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

1. 30 Jun 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

   Welfare Reform

   Today’s statement feels like a panicked political fix to an indefensible attempt to cut benefits from the most sick and from disabled people, but it lacks competence and compassion. Given that the Secretary of State talks about social justice, how can she justify people who might need that support in the future not receiving the support that disabled and sick people rightly receive today? Would the right thing to do not be to shelve these proposals so she can allow time to do what she has promised to do and to genuinely co-produce and consult with disabled people on the right way forward?

   Hansard source
2. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

   Amendment 46 would remove the requirement for the service not to have an adverse effect on local services. Bearing in mind what the shadow Minister said about the impossibility of commercial viability for some rural services or non-radial routes in cities, is it correct that the amendment would allow commercial entities to come in and take away part of the market, even where a local transport authority had built up the potentially profitable part of a wider, well-planned public network? The requirement as it stands is intended to prevent commercial companies from parasitising on a market that has been built up with public money. The Minister is not proposing that it should be easier for commercial entities to come in and develop new markets where there is potentially pent-up demand in rural areas.

   Hansard source
3. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

   I just want to give an example in which “may” is more appropriate. Proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b) talk about a local service that is provided. If a local transport authority is building out a planned network and, in the very near future, a service will be introduced in an area, it may want to prevent disruption of the benefits of an integrated local service there by such an application. I believe it is very appropriate that “may” remains in the clause.

   Hansard source
4. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

   The shadow Minister was looking at me while making those points, and I agree that our parties have very different philosophies on this issue. The circumstances that he has just described as “cosy” relationships that are improper, are ones that I characterised earlier as public money being invested in building up a market that should not be parasitised. Those are, very clearly, different points of view, and I want to make sure that is on the record at the right time.

   Hansard source
5. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

   I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 13, page 8, line 5, after “operators” insert— “or local government bus companies”. <em>This amendment, along with Amendments 35, 36 and 37, would mean that franchising authorities may directly award public services contracts to local government bus companies.</em>

   Hansard source
6. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Desmond. I am delighted to present a number of amendments to clause 13. The clause should be in the Bill; I can clearly see why we would want to directly award a contract to an incumbent to keep an existing contract going. This seems to me to be the ideal place to insert the opportunity to make a direct award to a local government bus company, the new type of body set out in clause 22—I believe that would be a really good move. I have tabled several amendments to add the words “or a local government bus company” in order to make the whole thing make sense. Amendment 34 would add “local government bus companies” to the title of the proposed new regulation in the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023; amendment 35 would add the choice of a “local government bus company” to the direct award options; amendment 36 would add the name of the local government bus company to the information required; and amendment 37 would add reference to the definition of a local government bus company as set out in clause 22.<span id="81" class="column-number" data-column-number="81"></span> We need these changes to help make integrated local transport planning simpler and less bureaucratic. There are many examples of hugely successful publicly owned bus companies across the UK, including Lothian Buses and Reading Buses. The publicly owned Nottingham City Transport bus service is consistently ranked one of the best in the country. Councils operate very differently from the wider market. They have strict budgetary restrictions and costly rules of commissioning. That means that, without explicitly making it easier for local authorities to take advantage of the new powers in the Bill, we might just be going through the motions. These changes are necessary in order to really incentivise local authorities to get involved in providing transport, not just in planning for it. To have real weight, the Bill must make it easier for local councils to make direct awards. That would mean that they could transform local services more efficiently for the passengers who need them, which would be of real public benefit. The tools for local authorities to do this actually already exist in secondary legislation. Regulation 13 of the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations states: “(1) A competent local authority or a group of authorities providing integrated public passenger transport services may— …(b) award a public service contract directly to an internal operator.” If we made these amendments to the Bill, I believe that the wording in the regulations would automatically change to include the terminology “a local government bus company”. I would really like the Government to consider making the amendments, or to take up the point in some other way. In order to plan and deliver local public transport, councils and local transport authorities must be able to act in this way. We should not simply rely on the existing regulations; we should state the powers explicitly in the Bill. Amendment 72 is not in my name, but I note that it covers much the same ground.

   Hansard source
7. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

   For clarity, the intention behind my amendments is not to allow for incumbent operators that are local government bus companies to be added to the Bill; it is to ensure, completely separately, that any local bus company at any time, or an incumbent operator, can be given a direct award.

   Hansard source
8. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

   I very much appreciate that my amendments would do different things from clause 13, and I also appreciate that the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023 provide the ability to make a direct award to an internal operator at other times. However, I worry that if we do not make sure that we have that ability in primary legislation—I cannot find it elsewhere in the Bill—there is a risk that private companies will issue legal challenges against direct awards. That is the key thing that I would like the Government to address, potentially in a different clause.

   Hansard source
9. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

   I do not; I just hope that the Government realise what I was trying to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. <em>Amendment</em><em>, by leave, withdrawn.</em> <em>Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.</em> Clause 14 Socially necessary local services

   Hansard source
10. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 14, page 9, line 32, after “activities,” insert— “(iv) health care services, or (v) schools and other educational institutes,”. <em>This amendment would include services which enable people to access health or educational services in the definition of ‘socially necessary local services’.</em>

    Hansard source
11. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I am pleased to move an amendment that both I and Liberal Democrat colleagues had the idea of. The Liberal Democrats have withdrawn their version of the amendment, but we are essentially aiming at the same thing: to be specific in proposed new section 138A of the 2000 Act by specifically naming healthcare services, schools and other educational institutions as activities that we as a Parliament consider to be essential. I believe that that would really help transport planners to focus their efforts on those particularly essential services. It would strengthen the clause considerably. In the past, I have worked with many young people who value bus services and feel undervalued when those services are not helping them to get back and forth to school. When they are not able to take part in after-school activities in the same way as their peers at the school whose parents can drive them back and forth, there is a social justice issue that deserves its own bullet point, as part of the clause. I do not need to tell Members about the importance of public transport access to hospitals and other healthcare services. Later, we will discuss amendments pressing for the timing of older and disabled people’s bus passes to be extended so that they can access healthcare services with their free cards. The actual provision of the services is the absolute bottom line here, and they should be named. There is absolutely no reason for the Government to oppose my amendment. Amendment 38 was originally proposed by my Green party colleague, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, in the other place. It aims to include clearly in the definition services that have been cancelled. If this aspect of the Bill is to work effectively, it is essential that it works to undo the damage caused by cuts made in bus services, particularly local authority-supported ones since the start of the enormous austerity squeeze on local councils.<span id="90" class="column-number" data-column-number="90"></span> The proposed time period of 15 years in amendment 38 is no accident—it goes back to the start of austerity. Many figures show the loss of bus services around the country since the beginning of that period. For example, a Campaign for Better Transport figure shows that from 2012 to the second year of the pandemic, 2021, more than a quarter of all bus services across England, measured in vehicle kilometres, were lost. For the number of regulated services, which is a different measure of service capacity, the loss was 29%. It will come as no surprise to my colleagues from the east of England that one of the regions with the biggest losses was the eastern region, alongside the north-west of England. The services lost were socially necessary, and they ought to be able to be defined as currently socially necessary, even if they do not exist. I commend both amendments to the Committee.

    Hansard source
12. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    On a point of clarification, clause 14 adds proposed new subsection (15)(b) to section 138A of the Transport Act. The measure is quite specific that a current service is envisaged—it refers to a service “if cancelled”. Amendment 38 would respond to that by making sure that recently cancelled services were covered. Such services might have been taken away because operators anticipated the risk that they would be defined as “socially necessary”. Can the Minister reassure us on that point?

    Hansard source
13. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I do not. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. <em>Amendment, by leave, </em><em>withdrawn</em><em>.</em>

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

    Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement

    The prospect of UK fighter jets carrying Donald Trump’s nuclear bombs cannot be anybody’s vision of security. This decision flies in the face of our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. It ties us further into a US military that cannot even keep its own classified intelligence secure. It ties us further to a Trump Administration who are the very definition of a loose cannon. Given the inescapable truth that nuclear weapons make the world more dangerous, and that normalising tactical weapons is incredibly reckless, how can the Minister possibly justify this decision?

    Hansard source
15. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. This is not my first Public Bill Committee, but I will certainly benefit from your guidance on the particulars of the proceedings. In general, I am a big fan of the Bill. I am a bus person at heart. Wherever I go in the country, I make a point of taking the buses—I take notes and sometimes write to local councillors. That is how passionately I feel <span id="10" class="column-number" data-column-number="10"></span>about this. The good measures in the Bill need to be backed up by clause 1, which was added to the Bill in the other place. The Bill has come from the other place in very good shape, and the clause is part of that. I worry about what the move from the Government to strike out the clause portends for the rest of the Committee proceedings. Is it the sign of real commitment that the bus services deserve? Is it a sign that we will see high-quality, reliable, frequent, high-performance, accessible bus services for the whole country? The Government should explain more why they want to remove this very good clause. I support new clause 22, tabled by my Lib Dem colleagues the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk. It would extend a stronger duty, including an accountability, to local transport authorities. Empowering local authorities is great, but those who need buses—those who struggle with car dependency and cannot reach essential services—need the good measures in the Bill to be backed up by both those duties and real funding as soon as possible.

    Hansard source
16. 23 Jun 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    UK Military Base Protection

    On the proscription of Palestine Action, I remind the Minister that there are number of recent examples of juries finding defendants, in cases similar to the Brize Norton incident, not guilty based on a necessity defence, as people believed they were acting from a desire to prevent war crimes. Given those juries were clearly able to draw a proportionate line between direct action protest and serious crime, does the Minister agree that the use of the Terrorism Act in this case sets a dangerous and worrying precedent?

    Hansard source
17. 23 Jun 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Pride Month

    In contrast to the Minister, I fully support the decision that has been made by the major Pride organisations to tell us that as political parties we are not welcome this year on parades or marches. Is the Minister not as sad as I am at the absolute state of political policy and discourse around trans rights that has directly led to this action?

    Hansard source
18. 23 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Middle East

    The Iranian regime has long been a threat to peace, democracy and human rights, and the unilateral, illegal and dangerously provocative Israeli and, now, American attacks have made a tense situation extremely perilous and are completely outside international law. It is therefore deeply concerning to hear the Foreign Secretary echo the talking points of Netanyahu and Trump instead of standing up for those principles, clearly condemning the illegality of these bombings, and unequivocally ruling out the UK’s being dragged into any military action to support such illegal action. Why will he not do so?

    Hansard source
19. 23 Jun 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    UK Modern Industrial Strategy

    I welcome the investment in skills announced today. What seems to be missing, though, is a commitment to give wraparound support to the 3 million workers in the UK currently in high-carbon industries, who will need reskilling and retraining in order to make the most of the green jobs boom. Can the Secretary of State give us any information on what is planned for those workers specifically, and does he agree that the fossil fuel giants should be the ones shouldering the cost of that support?

    Hansard source
20. 23 Jun 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Middle East

    This morning, the Foreign Secretary was repeatedly asked whether he considered the US’s bombing of Iran to be legal. Although I am sure everyone in this House recognises the brutality of the Iranian regime, his obfuscation in reply was clear, as is the refusal to say whether Britain would get involved in any capacity if the US falls deeper into a conflict with Iran. Can we have a clear answer from the Foreign Secretary now to that question, and will he clearly state that de-escalation must mean no UK involvement?

    Hansard source
21. 19 Jun 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Non-violent Drug-related Offences: Prosecution

    <Question HRSContentId="{3C859E86-060A-41AB-89FA-D9C5DBF14673}">4. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{610E79B4-2C66-4286-8E9E-C4523BFF0E71}">If she will take steps to reduce the number of prosecutions brought for non-violent drug-related offences. </QuestionText></Question>

    Hansard source
22. 19 Jun 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Non-violent Drug-related Offences: Prosecution

    As drug-related deaths are now at record levels, particularly because of the increase in synthetic opioids, I believe that we need to look again at supervised drug-consumption facilities, which are an evidence-based intervention that could save lives and public spending. Both the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Health and Social Care Committee support the idea. Will the Solicitor General consider facilitating a legal mechanism here, as in Scotland under the <span id="571" class="column-number" data-column-number="571"></span>Lord Advocate, to enable local health and police authorities that wish to pilot such facilities to establish their efficacy to do so?

    Hansard source
23. 19 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    River Pollution

    As the Secretary of State knows, my constituency of North Herefordshire is very seriously affected by water pollution in the Lugg and the Wye. I confess that I am disappointed that, in both his answers to the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), he did not mention agricultural pollution at all. That is despite the fact that agriculture is the main source of water pollution in the country, as is shown in the report of the Independent Water Commission, which unfortunately was not allowed to look into it in any detail. I pay tribute to River Action, which this week won a court case forcing planning authorities to consider the cumulative impact of industrial agricultural development, and to Greenpeace, which last week pointed out the impact of toxic sewage sludge. Will he confirm whether he is updating the farming rules for water? Given that he has cut the budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—

    Hansard source
24. 19 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Warm Home Discount

    Today’s announcement is very welcome and will make a real difference to many of our constituents. I am glad to hear the Minister reaffirm today that in addition to support with bills, the Government recognise the urgent need to ensure that every home is well-insulated and affordable to heat—a genuinely warm home—and are doing that through both hugely increasing standards for new homes and insulating existing homes. She has referenced the £13.2 billion Government commitment to the warm homes plan, which is welcome, though not enough, but why do the spending review documents show that more than a third of that money—£5 billion of the £13.2 billion—is money that the Government expect to get back, presumably to be repaid by households?

    Hansard source
25. 19 Jun 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Business of the House

    The BBC reports that overnight, President Trump approved a plan to attack Iran. There is potentially a very small window of opportunity before he decides whether to escalate this war, so I was concerned yesterday when, in Prime Minister’s questions, the Deputy Prime Minister did not give me a direct response when I asked her to confirm whether the Government would explicitly seek Parliament’s consent for any military support for Israel in this war. Can we have assurances from the Leader of the House that there will be a debate and a free vote in those circumstances? Given the Attorney General’s reported concerns about the legality of Britain’s potential involvement in the crisis, it is critical that we get that opportunity, and I would be grateful for a clear yes/no answer on this issue.

    Hansard source
26. 19 Jun 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy

    I welcome this announcement, and while there are aspects that I do not support, I particularly welcome the Government’s investment in vital flood defences. As the Minister knows, these are critical in ensuring that we are better protected against the impacts of climate breakdown. With the Met Office warning this week that we could reach 45° temperatures in the current climate, clearly the effects of climate breakdown are already here. Does he agree that protection needs to be fully integrated into every aspect of our economy—from housing to transport and farming—and does he also agree that it is a good idea to put climate resilience and preparedness on a <span id="615" class="column-number" data-column-number="615"></span>statutory footing by requiring all major infrastructure providers to carry out climate risk assessments in order to make us all safer?

    Hansard source
27. 18 Jun 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Crime and Policing Bill

    I will not be able to speak to all the amendments that Members have worked so hard on and that I have supported so many times by putting my name to them, but the Members know that I support them. New clauses 21, 25, 13, 18, 10, 43 and, in particular, new clause 122 are all important proposals that the Government should listen to. I do not support new clause 7 from the official Opposition, and I cannot support new clauses 2 and 3, as I do not believe there is any evidence that those measures would help make sex workers safer. We have to respect evidence and listen to sex workers and their voices on these issues. Principally, I rise today to speak to my new clauses 26, 27, 109, 30 and 49, and new clause 50 from the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). First, new clause 26 would require the Home Office to publish quarterly data on antisocial behaviour orders, including the number of times that stop-and-search powers were used prior to such orders being issued and the protected characteristics of individuals who receive those orders. That is important scrutiny to make sure the powers are being exercised fairly. New clause 27 would enable regulations to vary the ability of police forces to use stop-and-search powers. Specifically, it would require the Government to suspend the use of those powers by any police force subject to Engage status under His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services. If a force has reached the point of requiring formal monitoring due to systemic issues, it is right that the most intrusive and abused police powers are subject to heightened scrutiny or even suspension. New clause 30 would prohibit the deployment and use of certain forms of “predictive” policing technologies, particularly those that rely on automated decision-making, profiling and artificial intelligence, to assess the likelihood that individuals or groups will commit criminal offences. My hon. Friends will recognise that danger. Such technologies, however cleverly sold, will always need to be built on existing, flawed police data, or data from other flawed and biased public and private sources. That means that communities that have historically been over-policed will be more likely to be identified as being “at risk” of future criminal behaviour. As I have always said in the context of facial recognition, questions of accuracy and bias are not the only reason to be against these technologies. At their heart they infringe human rights, including the right to privacy and the right to be presumed innocent.

    Hansard source
28. 18 Jun 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Engagements

    This Refugee Week is an opportunity for the House to show solidarity with those fleeing war, persecution and oppression. Compassion and welcome are core British values, but for decades the Home Office has been undermining those values, as my new report “No Way Home” shows, by treating migration as a crime rather than making it work for our communities and for newcomers. Will the Deputy Prime Minister read the report and consider its recommendation to remove migration from the responsibilities of the failing Home Office?

    Hansard source
29. 18 Jun 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Businesses in Rural Areas

    The hon. Member is doing a great job in advocating for rural businesses. I was speaking the other day to the Suffolk chamber of commerce, which highlighted just how critical rural bus services are for people being able to get to work, training and other activities, and therefore how critical they are for our rural economy. Does he agree that we need better funding for rural bus services not only to support the economy, but to tackle social isolation?

    Hansard source
30. 18 Jun 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Engagements

    <Question HRSContentId="{74AE19BD-26E1-40FF-BF56-11070E9E5D86}">Q1. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{36C1831C-C6F1-4689-A905-4852B76484FD}">If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 June.</QuestionText></Question>

    Hansard source
31. 18 Jun 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Engagements

    Given the strong consensus across this House on the importance of de-escalation of the deeply worrying conflict between Israel and Iran, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that this House’s actions must match its words? Will she therefore give a commitment that before any further military support is given to the Israeli Government, whether it be the deployment of RAF jets or armed forces, her Government will first give MPs in this House a free vote on the matter?

    Hansard source
32. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Crime and Policing Bill

    I rise to speak to amendments 4 to 8 on child criminal exploitation. I thank the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for their speeches and proposals. I voice my support for amendment 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), which would prevent driver’s licence information obtained by the police being used for the purposes of intrusive facial recognition and gathering biometrics, and amendment 164 tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), which would remove clause 108 and the ban on face coverings in protest situations. The hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) has also tabled mitigating amendments on that subject; amendment 184 would create exceptions, and not just defences, relating to health, work, and religious faith coverings. I also support amendment 185, which proposes an equality review. I hope the Government will look at them all. I welcome the efforts in the Crime and Policing Bill to protect vulnerable children, and I particularly welcome the introduction of a new offence of child criminal exploitation, which will signal to perpetrators that coercing, manipulating and exploiting children into criminal activity is child abuse and will be treated as such. Criminals are exploiting thousands of vulnerable children; Children In Need data shows that more than 15,000 children were at risk of exploitation in 2023-24, and that is likely to be just the tip of the iceberg. The perpetrators of exploitation include serious organised crime gangs, which are well versed in taking advantage of legislative gaps. Even though the Bill takes a huge step forward, areas of it must be strengthened if we are to protect children and bring the perpetrators of that abuse to justice. That is why I have tabled amendments 4 to 8.<span id="203" class="column-number" data-column-number="203"></span> First, amendments 4 and 5 would amend the wording in clause 38 to ensure that the offence includes activities that put children at significant risk and are linked to criminal conduct but are not in themselves criminal offences. Examples of this include carrying large amounts of cash on public transport, being used as a look-out or decoy, and guarding unsafe accommodation alone. Amendment 6 expands the definition of “exploitative activity” to ensure that preparatory acts, such as grooming and coercion, are captured by the offence. I welcome the Minister’s comments earlier, and am grateful for the engagement with these amendments, but it is not yet obvious to me how referencing only the facilitation of future offences covers the gaps that would be closed by amendments 4 and 5, and amendment 6 seems to have been only partly addressed. I would therefore welcome further clarification, or a discussion of the issue with the Minister, ahead of consideration in the other place. Secondly, amendment 7 would remove clause 38(1)(b), which currently amounts to a defence if the perpetrator reasonably believes that the child is over 18, unless the child is under the age of 13. While such provisions are common in other areas of law, in the case of criminal exploitation, this clause risks undermining the prosecution of perpetrators due to the well-publicised issues of adultification and racism within the criminal justice system. The recent Independent Office for Police Conduct report into race discrimination and the Alexis Jay report on criminally exploited children on behalf of Action for Children both highlight the roles of adultification and racism in the criminalisation of children, and how it leads to failures in safeguarding responses specifically, but not only, for young black boys. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is clear: children cannot consent to their own exploitation, and this principle must be upheld by our removing this part of the offence. Finally, amendment 8 to clause 53 would insert the words “aged 18 or over”. This would ensure that children could not be criminalised under the new offence of cuckooing. It would recognise that they are more often than not the victims, not the perpetrators, in these situations. The children targeted are often very young and extremely vulnerable, and they need protection, not prosecution. These amendments are not merely technical; they are essential. They reflect the lived experiences of children, and the findings of numerous reports and reviews that provide compelling evidence of the need for a more robust and child-centred legal framework. I urge all Members of the House to support these proposals. Together, we can take a decisive step towards better protecting vulnerable children from exploitation.

    Hansard source
33. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Genocide Convention: UK Compliance

    I beg to move, That this House has considered UK compliance with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. On 29 December 2023, South Africa brought a case before the International Court of Justice regarding the application of the convention on the prevention of and punishment of the crime of genocide in the Gaza strip. South Africa argued that Israel’s deliberate denial of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians could constitute one of the prohibited acts under the genocide convention by “deliberating inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. On 26 January 2024, the ICJ issued an interim response, which recognised a “plausible risk” that Israel’s acts could amount to genocide being committed against the Palestinian people. The president of the ICJ at the time subsequently stated that the purpose was to declare that the Palestinians had “plausible rights to protection from genocide”, which were at a real risk of irreparable damage. The ICJ’s ruling was very clearly not intended as a determination of whether a genocide had occurred; rather, it was intended to indicate that if some of the acts that South Africa cited in its case were proven, they could fall under the United Nations convention on genocide. Those acts were military operations in and against Gaza; killing, injuring or destroying life and preventing births; displacement, deprivation and the destruction of life; incitement and encouragement to genocide; the destruction of evidence; and genocide itself. At the same time, the ICJ called for “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in the occupied Gaza strip from the risk of genocide by ensuring sufficient humanitarian assistance and enabling basic services. Today, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is beyond imaginable. Oxfam summarises it as follows—

    Hansard source
34. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Genocide Convention: UK Compliance

    For clarification, since the Minister is not in his place and no one from the Government is here, is it correct that I continue?

    Hansard source
35. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Genocide Convention: UK Compliance

    Marvellous. As I was saying before the Divisions, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is horrific beyond imagining. Oxfam summarised it as follows: “The Israeli military has killed over 52,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including thousands of children. Entire families and neighbourhoods have been destroyed…Israel is blocking all but a trickle of life-saving aid into Gaza - people are struggling to access basics like food, water, medicine and shelter… All of Gaza is at risk of a manmade famine. Starvation is widespread, and children and families are already dying from hunger…Israel has cut electricity to Gaza’s main desalination plant that supplied clean water to around 500,000 people.” Last month, the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs said the territory was: “The only defined area—a country or defined territory within a country—where you have the entire population at risk of famine. One hundred per cent of the population at risk of famine…Gaza is the hungriest place on Earth.” It seems clear that what the world is witnessing, in real time, is the continued cruel and inhumane policy of using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and collective punishment. We see this daily. The BBC reported today that 51 Palestinians were killed today while waiting for flour at a Gaza aid site. This all happened since the ICJ’s 2024 assessment that there was a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza. If that risk existed then, it has existed every day since, and it is now absolutely undeniable. However, the UK Government’s actions and choices do not appear to recognise that risk, and it is not clear what they have done, if anything, to assess the risk of genocide before making policy decisions. Amnesty International has done that work, however. It argues that there is evidence of a “calculated” plan to bring about the “physical destruction” of Palestinians in Gaza, and it concludes that factors that include the obstruction or denial of lifesaving goods and humanitarian aid, the killing of civilians, damage and destruction of civilian infrastructure, forcible displacement, and the restriction of power supplies taken together constitute genocide. I do not have enough time to cover the extent to which all the tests are being met, but I do not think the Minister or any other Member can possibly be unaware that the Israeli military has targeted hospitals, refugee camps and schools, with multiple generations of families wiped out because of direct or indiscriminate attacks. They cannot be unaware of the vast damage and destruction inflicted on critical infrastructure, including essential parts of the food production system; hundreds of thousands of residential homes; water, sanitation and hygiene infrastructure; hospitals and other healthcare facilities; roads and energy infrastructure. No one can be unaware of how the Israeli authorities have issued large numbers of the civilian population in Gaza with evacuation orders that have caused repeated mass forced displacement under utterly unsafe and inhumane conditions, that Gaza has been under electricity blackout since the 11 October 2023, that power supplies have repeatedly been used as weapons of war, or that in March 2025 Israel shut off the electricity supply to a desalination plant for drinking water. That is all occurring against a backdrop of well-documented statements from Israel’s political and military leadership that indicate a pattern of dehumanising, racist and derogatory rhetoric against Palestinians, which escalated significantly after the horrific and utterly <span id="60WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="60WH"></span>inexcusable terror attacks of 7 October. That rhetoric from the Israeli Government includes statements calling for, or justifying, genocidal acts. Consider, too, the other violations of international law that, as stated by Amnesty International, at the very least point to potential genocidal intent, such as incommunicado detention, torture and other ill-treatment of Palestinians from Gaza, and the widespread destruction of cultural, historical and religious sites, including after Israel had already gained military control over them and where there was no apparent military necessity. Those are just some of the factors considered by Amnesty International in reaching its conclusion that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The UK Government have been crystal clear that it is for the international courts to determine whether or not genocide is happening in Gaza. I do not agree, but that is anyway irrelevant to the UK’s obligation under the genocide convention to act to prevent genocide. By definition, that must happen before it is established that a genocide has taken place. Indeed, the ICJ established in Bosnia and Herzegovina <em>v.</em> Serbia and Montenegro that the threshold for taking action to prevent is where there is a “serious risk” that genocide might take place. Therefore, the UK has a clear and legal obligation to act to prevent genocide, along with all other signatories of the United Nations genocide convention under article I of the convention. This should not wait for a court determination; that will be too late. Indeed, that argument was the basis on which South Africa brought its case to the ICJ, and it makes a mockery of our obligation under international law if prevention hinges on genocide being conclusively proven in court, by which time the targeted group in question may have been wiped out. On 14 May 2025, the Minister seemed to recognise that point and asserted that this Government “have not waited for…the determination of international courts, to take action.”<span id="vol767_col353" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="353" data-volume-number="767" data-external-id="0CC713CE-3FB5-4AAE-917E-E374A861537E">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 353.]</span> He referred to the suspension of some arms licences to Israel and the sanctioning of some individual settlers, and even two individual Israeli Ministers, as examples of action that has been taken. While that is hugely welcome, I respectfully note that these actions do not amount to doing everything possible to prevent genocide. Indeed, the implication of the Government’s position is that, because the courts have not made a genocide determination yet, they are not required to take a level of action that would constitute meaningful prevention, such as a full arms embargo, full sanctions against military and political leaders, a complete ban on all military co-operation, the suspension of the existing trade agreement, a ban on settlement goods and so on. The Government will not even name the genocide in Gaza, but that is not the point I want to dwell on in this debate. Rather, I want to ask the Minister to tell us what the UK Government are doing to assess the risk of genocide and to determine whether there is any potential that it might be happening in Gaza, because that should surely be informing every single decision they make in relation to Gaza. The ICJ has been very clear that the risk of genocide is plausible. A September 2024 UN special committee warned that “the policies and practices of Israel…are consistent with the characteristics of genocide.”<span id="61WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="61WH"></span> The UN special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, found that “There are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating” that Israel has committed genocide “has been met.” Even if the UK does not formally recognise the assessment made by Amnesty International, the evidence accumulated must surely point to a possibility. For a responsible signatory to the genocide convention, that possibility is everything, because without having conducted an assessment of the risk of genocide in Gaza, I fail to see how the UK can carry out its legal duty to prevent. An assessment of risk is also fundamental to any determination of whether the UK may be complicit in any genocide—for example, by continuing to provide F-35 parts via the global supply pool, which are used in attacks on civilians in Gaza. Although I welcome the publication of a summary of the assessment process and decisions that led to the suspension on 22 September 2024 of some arms export licences, the assessment was limited in scope. It has three short sections entitled “humanitarian”, “treatment of detainees” and “conduct of hostilities”. It was concerned solely with whether UK exports might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law—IHL. There is no reference, for example, to forced displacement, the deliberate restriction of power supplies, or genocidal encouragement, incitement or intent. As such, that assessment falls far short of an assessment of the risk of genocide. Parliament has so far struggled to get a straight answer on whether such an assessment has been conducted, let alone get any assessment published, if it does exist. On 6 May, during an oral statement on the middle east, my Green colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), explicitly asked the Minister: “When did he last assess the real risk that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza?” This was the Minister's response: “We assess risk. I can confirm that those assessments are ongoing and that a prevention of humanitarian aid reaching Gaza is part of them.”<span id="vol766_col588" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="588" data-volume-number="766" data-external-id="204EE354-7B83-40F2-91D8-4FE7627305CA">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 6 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 588.]</span> On 14 May, replying to an urgent question in the House, the Minister advised that there were ongoing assessments in relation to international humanitarian law, and that these considered all the relevant tests. He specifically cited the genocide convention when making that point. The following day, I used a written question to ask for the most recent risk assessment to be published. The reply I received on 3 June referred me not to an assessment of the risk of genocide, but back to the Government statement of 2 September in relation to export licences. The statement, which is definitely not an assessment of the risk of genocide and which was made more than six months ago, begs the question: has there been no more recent assessment? Has there been any assessment of the risk of genocide? The Government’s submission in Al-Haq <em>v.</em> Secretary of State for Business and Trade suggests that such an assessment does exist. It stated that the FCDO’s assessment and the Government’s conclusion is that there was no serious risk of genocide occurring. That was their assessment in 2024.<span id="62WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="62WH"></span> I asked about that again in an oral question to the Minister on 4 June, the day after his unilluminating written reply to me. I asked very specifically if he would publish his most recent genocide risk assessment without delay. His response indicated that there has in fact been no genocide risk assessment. He said, “the question that we assessed in relation to international humanitarian law was whether there was a real risk of a breach of IHL. That was the assessment we made when we first entered government. That is a considerably lower bar than the questions to which the hon. Member refers. We continue to make those assessments, which cover the entirety of international humanitarian law. We have updated the House on that initial assessment, which is at a rather lower bar than she is suggesting, and the assessment broadly remains in place.”<span id="vol768_col348" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="348" data-volume-number="768" data-external-id="8D74A7DB-F1FE-40E8-9E90-855201448BD0">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 4 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 348.]</span> Again, that refers back to the assessment, which is not an assessment of a risk of genocide. In the meantime, the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) asked a written question, which elicited a response confirming that there have been regular IHL assessments since the beginning of the conflict on 7 October 2023, and that these assessments are continuous, with the latest due to be finalised before the end of the month. What still has not been confirmed is whether these include an assessment of the risk of genocide. My purpose in securing this debate is simple. I want to know whether the UK Government have carried out any assessment of the risk of genocide in Gaza. In case I have not made myself clear, I do not consider the assessment that led to the change in export licences in September 2024 to be a test of genocide. The Minister himself appears to have already acknowledged that that one, or any other assessment that may or may not have been conducted, met a lower bar by being focused solely on the risk of breach of IHL. I very much trust that he will not cite that in his reply today. I also trust that he will not retreat to the Government’s well-worn position that it is for the international courts to make a determination of genocide. For the purposes of this debate, I accept that that is the legal position and it needs no further explanation at this time. I think I have demonstrated that there is a wealth of evidence of the risk of genocide, and that there is widespread acceptance that that is the case. Now I simply want to understand—yes or no—whether the UK Government have conducted any assessment of the risk of genocide in Gaza. Preventing genocide goes to the heart of our obligations under international law—under the genocide convention—and it seems unconscionable that such an assessment would not have been conducted. We need to know. On that note, I look forward to the Minister’s unambiguous reply. I am sure he will understand that I will seek to intervene on him if an unambiguous yes or no is not forthcoming.

    Hansard source
36. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Genocide Convention: UK Compliance

    The Minister is relying on arguments that, as I have articulated, do not answer my question. He says that the Government take their responsibilities under international law seriously, including the responsibility under article I of the genocide convention to prevent genocide. Does he recognise that we cannot wait for a court to determine that genocide has occurred if we are to prevent that genocide? We have to act before that. Does he recognise that by repeatedly relying on the assessments relating to export licences and IHL, he is not addressing the question? Has a risk assessment of genocide in Gaza been conducted by the Government? It should be, if we are to fulfil our obligations under international law.

    Hansard source
37. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Genocide Convention: UK Compliance

    I thank the Minister. Will he address the question I have previously raised in the House? Trade in settlement goods is trade in the proceeds of crime, so will he ban it?

    Hansard source
38. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Disabled People in Poverty

    Today the Minister has heard many MPs, representing their constituents, express their huge concern about the effects of the PIP cuts on disabled members of our communities. She says that she cares about disabled people in poverty and about dignity. Why are her Government refusing to raise funds through a wealth tax so that our disabled constituents can have the support they need to live full and supported lives?

    Hansard source
39. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Care in the Community

    The Darzi report pointed out that 13% of hospital beds are occupied by people who are fit for discharge but who cannot get out because social care is broken. Lord Darzi said that we cannot fix the NHS until we fix social care. It is nearly six months since the Secretary of State promised cross-party talks and a commission, but the talks were cancelled and never rescheduled and the commission is delayed. Please, when will the Government stop going slow on social care? Please, when can we all get around the table to talk about fixing social care so that everyone gets the care they deserve?

    Hansard source
40. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Topical Questions

    The British Dental Association recently published analysis showing that the proportion of NHS funding spent on dentistry more than halved under the Conservatives, who failed to account for inflation and demand to the cost of £1 billion. It is no wonder that we have dental deserts across much of the country. Will the Secretary of State ensure that dentistry receives its fair share of funding from the new NHS funding allocated in the spending review?

    Hansard source