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

1. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

   I rise, briefly, to support the substantive point about the necessity of public consultation on something as important as a spatial planning strategy. As new section 12H of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is entitled “Consultation and representations”, it is disappointing that there is actually no provision for consultation. There is provision only for the consideration of notification, which is inadequate for strategies that will be as important as these. I urge the Minister to consider going away and aligning the text of his clause with the title of his clause.

   Hansard source
2. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

   I have been reading the clauses very carefully. As I read the Bill, it provides that a draft SDS can be produced without any public consultation whatsoever—in other words, a draft SDS can be produced by somebody in a cupboard with access to the internet. New section 12H, which deals with consultation and representations, provides an opportunity for consultation on the draft, preparatory to the examination and then the finalisation. The problem is that new section 12H does not provide for consultation; it provides only for the consideration of notifying various local bodies. According to the Bill, it provides that “the authority must also publish or make available a statement inviting representations to be made to the authority”. Without any clarity on what that involves, an authority can just put something on a website that says, “If you’re interested in this, send us an email,” and nobody in the local area would have a clue that it was happening. The point of consultation is that it is an active process of engagement with those who have a legitimate interest in the matter. I think the Bill’s drafting does not reflect that.

   Hansard source
3. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

   New section 12H(3) says that the authority “must consider notifying…the following”, so there is no specification that it must notify; it must only consider notifying. The person in the cupboard could consider notifying them and decide, “No, I’m not going to notify them.” The only hard requirement is that “the authority must…publish…a statement inviting representations”. As I have just outlined, that is not the same as consultation. I taught this subject at university: according to Arnstein’s ladder of participation, consultation is at a higher level than notification. Will the Minister take that away and consider improving the provisions for consultation?

   Hansard source
4. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

   I plead with the hon. Member not to press the amendment to a vote, in the interests of time and also because I cannot vote for his amendment proactively, because I think it is even more poorly written than the text it is trying to replace, so can we—<em>[</em><em>Laughter</em><em>.]</em>

   Hansard source
5. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

   I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 50, page 84, line 27, at end insert— “(2A) An environmental feature identified in an EDP must not be— (a) an irreplaceable habitat; (b) ecologically linked to an irreplaceable habitat to the extent that development-related harm to that feature or the surrounding site would negatively affect the irreplaceable habitat. (2B) For the purposes of this section, ‘irreplaceable habitat’ means— (a) a habitat identified as irreplaceable under The Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Irreplaceable Habitat) Regulations 2024, or<span id="351" class="column-number" data-column-number="351"></span> (b) an ecologically valuable habitat that would be technically very difficult or impossible to restore, create or replace within a reasonable timescale.” <em>This amendment would mean that an Environmental Delivery Plan cannot be created for irreplaceable habitats, and would maintain existing rules and processes for the protection of irreplaceable habitats, including under the National Planning Policy Framework.</em>

   Hansard source
6. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

   I rise to speak in very strong support of amendment 18 to clause 50, which is one of a number of amendments I have tabled to part 3. I have significant concerns about part 3—concerns clearly shared by a wide range of environmental organisations, the Office for Environmental Protection and by many prominent scientists. Amendment 18 seeks to ensure that irreplaceable habitats, those rare and exceptional ecosystems that, once lost, cannot be recreated, are explicitly excluded from being subjected to environmental delivery plans under the Bill. In simple terms, it provides a critical safeguard for our most ecologically valuable places by ensuring that EDPs, tools designed to offset and manage environmental harm from development, cannot be applied to irreplaceable habitats or to features whose degradation would harm such habitats. It is not possible to offset an irreplaceable habitat; it is, by definition, irreplaceable.

   Hansard source
7. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

   I want to say something further, but not specifically as an intervention.

   Hansard source
8. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

   I thank the Minister and other hon. Members for their comments; I would like to push the amendment to a vote. I agree with the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on the importance of including the word “significant”, but as the Minister says, we will come on to that later. I recognise the importance of chalk streams and blanket bogs, but they are not the only habitats that should be protected, which is why I think my amendment is clearer and more comprehensive. It incorporates the issues that were raised by the hon. Member.<span id="359" class="column-number" data-column-number="359"></span> The Minister argued that my amendment is not required because there are existing protections for irreplaceable habitats, but he indicated that there could be some grey areas, for example where certain features of irreplaceable habitats, such as particular creatures or aspects, are considered as part of EDPs. That creates an unhelpful greyness and is concerning. The Minister mentioned the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection. That advice has caused me considerable concern. The OEP is worried by several aspects of the Bill and states: “In our considered view, the bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law”, so it would undermine protections that are currently in place. The OEP states: “As drafted, the provisions are a regression. This is particularly so for England’s most important wildlife—those habitats and species protected under the Habitats Regulations.” That says very clearly that changes are urgently needed to part 3 of the Bill. If we cannot amend part 3 to protect irreplaceable habitats, what hope do we have of tackling other issues? This is very important, and I would like to push the amendment to a vote. <em>Question put, </em>That the amendment be made.

   Hansard source
9. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

   I rise to speak to amendment 3, a crucial amendment relating to timing. The current wording in clause 52 opens the door to conservation measures in EDPs coming long after the environmental features that they relate to having been damaged. Such a delay could be fatal to some habitats and species that have already suffered decline, so the mitigation could come too late. That is what the amendment aims to address. The absence of direction on the timing of EDP measures has been highlighted by the Office for Environmental Protection as one of its key concerns about part 3. The OEP’s advice to the Secretary of State observed: “The bill is silent as to when conservation measures must be implemented and by when they must be effective. This gives rise to the possibility of significant impacts on the conservation status of protected species or sites arising before the successful implementation of conservation measures.” That is the exact concern at the heart of amendment 3. I want to illustrate the point with the example of the hazel dormouse. This rare, beautiful species has declined in number in England by 70%. Populations have become extinct in Hertfordshire, Staffordshire and Northumberland in the last few years. In places where they are clinging on, EDPs could be the final nail in the coffin. Hazel dormice are reliant on woodlands, travel corridors, established hedgerows and scrub. If an EDP permitted the destruction of those habitats on the basis of replacement habitats being provided some years down the road, it could be too late. It takes seven to eight years for hedgerows and scrub and significantly longer for woodland to become established, but a dormouse’s life span is <span id="363" class="column-number" data-column-number="363"></span>three to five years, so there are several generations of dormice that could be affected by the destruction of habitat. Without their home, the populations would quickly die off, causing irreversible damage to the species before the replacement habitat came into effect. Amendment 3 would deliver on the OEP recommendation to rectify that part of clause 52 and prevent such harm before mitigation, which is not intentional, I hope, but could arise accidentally if we do not adopt amendment 3. It would require Natural England, when setting the content of an EDP, to set a timetable for the delivery of conservation measures, guided by the principle that gains for nature should come in advance of harm from development. When Natural England is of the opinion that harms to an environmental feature are irreversible, it would have to ensure through the timetable that a boost to conservation status had been achieved before harm from development occurs. I stress that the irreversible harm element would likely only apply in a small minority of cases when the most threatened habitats or species populations face possible destruction from harm coming before mitigation. In most cases, the amendment would simply mean that Natural England would be required to show careful consideration of how it would be ecologically best to sequence conservation measures when drawing up an EDP, prioritising up-front environmental gains. In sum, the amendment is a constructive effort to resolve a key threat to nature identified by the OEP itself. I very much hope the Minister will accept it.

   Hansard source
10. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

    How can the Government have that confidence when the OEP says that they should not?

    Hansard source
11. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

    The Minister has tabled amendments 95 and 97, but is that the sum total of the Minister’s response to the OEP’s advice? Those amendments do not, by any means, address the thrust and specifics of that advice. What further response does the Minister intend to make in response to and recognition of the OEP’s advice?

    Hansard source
12. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I have seen comments from a number of environmental NGOs that were upset with how their previous comments had been taken out of context and used to indicate support for the Bill in a part of it that they do not feel so strongly supportive of. I have also heard feedback from environmental and nature protection NGOs that are frustrated with the fact that there was not a huge amount of consultation, or the formality of consultation that there could have been. I genuinely do not want to get into a “He said, she said” debate or anything like that. I encourage the Minister gently to recognise the seriousness of the critique and the concerns that have been expressed. The Minister has said that the status quo is not working and that we need to change it. Amendment 3 proposes a further improvement; it is not a wholesale chucking out of absolutely everything in the Bill. A genuine attempt to strengthen this particular aspect of the Bill is being proposed in respect of the timing of measures under EDPs, recognising that given how nature works, it is important that the improvement comes before the destruction. That is all the amendment is about.

    Hansard source
13. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 53, page 86, line 21, after “strategies,” insert— “(ca) the current Carbon Budget Delivery Plan, (cb) any reports and strategies produced under the Climate Change Act 2008,” <em>This amendment would require Natural England to consider the Government’s Carbon Budget Delivery Plan and any reports or strategies published under the Climate Change Act when preparing an EDP.</em>

    Hansard source
14. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

    It is widely recognised that the climate and nature crises are deeply interconnected. However, although the Planning and Infrastructure Bill rightly requires Natural England to consult the Environment Agency and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, it fails to require it to consult the Climate Change Committee or the Office for Environmental Protection. Furthermore, when developing an environmental delivery plan, although there is an obligation to have regard to the current environmental improvement plan and any strategies under the Environment Act 2021, there is no obligation to consider the Climate Change Act 2008 or the Government’s carbon budget delivery plan. In its current form, the Bill fails to provide the integrated approach needed when facing a dual crisis. That omission risks reinforcing our siloed approach, which creates implementation gaps, where some problems are inadequately tackled by both nature and climate plans, and solutions developed to tackle one crisis can inadvertently make the other worse. The Government pledged a mission-led approach to overcome departmental barriers when they were elected, and yet the ongoing disconnect between climate and nature policy show that they are unfortunately failing to deliver. As the Foreign Secretary acknowledged last year, there remains a tendency for climate and nature policy to end up siloed, and the Bill as currently drafted reflects that tendency. Internationally, the UK supported calls for greater synergy between climate and nature policy at recent conferences of the parties, but without translating that welcome international ambition into domestic action, we only deepen the gap between our words and actions. The Government claim that the Bill is a step towards a more strategic approach to nature restoration that will “accelerate infrastructure delivery” while boosting nature. But as the Government’s own impact assessment reveals, there is little evidence to suggest that nature obligations are a barrier to development, and the claim that this new approach will be “a win-win” for nature is, as we are seeing in this Committee, somewhat contested. Unfortunately, if the strategic approach addresses only one side of the issue—that is, without giving due recognition to the need to be fully integrated with our climate action—we will fail to achieve what we need to. Amendment 52 to clause 53, and indeed amendment 53 to clause 54, would ensure that Natural England’s environmental delivery plans are fully aligned with existing climate and environmental frameworks, helping to avoid <span id="368" class="column-number" data-column-number="368"></span>duplication, conflicts and oversight. They would also give the OEP—the body established to hold the Government and public authorities to account—a formal advisory role in the EDP process. I believe that they would strengthen the Bill, so I warmly recommend them to the Minister.

    Hansard source
15. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I take the Minister’s points, but if these things are included, why not just put them on the face of the Bill? However, I will not press the issue to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. <em>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.</em> <em>Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.</em><span id="369" class="column-number" data-column-number="369"></span> Clause 54 Consultation on draft EDP

    Hansard source
16. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 54, page 87, line 13, at end insert— “(fa) the Climate Change Committee, (fb) the Office for Environmental Protection,” <em>This amendment would add the Climate Change Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection to the list of parties who must be consulted on a draft EDP by Natural England.</em>

    Hansard source
17. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I will not repeat the points I made in my previous speech, which were effectively about the same substance. However, it seems an oversight that the Climate Change Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection are not named in the long list of organisations to be consulted on an EDP. I gently ask the Minister to take that point away and to treat it as a constructive suggestion, to ensure that we have clarity and that the voices of those crucial bodies are included, alongside those of all the other organisations that are to be consulted on a draft EDP.

    Hansard source
18. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I thank the Minister, but just observe that if we can simply trust Natural England to consult anybody that it thinks relevant, there is no need for any list in clause 54(1). We could just keep paragraph (h), which refers to “any other public authority Natural England considers should be consulted”. The fact that there is a long list of 10 people that it should consult indicates that the Government think it is important that certain parties be consulted. I suggest that the Climate Change Committee and the OEP ought to be in that list. If the Minister is not willing to put this in the Bill, I ask him to consider putting it in the regulations or guidance that he is indicating in paragraph (i). I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. <em>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.</em> <em>Amendment proposed</em>: 125, in clause 54, page 87, line 19, at end insert— “(j) any impacted landowner, (k) sea fishing businesses, where the EDP covers an area which is adjacent to their fishing grounds, (l) the owners of fishing rights, where the EDP includes or otherwise affects rivers or lakes used for fishing.”—<em>(Paul Holmes.)</em> <em>Question put, </em>That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
19. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Gaza: UK Assessment

    <em>(Urgent Question):</em> To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK’s assessment of the likelihood of genocide in Gaza.

    Hansard source
20. 14 May 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Gaza: UK Assessment

    Overnight, the UN’s emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher, warned that a genocide was possible in Gaza. One in five people face starvation. The entire population is facing high levels of acute food insecurity. In Gaza, Gaza North, Deir al-Balah, Khan Yunis and Rafah, there is a risk of famine. There is one primary cause: Israel’s aid blockade since 2 March. The Security Council was told that civilians in Gaza have, again, been forcibly displaced and confined into ever-shrinking spaces, with 80% of the territory either within Israeli militarised zones or under displacement orders. Israeli airstrikes on the European hospital in Gaza yesterday killed 28 people, with further reports of at least 48 deaths overnight from strikes elsewhere. Can the Minister tell us whether the Foreign, Commonwealth <span id="346" class="column-number" data-column-number="346"></span>and Development Office has conducted any recent assessment of its own on the risk that the Israeli authorities are committing genocide? Last night, the UK’s ambassador to the UN rightly called on Israel to lift the restrictions and ensure a return to the delivery of aid in Gaza in line with humanitarian principles and international law. But that is not enough. Notwithstanding the Government’s position that it is for judicial bodies to make a determination, what is the Minister’s response to the latest UN assessment that genocide is possible in Gaza? Can he confirm whether the UK stands by the obligation to prevent duty in the genocide convention? Parliament needs to know whether the UN emergency relief co-ordinator’s assessment will lead to a shift in the UK Government’s position. Why is it that when the horrors increase, the UK Government’s position stays the same? Lastly, to echo the words in Tom Fletcher’s briefing: “Will you act—decisively—to prevent genocide and to ensure respect for international humanitarian law?”— or will you instead repeat— “those empty words: ‘We did all we could’”?

    Hansard source
21. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah

    <Question HRSContentId="{52369082-7518-470B-94BD-D01F37A5191F}">14. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{A1A5499E-F661-40B3-9A7D-B840A093B754}">What recent progress he has made on helping to secure the release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah. </QuestionText></Question>

    Hansard source
22. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah

    I thank the Minister for his response. Members of the family of Alaa Abd el-Fattah are again in the Gallery today, and his mother Laila has now not taken food for seven months. I met her again recently and she is so frail now. Does the Minister agree that Alaa’s arbitrary detention, long after his sentence ended, continues in violation of the Vienna convention, and that there must be consequences for Egypt, including international legal options and new travel advice, given the evident dangers to British nationals detained in Egypt?

    Hansard source
23. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 152, in clause 45, page 58, line 3, at end insert— “(c) require that any training accredited under this section includes content on— (i) inclusive design principles in the built environment; (ii) the requirements and intent of Approved Document M, Volume 1: Dwellings of the Building Regulations 2010, with particular emphasis on the M4(2) accessible and adaptable standard and the M4(3) wheelchair user standard; (iii) the requirements and intent of Approved Document B of the Building Regulations 2010;<span id="236" class="column-number" data-column-number="236"></span> (d) require that all members, elected members, and officers of a relevant local planning authority who carry out any function relevant to planning undertake mandatory training comprising the content set out in paragraph (c).”

    Hansard source
24. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I did not prepare anything in advance—apologies—but I do think it is important for the Committee to consider amendment 152, tabled by an hon. Member from another party. The amendment asks the Government to consider using the opportunity offered by the Bill to ensure that the training provided—which is essential for those involved in planning decisions, whether elected members or officers—includes a specific focus on accessibility. This is a really important issue. If we are to be an inclusive and equitable society, it is vital that planning decisions are made in a way that takes into account the importance of accessibility. It is also an increasing issue. We are an ageing society: in 2022, 19% of our population was over the age of 65, but in 50 years’ time that will be 27%—half as many people again. We know that disability is associated with age; we know that 45% of people over the age of 65 report a disability, and half of those disabilities are mobility-related. So, accessibility of buildings—accessibility of all the areas that come within the remit of planning decisions—is a crucial aspect. I ask the Minister to comment on the suggestion made in amendment 152. Does he recognise the importance of these issues? Would he consider taking this away and exploring whether the clause could be amended to make this minor but important additional change, to ensure that all planning decisions going forward recognise the importance of accessibility?

    Hansard source
25. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. <em>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.</em> <em>Amendment made: </em>49, in clause 45, page 58, line 15, at end insert— “(7A) This section applies in relation to a relevant planning function conferred on a mineral planning authority as if references to a local planning authority were to a mineral planning authority in England.”—<em>(Matthew Pennycook.)</em> <em>This amendment has the effect that (if regulations under inserted section 319ZZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are made) members of a mineral planning authority in England who have not completed any training required by the regulations will be prohibited from exercising certain mineral planning functions on behalf of the authority.</em> <em>Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.</em> Clause 46 Delegation of planning decisions in England

    Hansard source
26. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I absolutely recognise that we have a housing crisis in this country, but does the hon. Lady recognise, in turn, that it is not just a question of building our way out of the housing crisis? Does she recognise that we have nearly 1 million empty homes in this country, that we have an incredibly unequal housing system, and that financial mechanisms such as the introduction of buy-to-let mortgages had a huge effect in making our housing system even more unequal and unaffordable for many people? Does she recognise that a key part of resolving the housing crisis has to be for Government to take a more direct role in funding the development of more genuinely affordable social rented housing?

    Hansard source
27. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I thank the Minister, and I absolutely recognise the importance of the principle of community benefit. However, would he not agree with me that it becomes problematic if we put in specific numbers, such as £250 or £1,000 a year? Inflation will change what that means, so is it not more relevant and logical to place a requirement more like the amendment advocated by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, which talks about a community dividend that is in proportion to the revenues generated by the project rather than an absolute number?

    Hansard source
28. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting)

    Logically, we could divide by the number of miles of transmission infrastructure in each community.

    Hansard source
29. 13 May 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    UK-EU Summit

    The Minister raises the important issue of the cost of living. Given the dire economic impacts of Brexit, including food inflation being eight times higher than it would otherwise have been, and the costs of leaving the European Union amounting to £1 million an hour in 2022, according to data from the Office for National Statistics, does he agree with me that it makes total economic sense for the UK and the people in it to use next week’s summit to start discussions with the EU on what the process of rejoining might be, and the timings for that?<span id="vol767_col6WC" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="6WC" data-volume-number="767">[<em>Official Report</em>, 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 6WC.] (Correction)</span>

    Hansard source
30. 12 May 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Personal Independence Payment: Assessment Review

    Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister told me that cutting back on PIP eligibility was in line with post-war Labour principles, but more and more Labour Members are saying that that policy—balancing the Government’s books on the backs of disabled people and those who care for them—is cruel and wrong in principle. Will the Secretary of State tell us who is right?

    Hansard source
31. 12 May 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Immigration System

    The Prime Minister’s “island of strangers” speech sounded like something straight out of the Reform-Trump playbook. Rather than alienating and devaluing migrants, and recognising the need to increase the number of Brits who want to work in our health and care sectors, would the Home Secretary not prefer to support Unison’s campaign for a certificate of common sponsorship? Such a certificate would protect the working rights of migrant workers who are working in unacceptable situations of exploitation that border on slavery and who are at threat of deportation. As a Labour Member, would she not prefer to support that campaign?

    Hansard source
32. 12 May 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

    The Government’s repeal of the vile and illegal Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and large parts of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 are welcome, but they must do more to repeal the underlying legal framework, which continues to undermine the UK’s ability to uphold the rule of law and human rights. The Illegal Migration Act simply does not belong on the statute book, and my preference would be to scrap the lot of it. My amendment 35 at least seeks to restore judicial oversight of decisions about detention. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association points out that without my amendment 35, a software engineer who overstayed her visa could be detained for longer than a suspected terrorist, and with far less judicial oversight. Turning to my new clause 38, I am disappointed that the Government have not used the Bill to repeal the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, when Labour rightly opposed that legislation in its entirety on its Second Reading. That Act marked the UK’s move away from upholding the 1951 refugee convention and instead denies the right to territorial asylum, yet this Labour Government have chosen to leave the Act on the statute book, untouched by this Bill. My new clause 38 focuses on undoing the provisions that penalise and criminalise people who make unsafe journeys to the UK to seek sanctuary. It scraps the parts that create an unfair two-tier asylum system with differential treatment for different groups of people—a proposal so unworkable that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) had to pause it when in government. Crucially, it scraps the law that criminalises people arriving in the UK without permission or the right paperwork with a penalty of up to four years in prison. This law is clearly contrary to article 31.1 of the 1951 refugee convention, which provides immunity from penalties in recognition of the fact that refugees are often compelled to arrive without appropriate documents in order to access their human rights under that convention. Lastly, my new clause 38 would scrap sections 30 to 38 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which sought to—I will put it charitably—poorly reinterpret the refugee convention. I wish to highlight the fact that the Government are leaving on the statute book measures that unjustly penalise and criminalise refugees for arriving irregularly when there are no safe and managed routes to travel here to claim asylum for the vast majority of people who might need and be eligible to do so. In the words of Warsan Shire: “no one puts their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land”. This Government are clearly focused on appearing tough on immigration, and to do so they have brought in some of the previous Government’s cruel policies and introduced some of their own—

    Hansard source
33. 8 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Nature-friendly Farming

    <Question HRSContentId="{0F6AF5EF-2635-408C-8783-1F9D3CA95E09}">9. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{8E767D09-C3A0-4FD2-A8DA-142A3ED42205}">Whether he plans to improve support for nature-friendly farming. </QuestionText></Question>

    Hansard source
34. 8 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Nature-friendly Farming

    On behalf of the Green party, on this special day of commemoration, I join colleagues from across the House in paying tribute to all those who sacrificed so much to resist and defeat fascism 80 years ago. I thank the Minister for his response. We have indeed discussed these issues before and will continue to do so, I am sure. At the weekend, I spent time on two farms in my constituency—at both I met groups of farmers, including members of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, who told me of their huge frustration at being let down by the Government’s policy on farming and the lack of support. They recognise how vital farming is, including the transition to nature-friendly farming, for this country’s food security, nature protection and climate action. Does he agree with the farmers in my constituency about how vital the transition to nature-friendly farming is for those issues, and will he give us a date for when he will introduce such policies—

    Hansard source
35. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Engagements

    <Question HRSContentId="{0DB13003-13B3-460E-B403-EA70E6C43A90}">Q6.   <QuestionText HRSContentId="{842B60E9-4588-48EF-B181-3BDB5E6044CB}"></QuestionText>VE Day marked the end of horror in Europe. Afterwards, our post-war expansion of welfare benefits was something truly principled from Labour. Given the real fear felt by disabled people in Brighton Pavilion and across the nation, does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time to be principled again and restore their support, not make his MPs vote to restrict it?</Question>

    Hansard source
36. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    I rise to speak to new clause 15, but I also want to associate myself with the many right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken up for our creative industries. Our most talented and creative minds have not been getting fair representation from the Government up to now, and this has been a very interesting, well informed and, hopefully, influential debate today. New clause 15 is about privacy, safety and providing a dedicated complaints procedure for individuals including victims of modern slavery, domestic abuse, gender-based violence and for others at risk of serious harm if their personal data is mishandled. This is not a theoretical question. Last November, <em>The Independent</em> reported on Lola, a domestic abuse victim whose home address was leaked to her ex-partner by a company that obtains restraining orders. She said that she was left fearing for her life. As the Open Rights Group has laid out in its briefing, the Information Commissioner’s Office is not functioning as it should be in cases such as this. I have many examples—including how Charnwood district council sent details of the new <span id="775" class="column-number" data-column-number="775"></span>address of an abused woman directly to her abuser at her former address, so that her abuser knew where she lived—yet people placed at risk in this way currently have no means of challenging the Information Commissioner’s Office if it fails to take the right action, which happens too often. New clause 15 simply proposes dedicated procedures to support vulnerable people making complaints and a right to appeal to the Information Tribunal, a route currently available to large tech firms but not to the people harmed by their practices. I hope that Ministers will take these proposals up. On other amendments, I fully back the Liberal Democrats on new clauses 2 to 6, which I am signed up to. I personally will abstain from voting on the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 1 and on the Conservatives’ new clause 19. This is because, although I am minded to increase the age of digital consent from 13, given the wider implications of harmful content and data that can be collected and used to do harm, my discussions locally with parents and young people in Brighton Pavilion have led me to want to properly include both groups in any decision on what that new age should be, given that it would cut people off from social media. We must have rapid and real processes of deliberation on this issue as soon as possible that are not just consultative but collaborative. Finally, new clause 21 is of serious concern to my constituents, and I agree with them and TransActual that it would constitute a gross violation of privacy rights by creating a mass outing of trans people. Subsection (1)(d) of this new clause even goes so far as to seek to revert historical changes made to someone’s gender marker. I urge the Government to reject this and to act further to protect trans rights more broadly.

    Hansard source
37. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    India-Pakistan: Escalation

    Given the significance and frightening ramifications of further tensions and instability between these two nuclear-armed neighbours, I agree with the Minister that de-escalation and diplomacy are the absolute priority. Can he tell the House whether he has sought assurances that UK-manufactured weapons and military equipment have not been used in attacks against civilians? Can I ask him now to explicitly rule out supplying any UK-made weaponry to either side, in a bid to increase the pressure on all parties to engage in much-needed dialogue?

    Hansard source
38. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People

    I thank the right hon. Member for her powerful speech. I briefly draw attention to some figures from the Public and Commercial Services Union about its members working in the Department for Work and Pensions, including in jobcentres. Almost 50% of PCS members working in the DWP claim the very benefits that they process. Many of them rely on PIP to work, which further underlines the point she is making about the folly of cutting the benefits that enable people working for the Government to deliver these policies—they will not be able to do so if those benefits are cut. Does she agree that these cuts will punish sick and disabled people, including those working for the Government in this policy area?

    Hansard source
39. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People

    I thank the right hon. Member for her passionate speech and, in particular, for highlighting the real human impact of these cuts. Over 1 million disabled people were forced to use food banks last year, while, for many others, basics such as affording transport to hospital appointments will be jeopardised by these cuts. Does that not only emphasise and underline the case that right hon. Member was making: that this is a political choice, and that asking the very wealthiest in society to pay a bit more in tax would be the moral thing to do?

    Hansard source
40. 6 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Topical Questions

    Yesterday’s report from the Health and Social Care Committee is explicit that we cannot build an NHS fit for the future without effectively reforming social care. Back in January, the Secretary of State promised cross-party talks as well as Baroness Casey’s commission. He cannot outsource <span id="545" class="column-number" data-column-number="545"></span>political leadership to Baroness Casey. Political will is the sticking point with the reform of social care. Will he show that leadership and bring the parties together to find the solutions to unblock this crisis?

    Hansard source