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

1. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Qatar: Israeli Strike

   We keep talking about a ceasefire, but how can one be achieved if one side is intent on killing the negotiators from the other? Attacking peace negotiators is simply reprehensible and undermines any possibility of the only thing—dialogue—that has any chance of bringing a resolution to the horrors in Gaza. It is not the action of a state seeking peace; it is the action of a rogue state operating with impunity completely outside international law, crossing red line after red line. I ask the Minister again: given that repeated crossing of new red lines, what action will he match his condemnation with? Will he stop all arms sales, all military co-operation, all intelligence-sharing and all defence deals, current and future, with Israel? Will he sanction Netanyahu and all officials complicit in the war crimes and genocide in Gaza?

   Hansard source
2. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

   Engagements

   <Question HRSContentId="{E729BAAD-D096-47DA-AF00-895535D4CA1D}">Q4. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{26E8A7C0-1B43-42D2-A9F2-F5F7C235F54E}"></QuestionText>Fifty-one Israeli arms companies are exhibiting at the Defence and Security Equipment International arms fair in London this week, and some of them even boast that their products are battle tested. We all know what that means: that they have been used to kill men, women and children. This Government often ask us what more we expect them to do when it comes to Gaza. Here is one thing: will be Prime Minister stop Israeli arms dealers parading their Gaza-tested weapons on UK soil?</Question>

   Hansard source
3. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

   Renters’ Rights Bill

   We in this House all know that some landlords use the excuse of selling up to evict tenants only to re-let at a higher price. Does the hon. Member agree that Lords amendment 18, which would shorten that re-let period from 12 months to six months, would severely undermine one of the main aims of the Bill—to end no-fault evictions—by making it disappointingly easy for landlords to evict on just that basis?

   Hansard source
4. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Early Education and Childcare

   The work I did this year with Mandu Reid, the former leader of the Women’s Equality party, found a continuing crisis among the providers of childcare. Our call was for broader investment in pay, conditions and training, to mitigate national insurance contribution burdens and to take real action on morale. How will the £45 million announced today really help those existing childcare workers who are right on the verge of leaving the sector?

   Hansard source
5. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Bathing Waters: Pollution

   As I have reminded Ministers on a number of occasions, tackling pollution in our rivers and seas requires us to address agricultural pollution as well as sewage pollution. I am disappointed not to hear the Minister mention that, but I like to come with solutions. I recently visited the Wyescapes landscape recovery project in my constituency, which is an innovative farmer-led project of 49 farmers protecting soil, reducing pollution, restoring nature and producing great-quality food. Will the Minister, or perhaps <span id="427" class="column-number" data-column-number="427"></span>her colleague the Farming Minister, come to visit this innovative project to see how we can tackle river pollution and protect nature and food production?

   Hansard source
6. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Business of the House

   The Government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action has caused a growing legal, political and policing crisis. A judicial review has been granted. The police are struggling to deal with the sheer volume of people being arrested, and the UK’s reputation has been seriously harmed. Does the Leader of the House recognise that this rushed proscription, and the cynical decision to bundle it together with two other clearly terrorist organisations, is bad politics and bad process? We should have a chance to revisit the decision, learn from this debacle and seriously consider the important human rights implications.

   Hansard source
7. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Engagements

   <Question HRSContentId="{AF3ACA3F-EFF5-48AD-BDA2-24B6EEE8649E}">Q9. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{BEEDFB2E-5A14-4D48-95C1-DE441CB9FC8C}"></QuestionText>While the Conservative party deludes itself with the myth of endless fossil fuels, the rest of us know just how ridiculous and reckless that is. Extracting more oil and gas from the declining North sea basin will do nothing to protect energy security or jobs. The Prime Minister himself has stated:“Climate action is at the heart of this government’s mission for the protection and prosperity of Britain and the world.”With a decision looming on the Rosebank oil field, will the Prime Minister prove that his words mean something, and finally put an end to this climate-wrecking project?</Question>

   Hansard source
8. 2 Sep 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

   There are ideas in this Bill that devolve powers that we Greens can support. A layer of strategic government with funding and fundraising powers could empower areas of the country, such as Sussex, to improve daily life for our citizens and could strengthen democracy. However, it is worrying that the process for doing that so far and the ways in which decisions are moving forward on the reorganisation of local government have not listened to people who want to maintain their district and borough councils and have not properly engaged local people in devising new proposals rather than just commenting on them. If this is done without consent or respect for local areas, it will not be democratic or empowering. Clause 57 is very unfair in grandfathering in existing mayoral arrangements for local councils but not preserving any committee systems—not even those chosen recently by referendum. On fair voting, the Bill is inadequate. For the new elected mayors, the Bill specifies a supplementary voting system that is better than first-past-the-post, but, as other Members have pointed out, that should be used next year in Sussex. Also, for the new authorities where new councillors are being elected, there is a genuine missed chance to have a fairer voting system for councils too. The Bill is dangerously light on the democratic scrutiny of new mayors and combined authorities, and poor on standards in public life. There should be transparency duties on mayors to disclose their lobbying meetings, as Ministers do and all MPs should. Mayors will also be able to appoint commissioners for different areas of their powers, which will be powerful positions that are likely to be well remunerated. Yet the Bill appears to be silent on any higher standards of accountability, transparency or conduct for such people. Mayors and commissioners should all come under the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, as other people in this place do. There are big missed chances in the Bill in terms of new duties for poverty and inequality, climate, nature, healthy air, land and water pollution and health, particularly in relation to the impacts of transport and housing policy. On health determinants, the Bill mentions prosperity but not poverty or inequality; nor does it mention the huge chance to improve health by cleaning up filthy air pollution. Why not? Greens will be arguing for all these goals and duties and more to be put in place firmly and clearly in the Bill, and for them to be matched with powers, funding and the ability to raise and use investment for homes, transport, education, justice, social justice, public health and all these other things to close the gaps that have so shamefully grown under successive Governments and continued Labour austerity. This Bill could help to deliver great things, but it will take many big changes, much work and much listening to good ideas from this part of the House for the Government to achieve that.

   Hansard source
9. 2 Sep 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

   On devolving the ability to run pilots, and following up on the point made by the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), Bristol city council—including Labour councillors—voted cross-party to have the power to pilot rent controls. Recent figures show that typical private renters in my constituency spend 45% of their income on rent. That is not sustainable. This Bill could offer the opportunity for that pilot—

   Hansard source
10. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Middle East

    The Israeli Government are clearly hellbent on their horrific plan of eradicating Palestine with their continuing and ever-worsening genocide in Gaza, and now their approval of the shocking E1 plan that will divide the west bank and East Jerusalem. How can the Government continue to take no further action when there are so many options open to them? How many times have we heard the Foreign Secretary say in this Chamber that if things do not improve and if Israel does not desist, he will take further action, and yet he has not? When will this Government take action to end UK complicity and end the horror in Palestine?

    Hansard source
11. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Borders and Asylum

    Our communities are divided, and they are scared. We—all of us—want to be with our families, and communities are at their strongest when family life is protected and supported. If the Secretary of State lifted the ban on asylum seekers working, she would be giving those who subsequently achieve refugee status a stronger footing to support their families and be ready to join our communities, and they would not need to seek the homelessness relief she mentioned. Instead of keeping children and their families apart, why does she not help families to support themselves?

    Hansard source
12. 22 Jul 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery

    The last time we discussed Prax Lindsey, I asked the Minister to support my energy jobs Bill—a plan for the redeployment and retraining of oil and gas workers that is proactive and industry-wide rather than reactive and crisis by crisis, and that would be paid for by the companies. That is what the workers and the unions want, but the Minister said he did not agree with it. He has now said that the Government will fund a training guarantee for these refinery workers and is asking this company’s owners to make voluntary contributions to support workers. That is progress, but will he now turn this into a proactive and industry-wide plan, and please go beyond asking the company nicely to do the right thing and require it?

    Hansard source
13. 22 Jul 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Topical Questions

    Data published last week shows that despite the Government’s initial action, the proportion of dentists working in the NHS in Norfolk and Waveney continues to drop. I am pleased to hear about the Government’s work on the dental contract, but the Public Accounts Committee is clear that this will work only if it is backed by sustainable funding. I will give the Minister another chance to answer the question: will the Government ensure that the extra funding that has been put into the Department is actually reflected in extra funding for NHS dentistry?

    Hansard source
14. 21 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    SEND Provision: Funding

    I have heard from and met with numerous constituents who are parents of children with special educational needs, all frustrated with the way that the system currently works. I welcome the Secretary of State saying she wants outcomes for children to be at the centre of reforms, but a parent of a child with an EHCP, which helps them to be in mainstream education, recently told <span id="538" class="column-number" data-column-number="538"></span>me of the fear and horror she felt when she heard about potential Government reforms due to the risk of her son losing the ability to stay in a school that has, in her words, been an absolute godsend for him. Can the Secretary of State assure parents that her reforms will not take away support that children currently have and will ensure that every child has the support they need to genuinely thrive?

    Hansard source
15. 21 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Middle East

    Words do matter, but actions speak louder. What Members across the House and citizens of the country—our constituents—cannot understand is why the Foreign Secretary will not take the actions available to him to end UK complicity in this horror. A full arms embargo and an end to all military co-operation, a full ban on all settlement goods, sanctions on all those responsible for genocide, recognition of the state of Palestine—why will he not take those concrete actions now?

    Hansard source
16. 21 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Extending the Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme

    The Minister referred to the anguish felt by the Ukrainian families who have been displaced. Does she recognise that uncertainty over visa conditions adds to the anguish faced by those families here in the UK, and indeed to that of their very generous hosts? Will she therefore commit to reviewing the situation and giving them hope for the future?

    Hansard source
17. 21 Jul 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Middle East

    The UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has said that Palestinian mothers are repeatedly watching their children slowly starve to death, be maimed, be killed and be buried alive, and that it is a deliberate part of Israel’s strategy physically and psychologically to destroy women and the continuity of the Palestinian people. She called this a femi-genocide. The Secretary of State has repeatedly said that the situation is intolerable, yet by failing to pull every single lever that this Government could pull, they are tolerating it. When will he stand on the right side of history and implement a full arms embargo, widespread sanctions and a ban on the import of settlement goods, and when will they fund evidence collection for prosecutions?

    Hansard source
18. 21 Jul 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity

    My constituency has a proud history of being a welcoming community. We have had an asylum hotel for two years with no problems; the families are well integrated in the local community with many children in the local schools. Late last week, however, we were told that people would be asked to move from that hotel with no notice from today, despite the fact that the hotel will still be used for asylum seekers. They do not know where they will need to move to. I have raised the issue with the Home Office and had no response, so can the Minister urgently look into it today? Does she agree that every MP with an asylum hotel in their constituency should have a dedicated Home Office contact so that we can work together to promote peace and harmonious community relations, and against disinformation and violence?

    Hansard source
19. 21 Jul 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Independent Water Commission

    This Government-commissioned review looked at how to tinker with the Conservatives’ failed privatised monopoly system, but the truth is that it is a moribund model that has resulted in billions being paid out to shareholders and billions in debt being loaded up, and in crucial infrastructure being neglected, meaning that sewage is regularly pumped into our rivers and seas. Does the Secretary of State accept that the cost of that failure must be part of the calculation of the cost of bringing water into public hands, where it belongs, and that figures like £100 billion are grossly inflated by those who do not think the water industry should pay for its greed and terrible mismanagement of our water system?

    Hansard source
20. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Further Education Institutions

    The hon. Lady has now pre-empted my intervention. I wanted to highlight that further education leaders I have spoken to, such as those from Suffolk New college, who run the Halesworth campus in my constituency, have highlighted that £8,000 to £10,000 gap in pay between FE lecturers and secondary education teachers teaching the same subjects. Does the hon. Lady agree that this needs to be addressed in order to tackle the challenge of retaining and recruiting staff?

    Hansard source
21. 15 Jul 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Topical Questions

    <Question HRSContentId="{0A4D4C60-38EE-4431-BF69-F2F9315F5D43}">T2. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{518D9D7B-D9DA-4CA6-BAA9-1D7A1B8BAD53}"></QuestionText>The Government’s new Scope 3 guidance for offshore projects is hugely welcome. We are already battling deadly heatwaves and overshooting climate limits, so it is critical that we stop extracting new oil and gas. Given that there is no scenario in which Rosebank, or indeed any new oil and gas wells are compatible with limiting global temperature increases to 1.5°C, why are the Government trying to delay recognition of that climate reality by saying that applications will be considered on a case-by-case basis? Will the Minister give us a conclusive science-backed answer now, and confirm that Rosebank will not be going ahead?</Question>

    Hansard source
22. 15 Jul 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Welfare Spending

    The hon. Gentleman has rightly highlighted the terrible record of the previous Government and the number of children who went into poverty <span id="198" class="column-number" data-column-number="198"></span>during that period, which includes an extra 250,000 who went into poverty as a result of the introduction of the two-child benefit cap. He has listed some actions that this Government are planning to take. Will he add to that list his support for scrapping the cap, and will he join figures in his own party, such as Lord Kinnock and Mark Drakeford, in supporting the introduction of a wealth tax for the super-rich, so that we can fund the tackling of inequality and support the most vulnerable?

    Hansard source
23. 14 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Topical Questions

    <Question HRSContentId="{B50E06E5-B36C-40DC-B9F2-DC2D37EF7CC9}">T3.  <QuestionText HRSContentId="{8255E99A-0370-4441-80B0-213D2D60F7BB}"></QuestionText>Two major reports—one from Shelter, which is coming, and one last week from Heriot-Watt University—have exposed something that I have observed myself in housing casework for many years, as a councillor and as an MP: people from some minority groups, even beyond the structural racism in society, experience worse outcomes and even direct discrimination from councils in regard to their access to housing. Will the Secretary of State commit to writing a formal response to me on the recommendations in those reports?</Question>

    Hansard source
24. 14 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I rise to represent my constituency, which is home to the 22nd SAS Regiment, the Special Reconnaissance Regiment and the 18th Signal Regiment. I am sure the House will wish to join me in recognising the professionalism and dedication of the men and women who make up those regiments, who are such an integral and highly respected part of the Herefordshire community. That is reflected by more than 1,000 of my constituents signing the petition, which is second only to the number of signatories in the neighbouring Hereford and South Herefordshire constituency. Northern Ireland legacy matters are, of course, incredibly sensitive, as we have seen today. It is vital that legacy processes are based on a fair, balanced and comprehensive approach, and that those processes are implemented <span id="28WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="28WH"></span>with the necessary rigour, independence and, crucially, consultation with all the affected communities, including armed forces veterans. For all the communities affected by the troubles, legacy processes should provide as much certainty and expediency as possible. It is hugely regrettable that the unworkable Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 did not deliver that, not least because of its failure to comply with the UK’s obligations under the ECHR. It is important to recognise that the result of that has been enormous uncertainty, stress and loss of trust felt across all communities affected by the troubles, and it is vital to now apply the necessary rigour to avoid further mistakes. During the past months, I have had the privilege of meeting many serving and veteran members of the armed forces—including UK special forces and those who served in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner—to listen to their views and concerns about the Government’s proposals to repeal and replace the legacy Act. I have heard how strongly my constituents believe in accountability and the rule of law, and the pride that they have always taken in conducting themselves with the utmost professionalism. It has also come across loud and clear just how many have lost trust in the handling of legacy processes. My constituents have said: “Veterans feel badly let down by successive governments; many are still caught up in legacy processes, facing additional years of uncertainty and stress after decades of the same…veterans have lost trust in attempts to achieve reconciliation; the anger, frustration and embitterment at their treatment will need to be addressed if they are to be persuaded to take part in future reviews and investigations.” That is all deeply regrettable. After I wrote to both the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Defence to outline my constituents’ concerns several months ago, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland responded, commending the bravery of the Northern Ireland veterans who did so much to keep people safe during the troubles, recognising the extreme circumstances under which they were operating. He also stated that with the passage of time, the likelihood of further prosecutions is increasingly unlikely. He gave an assurance that “there will be no rewriting of history” and that he will engage fully with the veteran community as the Government move forward with their plans to repeal and replace the legacy Act. I welcome that commitment to engagement. The Government have announced that they will bring forward primary legislation “when parliamentary time allows”, but for the communities left in limbo by the legacy Act and the subsequent legal challenges, that is a vague commitment with no clear timeframe, which does not reflect the anxiety and uncertainty currently felt. Will the Government therefore provide greater clarity about the timetable of plans and commit to bringing forward primary legislation in this Parliament? Ending the uncertainty and finding a workable resolution to legacy issues is imperative. It is therefore critical that the Government get this right. Can the Secretary of State respond to the concerns that have been raised about the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, especially in relation to independence, powers and accountability? Given the Secretary of State’s assurance that he will engage fully <span id="29WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="29WH"></span>with communities, will he commit to visiting North Herefordshire to meet my constituents and hear their concerns directly? I would like to end on this point: throughout my meetings with constituents and veterans over the past few months, they emphasised the meticulous planning, preparation and professionalism that goes into armed forces operations. Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that the same level of rigour will be applied by the Government as they move forward in repealing and replacing the legacy legislation?

    Hansard source
25. 14 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Building Social and Affordable Homes

    Will the Deputy Prime Minister please explain why her Government will not set a target for the provision of social housing? While I welcome the investment in the social and affordable homes programme that she set out, the reality is that it will meet only 10% of the total number of new homes anticipated and only 10% of the current demand for social housing. If she believes that setting national targets like the 1.5 million homes target is important to drive change, why will she not set a target for social housing?

    Hansard source
26. 14 Jul 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    UK-France Migration: Co-operation

    Will the Secretary of State explain to us what happens if one in, one out works? If the goal is to stop small boat crossings and it is successful, the outside of the equation drops to zero, which means the inside of the equation also needs to drop to zero and the UK will have got rid of the small sliver of a safe and regulated route scheme that it has just created. Does the Secretary of State not think that, if we did that, it would be more likely to push people back to the small boats and people smugglers?

    Hansard source
27. 14 Jul 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    State of Climate and Nature

    I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, including what he said about the importance of Britain showing leadership and rebuilding cross-party consensus. Even if we have not quite got cross-party consensus on the need for a transition to a green economy, does he agree that the fact that we have seen hundreds of deaths in London alone in the second heatwave of the year, that our farmers are facing the driest start to a year in my lifetime, and that people around the country have suffered from floods in recent years means that our need for resilience in the face of a changing climate cannot be a political football? If so, would he support a sixth Government mission—a mission to protect the British public from changes in the climate?

    Hansard source
28. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Disabled Bus Passes

    I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on such an important topic; he is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that this is of particular importance in rural areas because bus services are sparse and travel distances are long? I have been approached by campaigners from Mencap Herefordshire who have ran an amazing campaign on this topic. Does he agree that the postcode lottery between different authorities means that there is a great unfairness for disabled people and that the best way to deal with this is through national, not local, change?

    Hansard source
29. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Disabled Bus Passes

    It makes sense for bus services to reflect local needs, but whether someone has a disability and needs to use a bus is not a locally determined thing. There should be fair access to these services wherever someone lives in the country. Currently we have a postcode lottery regarding the ability to use bus passes <span id="1234" class="column-number" data-column-number="1234"></span>24 hours a day. The point of the debate is to ask that it is organised nationally, so that there is fair access and every disabled person’s bus pass can be used at any time of day, and there are not some parts of the country where it works and others where it does not.

    Hansard source
30. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    I beg to move amendment 39, page 1, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert— “(4) The relevant uplift percentage for tax years 2026-27 to 2029-30 is 4.8%.” <em>This amendment would apply the full standard allowance uplift percentage currently specified in clause 1 of the Bill for 2029-30 to all preceding years 2026-27 to 2028-29 as well.</em>

    Hansard source
31. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    When one in five people receiving universal credit and disability benefits has used a food bank in the last month, and when Scope has found that the disability price tag is £1,095 per month, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today. When the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper has terrified so many of our constituents, and when the basic rate of universal credit cannot cover the basic essentials, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today. When the ultra-rich are orders of magnitude away from the tough choices disabled people face, and when we have such a deeply unequal society, and a wealth tax would break no manifesto commitments, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today. From the Green Paper to where we are now, the Government’s behaviour has been an insult to disabled people, and I think they should be ashamed and should apologise. My constituents who receive benefits, and the people who love and care for them, have been subjected to chaos, confusion and indignity. Instead of making improvements, with careful consideration, to a <span id="979" class="column-number" data-column-number="979"></span>complex and treacherous benefits system, the Government have rushed to fit the imperatives of the Budget timetable, bypassing evidence gathering and line-by-line scrutiny in a Committee of this House, and further limiting the power of the other place by making this a money Bill. Yes, a tremendous effort of people power and bravery from Labour Members has won last-minute concessions for current claimants, but the Government should still scrap this unfair and harmful legislation, due to the harm that it will do to people who find themselves in need of support in future. This Bill is not a tough decision; it is the wrong decision. Here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today.

    Hansard source
32. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    I thank the hon. Member for giving those examples of the vital things that additional payments are used for. They are so necessary, and it is so necessary not to cut them. My amendment 39 affects clause 1, the only at all positive clause in the Bill as it stands. The clause uplifts the rate of increase in the standard allowance of universal credit beyond inflation—by 2.3% in the year starting April 2026, rising to 4.8% for 2029. My amendment simply sets the uplift percentage at 4.8% for the whole period. This sustained rise in the basic rate of universal credit is much needed. Setting out the case for an essentials guarantee, the Trussell Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation state: “The basic rate of Universal Credit should at least cover the cost of essentials like food, household bills and travel, but it is not currently set according to any objective assessment of what people need.” Amendment 39 goes some way towards ensuring that, and the joint briefing to MPs from 20 charities, service providers and disabled people’s groups highlights this need in its recommendations. I realise that the question on many people’s minds is, “How can the country pay for this boost to universal credit and the removal of cuts to the personal independence payment?” The answer lies with the Chancellor and something that my Green colleagues and I have called for many times, especially on this issue, ever since the Secretary of State introduced the Green Paper. On that day, 18 March, I asked “why impoverishing” disabled people “to the tune of £5 billion is a higher priority than a simple wealth tax.”<span id="vol764_col181" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="181" data-volume-number="764" data-external-id="4F47F763-226B-4324-8292-C87332580F40">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 18 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 181.]</span> The hon. Members for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) also spoke up for such a tax on the same day. Many hon. Members have asked the same question in the House, and it is not just MPs making this suggestion. It is not just charities such as Oxfam and the Equality Trust, not just campaigners such as Tax Justice UK and Green New Deal Rising, <span id="980" class="column-number" data-column-number="980"></span>and not just Patriotic Millionaires UK, which says that its polling shows that 85% of people who have more than £10 million would happily pay 2% of their wealth to support a better society and public services. Two former leaders of the Labour party are also now talking about it as a serious option. There are, I should say, other ways to tax unearned wealth, as part of a wider package, than the way set out in this simple proposal, which is making unlikely allies of Greens, millionaires and Labour leaders. I think the view of this House is clear: when fairer taxes on assets, which absolutely can work and should work for the nation, are finally put into the Budget, first to go should be the cuts target set out in the Department for Work and Pensions spreadsheet, and the two-child benefit cap. It is through such a tax that we should pay for the improvements needed to the Bill.

    Hansard source
33. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    I thank the hon. Member for that question. I refer him to Patriotic Millionaires UK. It has done considerable work on this issue, with its considerable resources, and set out proposals for a 2% wealth tax on people who have more than £10 million in wealth. It polled the general public on that, and found that 75% of them hugely supported the measure, not just as an alternative to cuts to welfare, but as a general principle. Clause 1 would be made into a genuinely good policy by amendment 39, but that change alone will not make this a Bill that the House should pass. Removing clause 5, as Government amendment 4 proposes, will not be enough, either, to make this a Bill that this House should pass. Clause 2, even once amended by the Government, would cut in half the health element of universal credit for nine in 10 new claimants. I will speak later about the severe conditions criteria and fluctuating conditions. Without amendment 2(a), tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), clause 2 should be removed from the Bill. Clause 3 would freeze the health elements of universal credit for the rest of this Parliament, so clause 3 should also be removed from the Bill. Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 4 would freeze legacy benefits for disabled people, so they should be removed from the Bill, as my amendment 40 proposes. A Bill that just consists of a much-improved clause 1 and possibly a much-improved clause 2 would almost be a Bill that this House could, in conscience, pass. We have the choice to craft such a Bill today. As well as those changes, amendments such as amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), are needed, and there are some new clauses that would help make the Bill even more fit for purpose. The vital principle we must stand up for today is that any policy changes relating to disabled people must be led by disabled people. On the day the Green Paper was published, I raised the matter of co-production with the Secretary of State. That word has been much talked about by many others with experience of co-producing policy, and by the Government, thanks to strong campaigners and pressure from MPs.

    Hansard source
34. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    I thank the hon. Member greatly for that intervention. When I have gathered together young people in my constituency, I have found that the issues that they face are unique, and their voices absolutely must be heard. The Government have said that they are committed to co-producing the Timms review with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, but organisations such as Disability Rights UK have told us that those promises are hard to trust. They fear a tick-box exercise, co-production in name only, and that the Government’s original plans will be the inevitable result. That is why I have signed up to new clause 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), as well as new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). If clause 2 and its schedule remain, the severe conditions criteria simply cannot stand as written. It appears that the Government either meant to exclude people with fluctuating lifelong conditions such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis from the higher rate of the universal credit health element, or that Ministers completely overlooked that community when rushing all this through. Criteria that withdraw support from people with fluctuating conditions are unacceptable, and that is why I signed amendment 38 tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and amendment 17 tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie). The severe conditions criteria also say that any diagnosis must be made in the NHS. Again, that is either careless drafting or a deliberate restriction, so I have also signed amendment 33 from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). I am trying to bring to this House the voices of disabled people in Brighton Pavilion and across the nation who are closely watching what we do today. So many of our constituents remain scared by the Bill. Right from the day of the sudden and careless release of the Green Paper, which contained terrifying policy details that were not in the Labour manifesto, they have been forced into a cruel limbo. It is shameful that the Government have chosen this path. This Labour Government are showing themselves far more willing to punish disabled people than ask the most wealthy to shoulder the burden of fair public spending on real social security. I am so proud of the people power that has been brought to bear on the Bill. Action by disabled people and their allies has forced MPs to listen and take action, and forced the Government to withdraw the most brutal cuts, but still the Bill remains unacceptable without the serious amendments that I have outlined. I look forward to hearing much sense, including what the United Nations has told us, from the many hon. Members in this debate who share my values. My Green colleagues and I are ready to do all in our power to minimise the consequences of the Bill; to make it do good, not harm; and ultimately, <span id="982" class="column-number" data-column-number="982"></span>if that does not happen, to see it fall. I hope the Government will truly learn from the cruel mess that this has become.

    Hansard source
35. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Engagements

    <Question HRSContentId="{E4D3515F-04BB-4FED-A5B3-5FE7921C77BC}">Q6. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{74C9D748-860C-43E1-843F-6B5BE4D2448D}"></QuestionText>Growing numbers of people are joining the call for a wealth tax on the super-rich, including former Labour leader Lord Kinnock. Today, a former First Minister of Wales has done so, and so, it transpires, did the Chancellor when she was in opposition. Will the Prime Minister stand by his promise that those with the broadest shoulders will carry the largest burden? Will he clarify that that means the ultra-wealthy, not disabled people, the poorest and children with special educational needs?</Question>

    Hansard source
36. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Engagements

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister claimed in response to my question that the Green party had made unfunded spending commitments in our general election manifesto. He also said that to me at last week’s Prime Minister’s questions. That is clearly untrue; our manifesto was fully costed, including through proposals for the wealth tax that I was calling for. Will you outline, Mr Speaker, how I might correct the record? Should I send a copy of our manifesto to the Prime Minister?

    Hansard source
37. 8 Jul 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Government Resilience Action Plan

    Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirm that climate-related emergencies are a core part of this resilience strategy? Climate breakdown has the potential to threaten our core infrastructure and poses risks to our core support systems, such as food and water, and the Climate Change Committee says that we are woefully ill-prepared for climate-related changes, so does he agree that the issue should be not a political football? Instead, it should be central to the Government’s resilience plans for protecting our citizens.

    Hansard source
38. 7 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship

    I appreciate the work that has gone into the shadow Minister’s speech, but when he will address the petition’s point about advertising? It seems to me that most of the speech so far has been merely an advert for the fossil fuel industry.

    Hansard source
39. 7 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship

    Before the Minister winds up, I want to ensure that he tackles the question of sponsorship, which is a key part of the petition. I think that focusing only on advertising ignores the lack of choice that people have if their much-loved sports team, the gallery they want to visit or the theatre company that they support is sponsored by a fossil fuel company. The Minister needs to reflect on why so many people signed the petition, having been put in an invidious position by these sponsorship deals.

    Hansard source
40. 7 Jul 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, I think for the first time. The petition’s demands are simple, clear and extremely compelling. In the UK, we forbid tobacco advertising because tobacco kills us, and that ban has worked to reduce the number of people dying from it. The air pollution caused directly by fossil fuels and the extreme weather caused by climate change are already killing at least as many people as smoking was before the ad ban, and they are likely to kill many more, so why the hell are we allowing fossil fuel companies to take up space in public places and on our screens to sell us products that kill us? I find that argument so compelling that I have dedicated a significant amount of my life in the past few years to trying to make a ban happen. I thank Chris Packham for initiating the petition and doing so much work to get more than 110,000 signatories, and I thank everyone who signed it.<span id="231WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="231WH"></span> This campaign has been running for many years, and I want to highlight the groundwork done on it by grassroots organising group Adblock Bristol, of which I am a member. Adblock Bristol exists because its members think a lot of things are fundamentally wrong with advertising. Advertising often works by telling us that we are not good enough without a product or by engendering a positive emotion about a product or service that we did not previously have. It often worsens inequality. The billboards are not in the posh parts of town, and they overwhelmingly advertise products that are bad for our health, the environment or society. That is not to mention the direct environmental, social and road safety impacts of the adverts themselves. After a few years of successfully opposing applications for individual billboards in our community, Adblock Bristol set up a national organisation called Adfree Cities, where I worked for a little bit. It campaigns nationally alongside Platform, Badvertising and others to support people in their local communities all over the country to oppose the pernicious impact of advertising. In fact, the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) listed some of the communities that I supported in doing that. Many local councils have already adopted policies of not hosting adverts for high-carbon products and services, or other harmful products such as junk food, payday loans, alcohol and gambling, on billboards on council-owned land and bus stops. That is a start, but most billboards are privately owned and councils have no jurisdiction over them and no ability to control the myriad other ways that advertising intervenes, often subconsciously, in our lives. Regulation of advertising in this country is, in general, extremely light touch and, frankly, outgunned by the capacity of the companies that pay for the advertising. That is where the petition comes in. It is time for the national Government to step up where local councils do not have the power to do so. This kind of social and regulatory change often creates uproar when it is first proposed, only for it to be accepted as extremely obvious, and for the previous status quo to seem appalling, not long afterwards. We have only to look at compulsory seatbelts in cars, the indoor smoking ban and tobacco advertising. “Freedom of speech, freedom of the market, freedom of choice,” they say, yet we pretty much all agree now that advertising products that cause us serious harm should not be allowed. Let us remember that we are not talking about banning the product; we are just saying that communications that are specifically designed to increase the use of fossil fuels, through misleading claims and by crafting social norms and a social licence for their use and expansion, directly undermining the Government’s evidence-based policy, which is essential to keep us safe from the climate crisis, should not be allowed. That should be a no brainer. Does the Minister want the history books, and perhaps his children, to look back in 10 years and see that he played the modern-day version of the role of those who opposed seatbelts in cars or the smoking ban? I guess not, in which case now is the time to be brave. He will be glad he did it.<span id="232WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="232WH"></span>

    Hansard source