jerusalem and putting a nail in the coffin of the two-state solution. Will the Foreign Secretary ban trade with illegal settlements to show that violating international law has consequences?
This Budget was billed as a plan for renewal. In Waveney Valley, renewal is measured by what people actually feel: lower bills, better services, affordable local food and the protection of our irreplaceable natural environment, yet Kevin, a trustee of the Waveney food bank, told me a few days ago that demand continues to grow, reflecting hardship nationwide. Trussell reports that around 14 million people, including 3.8 million children, faced food insecurity last year. Scrapping the two-child limit in universal credit is very welcome indeed, and something I have long called for, but it alone cannot tackle structural poverty. The Budget raises £26 billion, but most is held back to expand fiscal headroom rather than easing household pressures. Threshold freezes hit low and middle-income families, creating a disproportionate burden on ordinary households, while the wealthiest are still not paying their fair share. Opportunities to tax extreme wealth have been missed, and this decision punishes the many to protect the privileges of the few while families and public services continue to struggle. Schools are facing severe financial pressure. Headteachers in my constituency report cutbacks to subject options and support services, and recruitment and retention remain challenging. Special educational needs are under particular strain. Demand for special educational needs and disabilities services has doubled, with deficits rising from £6.6 billion to £13.4 billion in three years and councils warning of insolvency. Thousands of children face long waits for assessments, and schools must meet needs without sufficient staff, training or funding. Urgent action is needed to stabilise SEND and schools funding in order to improve access and support. The Budget was also a missed opportunity for farmers already struggling with rising costs and succession pressures. Agricultural property relief remains capped at £1 million per person, hitting ordinary family farms rather than the people I know the Government are trying to target: those buying up farmland to avoid tax. Along with experts such as Dan Neidle, I have argued that the APR threshold should rise to around £10 million to clamp down on tax avoidance without penalising family farms that make little money day to day. Core farm costs have also been frozen. The environmental land management schemes remain underfunded, complex and difficult for smaller farms to access, preventing <span id="868" class="column-number" data-column-number="868"></span>investment in nature restoration, climate-resilient practices and improved animal welfare. The sustainable farming incentive remains closed to new applicants, stalling access to properly funded schemes that are essential for environmental protection and a secure food supply. The Budget promises 250 new neighbourhood health centres, which I very much welcome—they could restore rural services, and I look forward to seeing them in market towns across Waveney Valley—but there is no clarity on what it will mean for dentistry, which is already at a crisis point. Financing the health centres through public-private partnerships raises concerns and questions about long-term costs given the failures of PFI. Public investment must serve patients, not private profit. This Budget makes promises with some welcome elements, but does not deliver the scale of renewal that our country needs. Public services are stretched, farmers are struggling, schools and councils face unsustainable pressures, and families across Waveney Valley continue to battle hardship. Kevin at the Waveney food bank hopes that one day he will be able to close the food bank for good, but on the basis of this Budget, there is a long way to go.
In Herefordshire, families of children with special educational needs, and indeed Herefordshire council, have been waiting more than 18 months for an update on two crucial schools: a new free school, with specialist provision for children with autism spectrum disorder, and the rebuild of Westfield special school. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can make progress on ensuring that those vital school places are provided locally?
We have had plenty of disagreement today, but I think it is clear that there is consensus that truth and accountability matter. I draw the attention of the House to the campaign by Compassion in Politics for a targeted legal measure that would make it an offence for any politician or candidate to mislead the public deliberately on a matter of verifiable fact. This is being taken forward in Wales, and it has long-standing cross-party support in this House. Will the Government support those of us who are campaigning for a political truthfulness Bill to rebuild trust in politics?
With sky-high bills, unaffordable, cold and mouldy homes, and one in three children growing up in poverty, our country is in crisis. Life has become unaffordable for millions of people, and years of devastating cuts to our public services, from hospitals and schools to social care, mean that those who most need support are too often unable to access it. Every day I hear from my constituents in North Herefordshire, who are living through this crisis and crying out for change. Instead of delivering change, this Government have repeatedly claimed that there is not enough money to go around. That simply is not true. Last year, billionaires saw their collective wealth increase by £35 million a day. Britain’s 50 richest families now hold more wealth than half the population combined. A wealth tax of 1% on assets over £10 million and 2% on assets over £1 billion could raise nearly £15 billion. If we also aligned rates of capital gains tax with income tax and introduced national insurance on investment income, so that wealth is taxed at the same rate as work, we could raise over £30 billion a year. This Budget needed to mark a turning point and an end to the politics of the past 18 months—a politics that has, sadly, scapegoated refugees and migrants while failing to tackle the inequality and the real issues that drive people into hardship. Of course, I welcome the long overdue scrapping of the cruel and counterproductive two-child benefit cap. That should have been done on day one after the general election. Instead of delivering a transformational Budget that confronts the cost of living crisis and taxes extreme wealth fairly, this Labour Government have, sadly, chosen to paper over the cracks —to tinker, not transform. For example, take the Chancellor’s decision to remove policy costs from energy bills. Nearly 3 million households in England were fuel poor in 2024—that figure could be more, depending on how it is calculated. This is a huge problem, especially in the west midlands and especially in my North Herefordshire constituency, where fuel poverty is particularly high because of the nature of our housing and low wages. It is therefore essential that we do everything in our power to cut bills. But the decision to lower bills by cutting vital funding for home insulation <span id="759" class="column-number" data-column-number="759"></span>by a quarter is not a real solution; it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Home insulation is one of the most effective ways to bring down bills: upgrading the average UK home to a decent standard saves households £210 a year. Analysis from the New Economics Foundation shows that, because of the Government’s decisions regarding the energy company obligation and the warm homes plan, the poorest households living in the coldest homes have now lost two thirds of the support they were due to receive for energy efficiency upgrades. When the UK has some of the worst-insulated homes in western Europe, we should be scaling home insulation up, not down, and using progressive taxation to pay for it. I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is back in his place to hear me make these arguments.
I will not, because many Members want to get in. Frankly, given that a typical energy bill in October 2025 was £478 a year higher than four years before, it is indefensible that this Budget does nothing to address the structural factors that keep costs high. In 2024, almost a quarter of the average energy bill went straight to the pre-tax profits of the major electricity generators, networks and household suppliers. If we are serious about tackling the cost of living crisis, we must stop private companies profiteering while ordinary people cannot afford life’s basics. Those basics should not be a luxury. We can have lower bills and more investment in affordable, warm homes, all while protecting our planet at the same time. In ordinary times, a Budget that tinkers at the edges might be acceptable, but after the financial crash, a decade of Conservative and Lib Dem austerity, the pandemic and the fuel price crisis, the country is at breaking point. This Budget needed to go further and be bolder. That is what a Green Budget would do.
<Question HRSContentId="{AEEFD234-6FDE-4348-999C-E100DED8DDBF}">10. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{BB8B51EE-AAB8-4EDF-B303-7CD9484223D9}">To ask the hon. Member for Battersea, representing the Church Commissioners, what steps the Church of England is taking to install solar power for churches.</QuestionText> </Question>
Brighton and Hove has excellent energy co-ops and many church roofs, so what is the Church doing to bring together clergy, congregations and co-ops to make more solar projects viable? Can the commissioners reduce planning risks for listed churches by adding more weight, perhaps through guidance or strategies, to their visible leadership role in communities?
With the Government’s attitude to migrants now expanding the political space for the racist far right, is the Minister not concerned that building a toolkit for authoritarians out of digital ID, police facial recognition, and now cutting jury trials for all charges that might be associated with dissent, is incredibly dangerous and something that we would not expect of a Labour Government, which should be protecting our rights instead?
I want to talk first about public engagement. Fellow members of the Bill Committee know that I am not convinced that the Bill delivers the public involvement and community empowerment stated in its title, as that is not properly facilitated by the proposed measures set out in the Bill. In Committee, I gave the Government many options to consider, including citizens assemblies, community wealth building strategies and a national public engagement commission. France has had its “Commission nationale du débat public” for 30 years, which makes real its citizens’ rights to be involved in decisions that affect their environment. It links together the environment and human rights, as set out in the excellent Aarhus convention. At this stage, I am happy to support the new option put forward by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) in relation to community empowerment. It asks the Government to undertake a review and come up with a better plan of the Government’s own choosing, which is quite reasonable and I support it. I do not have time to go through the many other amendments that I support, but I feel like consensus around many issues is breaking out in the Chamber, as it sometimes did in Committee. However, I want to single out new clause 10, in the name of the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), which proposes a community ownership fund, and new clause 19, which asks for the alternative vote system to be used for mayoral elections, not the supplementary vote. In single member elections, the alternative vote gives real choice: people simply choose their candidate and rank them, so there is no second guessing about who might be in the second round. It means a guaranteed consensus-driven majority for the winning candidate, so the Government should consider that. More broadly, as some Members have noted, I have talked many times about being a member of the London Assembly and holding the Mayor of London to account <span id="312" class="column-number" data-column-number="312"></span>with a dedicated, funded scrutiny body. The Government should pay much more attention to scrutiny in this Bill at the next stage.
I thank my former colleague for his “Hear, hear!” Let me talk about governance systems and the committee system. My No. 1 goal in all this has been to try to keep the committee systems, as the Conservatives’ amendment 4 would do. My amendments 94 to 102 mirror amendments that I tabled in Committee and seek to protect existing committee systems, particularly those chosen by people in a petition and referendum process, as happened in Sheffield. That was driven by people power.
The Minister failed to tell us how the tourist tax would be brought forward in legislation. With the announcement coming yesterday, and after all the opportunities they had in Committee and in debates on the Floor of the House, does the hon. Gentleman think that this was merely a case of failing to get the Chancellor’s attention?
I am deeply concerned that it appears that American negotiators have been listening more to the unreasonable demands of the Russian aggressors than to the security needs of the Ukrainians. Will the Prime Minister assure me that in his conversations with President Trump he has made absolutely clear that the voices of Ukrainians have to be front and centre in securing any just and lasting peace?
We are at a pivotal moment in the climate crisis. COP30 showed us the fossil fuel industry and its political cheerleaders doing their very best to de-rail action. I thank the Secretary of State for his work. I have two questions on points he raised in his statement. First, he said that ambition must be matched with finance, yet the UK has not contributed to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility or the just transition mechanism. Is it not time for the UK to put its money where its mouth is on this? Secondly, on the point of transitioning away from fossil fuels, the UK faces a defining test: Rosebank. Will he reject the Rosebank oilfield and fully back the just transition that our country needs?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister said something that was inaccurate during his statement on the G20 summit and Ukraine, when he wrongly said: “The Green party…says that we should pull out of NATO”. That is not correct. Our party policy explicitly says that we recognise that NATO, while imperfect and in need of reform, has an important role in ensuring the ability of member states to respond to threats to their security. We support the principle of international solidarity, whereby nations support one another through mutual defence alliances and multilateral security frameworks. Madam Deputy Speaker, what advice can you provide on the Prime Minister correcting the record?
May I invite the hon. Member to move new clause 29? I do not know if that is possible at this stage.
I, too, was pleased to sit on the Public Bill Committee, but sadly I cannot spare the time to review everyone’s performance, so I will get straight to the point. My amendments for new combined authorities in parts 1 and 2 of the Bill include amendments 91 to 93, which add action on poverty and socioeconomic inequality to the areas of competence of new mayors in clause 2. The Government have promised again and again to enact part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in respect of a socioeconomic duty for England. If that were done, these duties would need to be created in the Bill. To leave them out for brand new authorities is such a gap, and I find it hard to understand why the Government are resisting. I hope that either this will be taken up in the other place and debated again or the section will be enacted for England imminently, such that it has to be done through Government amendments there. I would like to hear that promised by Ministers today. I mainly want to focus on and propose my new clause 29. This would help every new mayor support the principles in the Climate Change Act 2008 in a fair way. The Climate Change Committee has noted the yawning gap between national ambition and local action, and the Local Government Association has called for that gap to be closed through the Bill. We need every mayor agreeing on the action they will take—their fair contribution to national targets—and being empowered to deliver for our crucial carbon budgets and lifesaving climate resilience. My new clause would also help every new mayor to support the principles in the Environment Act 2021 for nature protection and restoration, and action on pollution, wildlife and the ecosystem that is our only home. It would also help every new mayor to support the principles in Ella’s law, the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill. The Bill awaits Second Reading and comes from cross-party work with campaigners from the Healthy Air Coalition and Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, the mother of Ella, whose death from asthma was the first to be recorded as due to air pollution. New clause 29 is supported by the UK100 group of local authorities, the Climate Emergency campaign, the Better Planning Coalition, Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Healthy Air Coalition, Friends of the Earth and a host of others. An open letter has been signed by over 450 local councillors from all parties and by council leaders. Hundreds of businesses have written in more than once to Ministers and many of our constituents have been contacting MPs, too. I am very grateful to every hon. Member, cross party, who has signed it. The case is clear. I intend to press new clause 29 to a Division, so that we can, on all sides of the House, vote for the climate, nature and clean air duties that are so vital. I hope that the Government will pledge clearly today to introduce them all as full duties at the next stage in the other place.<span id="143" class="column-number" data-column-number="143"></span> In Committee, I also worked with campaigners to fill a big gap in health determinants set out in the Bill, to which new mayors would have to plan action under clause 43, the health improvement and health inequalities duty. The Government left out of the Bill any environmental impacts on health. I argued strongly for that in Committee and have again tabled amendments 87 to 90 to fix that. I am pleased and grateful to see that Ministers have listened to the evidence and added their own Government amendments 116 to 118 naming environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water as the health determinants they are. However, my original amendments have not been withdrawn, as they spelled out that environmental factors should also specifically include water pollution and land pollution. This would have brought the goals of Zane’s law into the work done by new mayors to document and plan strategically to avoid horrific problems with contaminated land of the kind that led to the sudden death of Zane Gbangbola, when floods brought poisoned gas from contaminated landfill into his home in Chertsey in Surrey. I would like to hear explicitly from the Minister today that the phrase “environmental factors” in the new Government amendments includes that kind of contamination, and that the amendments therefore bring parts of Zane’s law into the Bill. Finally, I want the Minister—and the Lords in the other place—to look seriously at the need for amendments 159 and 160, which aim to ensure that the local growth plans from new mayors will help protect culture in a strategic way. I have worked with the Music Venue Trust on the amendments, and its annual report each year makes awful reading, as our grassroots music venues suffer and close due to business pressures, unfair business rates valuations and planning and licensing issues. Those issues could be tackled effectively using the new strategies and powers of combined authorities and mayors. The amendments cover not just music but cultural and community spaces of all kinds, including theatres and other performance venues. I believe that all areas of the country will benefit from the amendments being added at a future stage of the Bill.
I thank the Minister; I appreciate that. We have been talking about the desperate need for unfettered aid access into Gaza for desperate, starving civilians. At the same time, this country continues to provide completely unfettered trade access for settlement goods into the UK—proceeds of crime, literally. Is it not time for the British Government to ban trade in settlement goods? Might that not help to put a little pressure on the Israeli Government to allow aid into Gaza?
Rural counties like Herefordshire face additional costs in delivering services because of rurality. Extra cost pressures mean that we need another £35 million next year to provide the same services, but it looks like the fair funding review will reduce central Government funding for Herefordshire by £12 million. Does the Minister recognise the extra costs of rurality, and will she ensure that the fair funding review properly allocates the funding that rural communities need to deliver public services in a fair way?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I warmly thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this vital debate to mark Carers Rights Day, and indeed everybody else who has spoken from the heart and made such important points. We all recognise that the care system is in crisis, and that unpaid carers play an essential role in supporting people who need care. I welcome the fact that the Casey Commission, which has been mentioned already, is working—although, I suggest, perhaps not as fast as it needs to be. I am deeply concerned by the Government’s proposal that it should not report for another few years, because resolving the care crisis is a matter of urgency and political will. I am honoured to be the Green party representative on the cross-party talks; I would like those talks to be convened more frequently and to operate much faster, but in the meantime I look forward to welcoming the Casey Commission to my constituency next month as part of its evidence-gathering process. I am currently engaged in a wide public consultation exercise, running a survey and holding listening exercises in my constituency. My team are visiting various care settings to gather people’s input. I will share the story of one constituent who contacted me a few days ago. She moved to North Herefordshire in 2022 from more than 100 miles away to care for her mother, who was elderly and declining. She left her entire life, moved in with her mum and got a part-time job at a much lower salary than she was used to in order to support her mother, who earlier this year was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and vascular dementia. My constituent was put in the position of going out to earn £12.21 per hour while paying £20 an hour for somebody to come and look after her mother. She put in an application in early April for carer’s allowance to support the costs of a paid carer, who enables her to keep doing her part-time job, but it was refused. She contacted the DWP in July: the Department said that a mistake might have been made and she was due a mandatory reconsideration. She chased the matter up again but, seven months after her initial request, she has still not had a response. She says that carer’s allowance is too little and takes too long, and that the criteria are far too limited—I could not agree more. I leave the Minister with my constituent’s words: “I don’t want to financially benefit from caring for my mum. I just don’t want to be pushed into poverty while I keep her out of hospital and out of a care home.” She cares for her mum 24/7. When worked out by the number of hours, carer’s allowance is about 55p per hour, because it covers nighttime care as well as daytime care. Surely the least that unpaid carers deserve from us is a benefit system—a carer’s allowance system—that supports, recognises and works with them, enabling them to provide the vital care that keeps those people who need it out of hospital and care homes.
The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) make very good points. I gently point out to the Government that it is not Baroness Casey’s job to convene cross-party talks. Political leadership is needed, and it should come from the Health Secretary himself. We do not need to wait for Baroness Casey to bring all the parties together—the Government need to do that.
The UK is coming under intense scrutiny at COP30 for saying one thing in public but doing the opposite in private, by apparently blocking progress on the Belém action mechanism to secure fossil-free jobs, workers’ rights, communities and our planet, despite the Prime Minister saying in his statement to COP “that the UK is all in” on embracing opportunities. Can we please have an urgent debate on how a shift in the backroom position of the UK could unlock negotiations, rebuild trust and align the Government’s actions with their public commitments?
Upgrading the Ely and Haughley junctions would enable a substantial shift of freight to the rails, which is important for net zero targets, for relieving congestion and for supporting haulage and logistics businesses. Will the Secretary of State therefore meet me, regional businesses, cross-party political leaders and the Suffolk chamber of commerce to look at the options for funding and upgrading this project, as outlined by Network Rail?
My heart goes out to the people of Monmouthshire, which is just downriver from my constituency. Terrible damage has also been done in South Herefordshire, with places such as Ewyas Harold very badly affected. We know that these things are happening more frequently and more severely. It is also tragic to see the huge amount of soil that is washed off the land at times like this. Does the Minister recognise the hugely important role that farmers play in managing floodwater and building resilience to these sorts of events? Will she invest more in nature-friendly farming—river-friendly farming—to help prevent these sorts of disasters, which do so much damage to people’s livelihoods?
Flood Re’s report earlier this year highlighted that, in the face of more extreme weather and more frequent flooding, many insurers are increasing excesses and premiums often to eyewatering levels or withdrawing insurance support altogether. What immediate support are the Government putting in place for people who find themselves without insurance?