Green Party — partytracker.uk

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

28 Mar 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Water Bill
I hope the right hon. Member would agree that it is a multifaceted problem, and that there are different issues in different places. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. In my constituency, the issue is particularly about phosphate pollution, but in other places it is about nitrates, and in other places it is about water volume. I absolutely agree with his earlier comments on the importance of upland water management and natural flood management approaches, which are ways to ensure that we manage water, keep water on the land and address questions of drainage. Indeed, I mentioned this in a debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill just the other day, because it is vital that the Bill addresses the question of water management. We need to treat these things in an integrated and site-specific way. I have called for many years now for a water protection zone in my constituency to ensure that the sources of pollution are correctly attributed and tackled, and have called for more funding and teeth for the Environment Agency to enforce the existing rules, which will help to reduce the problem of pollution. To conclude, I warmly welcome the Bill brought to the House today by the hon. Member for Norwich South, which presents a thoughtful, constructive and detailed way of bringing people together to address what we all recognise is a crucial problem. However, I say to him—and to the Minister—that we must tackle agricultural water pollution with the same sense of urgency and commitment with which we are addressing sewage. Sir Jon Cunliffe’s Independent Water Commission explicitly excluded this issue from its terms of reference, except in so far as it relates to the water industry. I have read the water commission’s terms of reference very carefully, and have spoken to the commission about it: it is not set up to address the problem of agricultural run-off into our rivers. We need the same level of focus on this issue as we do on sewage, because if we want to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, we need an integrated approach.
Hansard source
28 Mar 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Looked After Children (Distance Placements) Bill
The hon. Member is making a very powerful speech, and I echo his point about the voices of young people themselves being heard in these debates. I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the opportunity to introduce the measures in this Bill, perhaps by adding them to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill in the Lords. However, does the hon. Member agree that we are spending more and more on taking children into care because we are failing them and their families early on? In addition to the measures in his Bill, does he agree that we need to invest more in supporting children and families earlier, so that fewer children end up being taken into care in the first place?
Hansard source
28 Mar 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Water Bill
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that hospital pass. I will make a note not to follow the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) again, if I can help it. I will just try to do a good job, and perhaps not to speak for quite as long. I am delighted to be here to discuss and support this Bill, and I thank the hon. Member for bringing it forward. It will be no surprise to anyone here that I am absolutely in favour of this Bill to fix the despicable situation of our waterways. To do that, we need to bring water back into public ownership. This issue is so important to me and my Green colleagues that we tabled the first early-day motion of this Parliament on the public ownership of water. We highlighted that sewage was “being discharged into English waterways for more than 3.6 million hours in 2023…that water companies in England have incurred debts of more than £64 billion and paid out £78 billion in dividends”— note the similarity of those numbers— “since they were privatised debt-free in 1989”. We pointed out that “water companies paid out £1.4 billion in dividends in 2022, even as 11 of them were fined in the same year for missing performance targets”. Privatisation is just not working. The experiment has failed. We are one of the only countries in the world with a fully privatised water system, which shows that it is a bad idea. Water is a natural monopoly. For example, people who live in the south-west, as I do, cannot choose to be supplied by Yorkshire Water. I am not sure that they would want to, but my point is that when their provider gives a poor service and charges extortionate sums, they cannot take their business elsewhere. There is no fair competition. You get what you get, and you cannot get upset about it—but we are upset about it, because sewage is being pumped into our water, and we are paying through the nose for the privilege, all while shareholders profit.
Hansard source
28 Mar 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Water Bill
One of the reasons why I support the Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Norwich South is that it uses the tool of a citizens’ assembly to ask the public how they think the system should work, and to explore different options, rather than predetermining the exact model. For clarity, the Green party and I support public ownership of public services, but that does not necessarily mean nationalisation. Before the water companies were privatised, they were owned regionally, and I think that would be a sensible model this time. I also think that the citizens’ assembly could look into other forms of public ownership, such as co-operatives.
Hansard source
28 Mar 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Water Bill
I will make some progress, rather than having a long back and forth. We are paying through inflated bills, paying with our health, and now we may be paying with our public money, as the Government have said that they are ready to bail out Thames Water, which was privatised in 1989 with no debt. Since then, it has racked up £14.7 billion in debt and at the same time—note the similarity of these numbers—paid out £10.4 billion to its shareholders. If that is not a scam, I do not know what is. Privatisation was supposed to keep prices down, but it has done the opposite. More than one third of people’s bills is used to pay interest on debt, or to pay dividends to shareholders. The Government are taking some steps to improve the situation. I absolutely welcome those steps, as far as they go, but these issues are not likely to go away without our considering the option, or looking into the possibility, of bringing water companies back into public hands. That is why I was disappointed to learn that the Government’s supposedly independent commission on the water sector regulatory system is not being allowed—despite being independent—to consider public ownership as one of the options, though I note with interest the establishment of the people’s commission on the water sector, which will look into this option as part of its broader scope.
Hansard source
28 Mar 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Water Bill
If hon. Members of this House feel threatened by the setting up of a citizens’ assembly in order to gather views, that may be an indication of the weakness of the democracy that we have in this place. I really value the contribution that citizens’ assemblies can make. They have been used in other countries, notably Ireland. They are not a replacement for the House of Commons, but they can add valuable extra detail.
Hansard source
28 Mar 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Water Bill
I think my hon. Friend is about to chip in with an example.
Hansard source
28 Mar 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Water Bill
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I would also point to the citizens’ assembly set up by Bristol city council. Citizens’ assemblies are particularly strong at looking in depth at detailed, specific questions, rather than broad topics to do with how the entire country is run. I see citizens’ assemblies not as replacing the role of the House of Commons, but as supplementing it valuably.
Hansard source
28 Mar 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Water Bill
I will make some progress.
Hansard source
28 Mar 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Water Bill
The provision of water—
Hansard source
28 Mar 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Water Bill
One last time, though the hon. Member is pushing it.
Hansard source
28 Mar 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Water Bill
Of course a current Government cannot bind a future Government on a decision like that indefinitely, and I was not suggesting that they could, but as I pointed out, as England is one of very few countries on the entire planet with a fully privatised water system, I suspect and hope that if we returned to a public system, it would be more likely to stay public, as both elected representatives and the public would see that the system performed better when the profit motive was removed.
Hansard source
28 Mar 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Water Bill
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful reminder about the analogy with the national health service. Public ownership is not just essential for social and environmental justice; it is also, in this situation, a pragmatic necessity. It just makes sense, which is why almost everyone else does things that way. With water back in public hands, the Government could invest in fixing the crumbling infrastructure and cleaning up our rivers, or preventing them from getting into such a state in the first place, without haemorrhaging money to shareholders and allowing it to spill over—sorry; I couldn’t resist—into fat cats’ salaries. People are struggling to put food on the table and heat their homes. We cannot allow water companies to contribute to that situation by hiking up the bills that everyone has to pay. Without real change, we will not stop sewage flowing into our rivers and profits flowing into the pockets of shareholders. There is an obvious answer that makes both people and the environment the winners: if they so choose, the Government could bring water companies back into public hands, to end the profiteering, drive down bills, protect our rivers, waterways and coastline, and catch up with the public who, as the hon. Member for Norwich South pointed out, are way ahead of the Labour Government on this issue and much else.
Hansard source
28 Mar 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Water Bill
If the hon. Member is so aware of the overwhelming public support for public ownership of water, as she just indicated from the level of concern in her constituency, I am confused about why she is so dogged in her pursuit of continued privatisation.
Hansard source
28 Mar 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Water Bill
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Hansard source
28 Mar 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Water Bill
The hon. Member has expressed concern about how public ownership would be paid for. Is he aware of the special administration regime for water companies? It was brought in last year and would substantially address these issues.
Hansard source
28 Mar 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Water Bill
It might be worth clarifying that, as far as I can tell—Hansard will prove whether I am right—the majority of the mentions of nationalisation were from Members opposing this Bill, whereas those who support it were talking about other models, including mutualisation and co-operatives.
Hansard source
28 Mar 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Water Bill
Will the Minister give way?
Hansard source
27 Mar 2025ParliamentSiân Berry
Prevention of Drug Deaths
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. This issue is of great concern to me and my constituents in Brighton Pavilion. Between July 2023 and June 2024, more than 160 people attended A&E at the Royal Sussex County hospital in Brighton because of drug-related overdoses. There were 46 drug poisoning deaths in my constituency in 2023. Every drug death is a preventable, devastating tragedy. The organisation Anyone’s Child: Families for Safer Drug Control amplifies the voices of those who have been directly impacted by drug policy failures, and it is now calling for the legal control and regulation of the drug market. For the past 12 years, drug deaths have increased each year in the UK, while the supply and trade have only become more violent, toxic and exploitative, especially for children. We should declare a public health emergency. Policing, stigma and criminal records cannot adequately address this crisis, but compassionate care, stability in housing and employment, and access to treatment can. Preventive treatment is patchy across the country. Funding is inconsistent, and there have been inappropriate targets and cuts to public health budgets. When a person is defined as a criminal for using drugs, they will be deterred from seeking drug-related services and support. The reality is that people are using and supplying drugs, and instead of keeping them safe, Government policy stigmatises and criminalises them. The Government’s punitive law and order approach is having terrible consequences for marginalised communities that experience violent over-policing—especially black people, who are four times more likely than white people to be stopped and searched, mainly for drugs, despite this being completely disproportionate to drug-use patterns. Like others, I urge the Minister to outline positive steps to take drugs out of the hands of organised crime and put them into the hands of health professionals through legal regulation. I want the Minister to outline steps towards significant and sustained increases in funding for drug treatment services, and towards removing legal barriers to harm reduction interventions, including drug consumption facilities like the one in Glasgow mentioned by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister). I want to see steps towards the evidence-based decriminalisation of drug consumption and a longer-term road map towards legal regulation. We have the evidence on how to address this crisis and save these lives, but do we have the will?
Hansard source
27 Mar 2025ParliamentSiân Berry
PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance
Earlier in the week, I wrote to the Secretary of State, asking her to confirm that the plans would not go ahead if the proposals were assessed as being harmful to disabled people. The equality analysis says that the families who will lose out are estimated to represent 20% of all families who report having someone with a disability in the household. Given that PIP is not related to work, and that the money cannot be made up through work changes, does the Minister agree that proceeding is not acceptable when there is this level of harm?
Hansard source
27 Mar 2025ParliamentSiân Berry
Business of the House
Yesterday, the Office for Students levied a wholly disproportionate fine on the University of Sussex after what looks like a flawed and wasteful investigation at a time when the higher education sector is in financial crisis. Could the Leader of the House ask the Education Secretary whether she will respond to concerns about why the OfS took so long to conduct its investigation, its behaviour, the costs it incurred and the ramifications of this very serious judgment?
Hansard source
27 Mar 2025ParliamentSiân Berry
Point of Order
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, the Chancellor incorrectly stated that, on Second Reading, Green party MPs “voted against the Planning and Infrastructure Bill”—[Official Report, 26 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 971.] In fact, none of us did that. How can the Chancellor’s inaccurate statement be corrected on the record, given that she has inadvertently misrepresented the voting record of other hon. Members?
Hansard source
27 Mar 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Local Bus Services
In my constituency, bus services are a lifeline for residents of all ages, young and old. I was shocked to hear at a recent meeting at Hereford sixth-form college that 21 students this year have had to stop their studies because of problems with the reliability and cost of public transport. Our older residents get free bus travel, but our young people do not. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that every young person is enabled to access education, employment and training? Will he meet me to discuss how the Department for Transport can work with the Department for Education to ensure that all young people can access those opportunities?
Hansard source
27 Mar 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Modern Slavery Act 2015: 10th Anniversary
I warmly welcome this debate. I thank the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) for securing it and opening it, and for her work on this topic. As we have heard from Members from all parts of the House, while there is something to celebrate in the fact that this legislation is here, there is still much more work to be done to achieve the goal of eliminating slavery entirely. I will take this opportunity to raise two issues with the Minister—issues on which there is work to be done that could strengthen our action on modern slavery and our policies. The first issue relates to checks and balances, or review processes. In any administrative decision-making process, it is really important that there are opportunities for decisions to be reviewed by people with expertise, yet in December 2022, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), disbanded the multi-agency assurance panels, which played a crucial role. They brought together people with expertise in policy and in tackling modern slavery to review cases in which applicants had been rejected, in order to ensure that the decisions in those cases were sound. Members from across the House may have received the same briefing as me from a coalition of dozens of organisations working on modern slavery. I was shocked and surprised to read in that briefing that 70% of reconsidered negative decisions were overturned, so there is clearly an issue with the decision-making process, and clearly a vital role for review mechanisms such as the multi-agency assurance panels in checking that decisions are sound. I would very much welcome the Minister responding to this point in her summing up, and perhaps saying whether the Government will consider reinstating those important panels. My second point is about the vulnerability of people on temporary work visas to labour exploitation. Preventing labour exploitation in the first place is key. This issue relates particularly to people on overseas domestic worker visas, but it also applies, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) said, to those in the care sector, which is growing, and to agricultural seasonal workers. The core of this problem is that when the temporary work visa is attached to the employer, there is a strong disincentive for the employee to speak out and report labour exploitation, because they will suffer punishment for doing so. That means that the problem remains hidden, and it makes it much more difficult for people to come forward. Sensible reforms that could tackle the problem have been proposed by those working in the sector. For instance, if those work visas were renewable so long as the employment continued, the individual would have a degree of security. However, that would have to go alongside a provision under which, if the employer was subject to an enforcement mechanism for exploitation, the employee was able to remain here and could seek alternative employment and an alternative sponsor for their visa. I understand that that is being done in Australia, where there is now a mechanism for bridging visas to be provided. That ensures a measure of justice in the system, and that those who are subject to exploitation can escape it and find new employment with a non-exploitative employer. Those are the two issues that I wanted to bring to the Minister’s attention. I look forward to hearing her response.
Hansard source
26 Mar 2025ParliamentAdrian Ramsay
Spring Statement
The Chancellor knows that our economy has been driven to the edge over the past 15 years, with ordinary people forced to bear the burden while a small minority have amassed extreme wealth. She could change that. Her own Back Benchers are lining up to argue for a wealth tax. Why will she not do the fair and right thing and introduce a tax on the very wealthiest, rather than launching austerity 2.0 and removing vital support from disabled and ill people?
Hansard source
24 Mar 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that I always like to start by emphasising where there is common ground and agreement, so that we can start off on a positive foot. I do agree that there is a housing crisis. I do agree that we need to build more homes. We need to tackle the outrageous inequality in the housing market and the fact that there are nearly 1 million empty homes, as well as 1.5 million for which there is planning permission but that are, as yet, unbuilt. We need to build more homes—the right home in the right place at the right price, though—and I am not sure the Bill goes far enough to address those concerns. There are more areas of agreement. I agree we need to reform planning. I agree we need a strategic approach. I agree we need to tackle the issues of hope value, community benefit from energy infrastructure, and planning fees—so many areas of agreement. [Interruption.] I can see the Minister is smiling. [Interruption.] No, I am not going to stop there; sorry! However, there are a number of areas of missed opportunity, as well as fairly deep concern. Currently, the Bill has no content on a range of important planning aspects. It does not contain any measures to secure affordable, healthy homes, or to ensure that the planning system is fully joined up with our climate and nature obligations. There is not even a statement of a positive visionary purpose for the planning system, and it is so important to provide the framework for what we are doing here. We need clarification that development should be sustainable, benefiting future generations as well as meeting today’s needs. We need joined-up policy: a new climate and nature duty on all planning authorities to ensure that all policies tackle our Climate Change Act 2008 and Environment Act 2021 obligations. Planning is crucial for tackling the climate crisis and reducing the environmental impact of new development. We need solar panels on roofs and high levels of insulation. There is nothing here on zero-carbon heating or embodied carbon. There is also nothing on climate adaptation. I find it quite extraordinary that in 160 pages there is not a single mention of the words flood or flooding, yet they are crucial to planning and infrastructure. We need to ensure that the Bill plans for active and public transport. Let us see a “no net new traffic growth” test applied to all developments, so we incentivise the shift to active and public transport. The Bill should include a nature duty. It provides a great opportunity to specify wildlife-friendly design, swift bricks—I have talked about them previously—hedgehog highways and green roofs. Let us have a new chapter of the building regulations specifically on biodiversity. I recognise that environmental delivery plans could be useful in some cases, but I worry that they may be a bit too much of a blanket approach. What is suitable for newts is not necessarily suitable for all aspects of wildlife and landscape. I have a little concern that we are effectively outsourcing the environmental obligations of developers to Natural England, without requiring sufficient attention to be paid to those issues. For example, the removal of site-specific survey requirements means we will effectively be shooting in the dark when we specify what remedies need to be taken. We need to legally guarantee that nature benefits will significantly outweigh any harm. We need to follow the mitigation hierarchy, strengthen protection for irreplaceable habitats such as the ancient woodlands and chalk streams that have been mentioned, and remove the viability test for the nature restoration levy. Otherwise, there is a real risk that developers will altogether escape paying for the nature restoration that they should do. We need to ensure accessibility standards and affordability standards—
Hansard source
20 Mar 2025ParliamentSiân Berry
Coastal Communities
I am pleased to speak in the debate and I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing it. In 2019, a House of Lords report on the future of coastal communities called Brighton “probably the UK’s most successful seaside community,” and we are. I am very pleased that the city council has recently set up a new seafront development board, and I have already had a positive meeting with its chair to discuss how we continue to make our seafront better, to support and grow our city’s wonderful reputation for heritage, music, the arts, shopping, amusement, community action, diversity, nature and wellbeing. As others have said, there are currently no Government funding schemes specifically for coastal areas, and there is no ministerial focus; I echo the comments of everybody in this House on that. We need focus on the specific challenges that our coastal communities face, because austerity and Brexit have bitten Brighton’s communities too. Our people have big problems with housing costs, holiday lets, employment, health, transport and health inequality, which all need dealing with.
Hansard source
20 Mar 2025ParliamentSiân Berry
Coastal Communities
I could not agree more. The amount of different sectors of the economy in Brighton and Hove that have remarked to me on the impact of Brexit is huge, not least the cultural industries. I will echo others and talk a little about the regularly appalling state of our sea water, which is a genuine threat to our success. Southern Water has been taken to court and found guilty of criminal behaviour and lying, yet we still have sewage overflows off the south coast on a regular basis. I have met sea-swimming groups and individual constituents who have been very sick after swimming in the waters around Brighton, and the only way to get that properly under control is public ownership. My Green colleagues and I will continue to push for that in this Parliament. I will very quickly shout out Lucy Davies, the brilliant and enthusiastic new director of Brighton Dome. When I met her recently, she told me about the excellent collaboration happening between cultural institutions along the Sussex coast. The coastal catalyst programme will support creativity and culture for young people from Bognor Regis to Bexhill, and it is exactly the kind of co-operative work that needs to happen. There is no single solution to the challenges that impact on our coastal communities, but we need ambition, vision, a dedicated Minister and a proper package of strategic initiatives and funding. As MPs we can help by working together and with local leaders to build on the ideas, build up new initiatives that we all agree our communities need because of their very special natures, and put on the pressure for that to happen.
Hansard source
20 Mar 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Conflict in Gaza
Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza—blocking the entry of humanitarian aid, cutting electricity that is essential for drinking water, the forced displacement of civilians, and now indiscriminate bombing that is killing and maiming many, many children. Those are not just clear risks of a breach of humanitarian law; they are clear breaches, and it is just not enough to say that we do not like it. I want to ask the Secretary of State a very specific question: has he explicitly asked the Israeli Government whether any UK-made arms or arms components were used in the mass air strikes in recent days that broke the ceasefire and have caused untold suffering to civilians?
Hansard source
19 Mar 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Engagements
We have a deeply unfair and unequal economic system, where vast numbers of people are struggling while billionaires are getting richer and richer. Does the Prime Minister really think that the way to tackle this situation is to put the onus on older people, children, and now sick and disabled people, rather than on the shoulders of the super-rich—those who can most easily afford to pay—with a wealth tax? If the Prime Minister uses the phrase “difficult choices” in his answer, will he specify “difficult choices” for whom?
Hansard source
18 Mar 2025ParliamentSiân Berry
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Twelfth sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is a pleasure speak under your chairship again, Mr Western. I tabled the new clause as a probing amendment. In short, it would bring the test for the recovery of universal credit overpayments caused by official error into line with regulation 100(2) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, meaning that they could be recovered only where the claimant could have reasonably been expected to realise that there was an overpayment. Let me provide some background on why the new clause is needed. According to Department for Work and Pensions data, in 2023-24 the best part of 700,000 of the new universal credit official error overpayment debts entered into the DWP’s debt management system were caused not by fraud or claimant error but by Government mistakes. Unlike for many other benefits, the DWP can recover official error universal credit overpayments from claimants. This power was introduced through the Welfare Reform Act 2012, and represented a significant change to the position that previously applied to most legacy benefits. When concerns were raised at the time, assurances were provided by the then Employment Minister that the DWP did “not have to recover money from people where official error has been made” and that “we do not intend, in many cases, to recover money where official error has been made.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 May 2011; c. 1019.] However, Public Law Project research shows that the DWP’s default approach is to recover all official error overpayments. Relief is dependent on individuals navigating a difficult and inaccessible process to request a waiver. In 2022, only 26 waiver requests were granted. DWP mistakes matter. The financial and psychological impacts of overpayment debt recovery on individual claimants can be severe. The research I have mentioned found that the recovery of debts, including official error overpayments, by deductions from universal credit led to a third of survey respondents becoming destitute. The risk of harm is particularly acute for official error overpayments, which individuals have no way of anticipating, so they can lead to sudden, unexpected reductions in income that impact existing fixed commitments and carefully planned budgets. The recovery of official error overpayments brought an added sense of injustice, with individuals finding themselves in debt due to a DWP error over which they had no control. For example, one claimant was overpaid universal credit because the DWP had failed to consider income from her widow’s pension. She had informed the DWP that she received it and was assured that it would not affect her claim. She relied on that assurance and spent the money on daily living expenses. Four years later, the DWP told her that it would be recovering the resulting overpayment of £7,258.08. Aside from the significant financial impact, the stress associated with recovery impacted her mental health. She found herself constantly thinking about the overpayment and how she would pay it back, which in turn impacted on her physical health. She was left anxious that mistakes would be made again, leading to her incurring debt that she had no power to avoid. Recovery often puts individuals who have relied on payments in good faith in financially precarious situations, forcing them to make difficult choices about sacrificing essentials. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that the current standard universal credit allowance is not sufficient to cover the cost of essentials. In this already difficult context, households that are repaying overpayment debt can lose up to 25% of their standard allowance each month. People often base key life decisions and financial planning on information provided by DWP officials about their entitlement to universal credit. An official error universal credit overpayment can also have a knock-on effect on people’s entitlement to other support, such as council tax reduction. I am sure the DWP does not want to be responsible for pushing someone into further financial hardship. We can prevent this harm from occurring in the first place with my new clause, which would mean that overpayments can be recovered only where the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that they had been overpaid. The new clause is equivalent to an amendment proposed by Labour Front Benchers during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act. Under the new clause, DWP officials would themselves consider the fairness of recovering an official error overpayment before any recovery was initiated. Increasing protections against the recovery of overpayments would also create a strong incentive to reduce the rate of DWP errors in the first instance, thereby contributing to a more accurate and better functioning welfare system from the outset. The Bill provides the Government with an opportunity to proactively address a harmful and unfair process that affects hundreds of thousands of claimants each year, easing the financial burden of debt on claimants who have done nothing wrong and encouraging the DWP to get payments right first time. I hope that the Minister will respond to my points on new clause 1, and I sincerely hope that we will make progress on the issue as the Bill progresses.
Hansard source
18 Mar 2025ParliamentSiân Berry
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Twelfth sitting)
I thank the Minister for taking seriously the concerns I raised. I will not press the new clause further today, but I hope that it will be looked at seriously in the next stages of the Bill, and that we can discuss this further in the House. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 2 Offence of fraud against a public authority “(1) A person who— (a) commits, (b) assists or conspires in the committal of, or (c) encourages the committal of fraud against a public authority commits an offence. (2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.”—(Rebecca Smith.) Brought up, and read the First time.
Hansard source
18 Mar 2025ParliamentSiân Berry
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Twelfth sitting)
I have a lot of sympathy with both new clauses. It is really important that we look closely, as we are mandated to do, at the impact of the Bill on the people whose examples have been raised throughout the debate. The Minister should answer the questions asked by hon. Members, and if the Government will not do what is proposed in the new clauses, he should say what the Government will do instead.
Hansard source
18 Mar 2025ParliamentSiân Berry
Military Co-operation with Israel
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this debate. As hon. Members have mentioned, we are discussing the UK’s military collaboration with Israel when, in the past 24 hours, more than 400 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli airstrikes. We can see in real time the consequences of that collaboration and who is paying the price. Families in Gaza are searching for their loved ones among rubble. The dead lie wrapped in stained white sheets. They are the ones who have paid the price. Meanwhile, this Government have relentlessly pushed for the continued export of UK-made parts for F-35s. The Minister must confirm whether any of those warplanes were involved in the attack on Gaza last night. Will he confirm whether UK-made parts enabled any of the bombings in recent days? If they did, will he acknowledge the UK’s direct role in the official collapse of an already fragile ceasefire? In September 2024, the Government admitted that “Israel is not committed to complying with international humanitarian law”, that there was a “clear risk” the UK’s arms exports might be used to commit serious legal violations, and introduced a partial suspension of 29 arms export licences to Israel. But that move exempted the UK’s most financially significant and deadly export: components for the F-35 jets, including bomb release mechanisms, which are still being made in my constituency despite the city council’s rejection of the company’s presence in our city. Moreover, since the original suspension, the Government have issued at least a further 34 arms export licences to Israel. Will the Minister confirm that we have now issued more new licences than we suspended when that minimal measure was taken? Alongside issuing deadly arms licences, the UK has outsourced more of its complicity to its overseas territories and military bases. The UK’s base in Cyprus has been used by the UK, US and Germany to supply Israel with weapons, personnel and intelligence since October 2023. Gibraltar has continuously provided harbour services to vessels involved in providing energy and supplies to Israel—the Minister should confirm that, in response to hon. Members’ questions. In written questions, Ministers have flatly refused to answer questions about whether RAF Shadow R1 flights from Akrotiri, in Cyprus, into Israeli airspace have been instructed to collect surveillance footage for hostage rescue or any other purpose. That refusal means that further written questions are now deemed out of order and the Government are escaping any scrutiny. The UK can either reaffirm its commitment to human rights, as a nation that upholds democratic values, or it can continue to aid and abet a state whose human rights abuses now extend to genocidal actions—it cannot do both.
Hansard source
18 Mar 2025ParliamentSiân Berry
Welfare Reform
I have heard nothing today that shows that the Government have listened to disabled people. Any changes to PIP should have been co-produced, but this week, 25 disabled people’s groups and charities wrote to Ministers begging for their opinions to be included, and not as an afterthought. Will the Secretary for State explain why disabled people are feeling so disregarded and scapegoated, and why impoverishing them to the tune of £5 billion is a higher priority than a simple wealth tax?
Hansard source
18 Mar 2025ParliamentAdrian Ramsay
Topical Questions
Requiring developers to include solar panels in all new homes and buildings would be extremely popular with the public and help deliver net zero targets. Can the Secretary of State give an update on his discussions with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, including those on mandatory solar as part of the future homes and buildings standard?
Hansard source
18 Mar 2025ParliamentAdrian Ramsay
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Today, I will concentrate on the important arguments for new clause 34 and amendment 173. New clause 34 would extend the provision of free school lunches to all primary school children. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), who tabled this important new clause for consideration in Committee, with the backing of 42 hon. Members, and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), who moved it. To set the context for new clause 34, the children’s charity Barnardo’s is clear that we are seeing epidemic levels of poverty among children in the UK. Across the country, families are facing a desperate struggle to put food on the table, keep the lights on and heat their homes. Nationally, 4.3 million children are in poverty; in my constituency, 3,920 children are growing up in poverty—that is 21% of children. This shocking state of affairs was a political choice made by the previous Government and those who backed austerity, and we should not repeat it. The No Child Left Behind campaign, which underpins new clause 34, is backed by more than 250 civil society leaders, from unions to charities, medical bodies to faith leaders and mayors to councils. This widespread backing is unsurprising because the case for universal free school meals is overwhelming. The need for free school meals is acute. We all remember Marcus Rashford igniting the campaign during the pandemic, pointing out that we could fill 27 Wembley stadiums with the 2.5 million children who did not know where their next meal might come from. The shameful legacy of child poverty continues. Poverty is embedded, with research from the University of Bristol showing that one in five schools run a food bank—a figure that is, I am told, even higher than the number of community food banks operated outside schools by the Trussell Trust and the Independent Food Aid Network combined. The National Education Union has explained that its members see the struggles of children in poverty every day, with 80% of teachers asked saying that they have provided food for hungry children out of their own pockets. One NEU member said: “So many of our children arrive tired and hungry. I find the issue with food so awful. I stock my school kitchen every week with fruit, cereal, milk, biscuits….the number of children who pop in to see me and then ask for food has grown over the last 2 years. It is heart breaking.” A universal approach is the best policy for three key reasons. First, it is good for children. Universal provision helps children learn, grow and thrive in school. For example, research published in November 2024 evaluating London’s roll-out of free school meal provision to all children attending primary state schools found that the policy helped children’s readiness to learn and ability to concentrate. The Department for Education’s evaluation of the pilot undertaken by the last Labour Government found that pupils in schools where all children received free school meals were found to have made four to eight weeks’ more progress in maths and English over two years. In that pilot, the poorest children made the most progress, reducing the attainment gap. In areas with means-tested provision, the effect on the attainment gap was negligible. On the health benefits, research published by the British Medical Journal found that less than 2% of packed lunches met school food standards, so this policy is a major opportunity to increase healthy eating. It would also reduce stigma and shame, giving pupils a better sense of belonging in schools. Means-tested provision leads to children feeling singled out and labelled as poor, impacting on their enjoyment of and engagement with school. Secondly, providing free school meals for all is an effective investment. The evidence shows that universal systems reduce inequality and deliver economic prosperity beyond the classroom. A cost-benefit analysis of expanding free school meals by PricewaterhouseCoopers shows that for every £1 invested in universal free school meals, £1.71 is generated in core benefits, such as increased savings for the NHS and schools and increased lifetime earnings and contributions for young people. Other expert research shows that the provision of universal free school meals increases pupils’ lifetime earnings, with the biggest increase being for the most disadvantaged children, thereby reducing inequalities for a generation beyond school. Work by the Food for Life partnership demonstrates that when food is sourced sustainably, more than £3 in social, economic and environmental value can be created for every £1 spent, mostly in the form of new jobs in the local economy. Thirdly, universal provision is more efficient. We know that providing free school meals helps end a situation where children fall through the gaps. Means-testing will always miss some children and families. In England, the draconian eligibility criteria mean that one in three children living in poverty are considered too well off to access free school meals. Restrictive eligibility, complicated registration processes and stigma also block countless families from accessing support. Universal systems are also more efficient, because they massively reduce administration. By putting an end to means-testing children for food, schools get back administration time, as all children’s meals will be funded together via one mechanism. Free school meals for all also eradicate problems of school lunch debts. Universal policies are also easier to defend and protect from erosion by future Governments who may seek to freeze thresholds or restrict eligibility. In the UK, Wales and London are leading the way in providing free, universal, healthy meals at lunchtime for every child in primary school as a means of reducing inequality—not just in school but for entire lifetimes. England needs to catch up. I sincerely hope that the Minister will consider building on the excellent progress on breakfast clubs contained in the Bill. New clause 34 makes the case for free school meals for all primary school children, but I want to be clear that I and my party support the extension of this policy to all children in school, because hunger does not stop at the age of 11. I hope to divide the House on this vital new clause, which builds on the excellent breakfast club provision. I urge all hon. Members to vote for the new clause, because we know that children cannot learn when they are hungry and that free school dinners for all is a winning policy for the economy, for families and for children. I turn briefly to amendment 173, on local authority consent for the withdrawal of certain children from school. Home education is an option that works extremely well for some families, and indeed many children thrive in this environment. Nevertheless, for vulnerable children, there can be real dangers in dropping out of sight of public agencies. The Bill already rightly mandates that if a local authority has live child protection concerns about a child, because they are suffering or are likely to suffer significant harm, then their parent must obtain the consent of the local authority to withdraw the child from school. Our amendment would extend that mandate to children for whom the local authority has previously had concerns and taken action under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 in order to safeguard and promote their welfare. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, supported by the Children’s Charities Coalition, has called for this strengthening of the Bill’s protections to safeguard the most vulnerable children, for whom withdrawing from school poses a risk to their safety and welfare. Last year, the child safeguarding practice review panel published its analysis of serious case reviews involving children who have died or suffered serious harm because of abuse and neglect. Those children were not in school at the time, under the proviso of receiving an education at home. Of the 41 serious case reviews, 23 of the children —over half—were previously known to children’s social care, including being subject to a child protection plan prior to the incident. Under clause 25 as it stands, such children would not be safeguarded, which I am sure is not the Government’s intention. I therefore urge the Minister to seriously consider amendment 173 as a proportionate and necessary safeguarding measure.
Hansard source
17 Mar 2025ParliamentSiân Berry
Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation
Does the hon. Member agree that the WASPI women are right to use the word “gaslighting” to describe the Government’s suggestion that there is no problem here and that everybody knew? They are not standing by the pledge they made in opposition; it is as if that pledge was never made. That strikes harshly at women who have spent their whole lives facing other aspects of sexism, as she describes.
Hansard source
17 Mar 2025ParliamentSiân Berry
Topical Questions
For weeks, the Government’s active trailing of welfare cuts has generated genuine fear. Disabled people in Brighton Pavilion are writing to me in terror. Will the Secretary of State apologise for this and reassure the public that benefit changes will not take place this calendar year or without parliamentary votes in this House?
Hansard source
17 Mar 2025ParliamentSiân Berry
Sentencing Council Guidelines
I do not believe the shadow Secretary of State believes that the law is currently applied equally and free of structural biases. But given the unfortunate politicisation of all this, does the Minister now back the chair of the Sentencing Council, who says that the state should not determine the sentence imposed on an individual offender and that sentencing guidelines of any kind—if they were to be dictated in any way by Ministers—would breach an important principle?
Hansard source

Green Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Water Bill

Looked After Children (Distance Placements) Bill

Water Bill

Water Bill

Water Bill

Water Bill

Water Bill

Water Bill

Water Bill

Water Bill

Water Bill

Water Bill

Water Bill

Water Bill

Water Bill

Water Bill

Water Bill

Water Bill

Prevention of Drug Deaths

PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance

Business of the House

Point of Order

Local Bus Services

Modern Slavery Act 2015: 10th Anniversary

Spring Statement

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Coastal Communities

Coastal Communities

Conflict in Gaza

Engagements

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Military Co-operation with Israel

Welfare Reform

Topical Questions

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Topical Questions

Sentencing Council Guidelines