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

1. 5 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Local Government Finance

   I welcome some aspects of what the Minister is proposing. It is important to not always fire political shots at each other and to look for common ground and give credit where it is due. I have said this to him before, but I really welcome the moves that the Government are making towards multi-year funding settlements. It is so important to move away from the hand-to-mouth, year-to-year, jam-jar approach to funding—particularly capital funding. That ridiculous competition between local authorities over an ever-decreasing pot of funding has been so damaging, so those moves really are things to welcome. But—there are quite a few buts about the local government finance settlement, but I will focus on just three. I represent the wonderful North Herefordshire constituency. Herefordshire council has received a settlement that is well below the national average, well below the average for comparator councils, and well below what is needed to provide the services that residents need and deserve. An interesting element of the debate has been some Members seeking to pose a binary conflict between <span id="883" class="column-number" data-column-number="883"></span>rural and urban authorities. I want to get away from that—it is really unhelpful—but it is important to recognise there is serious deprivation in rural areas, not just in income but in access to services. The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) talked eloquently about the fact that sparse populations, long distances and poor transport networks all hugely increase the cost of delivering services such as social care or home-to-school transport. That is the impact of geography, but demography is also an issue. Herefordshire has 50% more over-65s than the national average, which has a knock-on impact on the cost to local government of delivering crucial services. It is absolutely crystal clear that although the Government have taken away the rural services delivery grant, which they perhaps viewed as yet another jam jar, they have not replaced it in the new formula with a fair allocation of funding on the basis of rurality. I beg the Minister to revisit that issue when he comes up with the multi-year funding settlement. Otherwise, the serious problem of rural areas having their specific elements of deprivation under-recognised in the funding formula will build up so many other problems into the future. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I can see the Minister is nodding. I thank him for that and warmly invite him to Herefordshire so that we can show him, face to face and on the ground, the challenge of providing those services. That was “but” No. 1, regarding rurality. “But” No. 2, which relates to the impact of the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions, has been referenced previously in this debate. I appreciate the nuance with which the Minister answered questions on this issue earlier, and his recognition that it is a really serious issue and that the funding settlement does not fully acknowledge it, particularly the on-costs, because so much of what local authorities do is done not just through the staff they employ themselves, but through commissioned services. I am sure that Members across the House have been inundated with correspondence from charities and businesses working in sectors such as the care sector that are desperately worried about the effect of the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions on their ability to provide those crucial services—so often commissioned by local authorities—to local people. When the Minister is doing the multi-year funding formula in future years, will he please address that issue and ensure that those costs are fully integrated into the calculation? My third “but” was also touched on earlier. The Minister expressed doubt about whether cross-party agreement could be reached on this matter, but there seems to be quite a degree of consensus across this House that council tax is a broken tax—it is a broken funding system. It is outdated, regressive, unfair, and way overdue a review. We are charging people based on an assessment of property rates that were set 35 years ago and have never been updated. Council tax is crying out for a fundamental review, so will the Minister please commit to undertaking that review, working across parties and across the House to find a much fairer and more sustainable long-term approach to raising local funding?

   Hansard source
2. 5 Feb 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

   High Street Retailers

   The Minister rightly talks about the importance of supporting small and independent businesses. One thing that those businesses rely on is having access to banking, but banks are closing, which has a particular impact in rural communities. For example, my constituents have lost Barclays in Harleston and this year are due to lose Lloyds in Halesworth and Beccles. Will the Minister outline the progress that the Government are making on their pledge to roll out far more banking hubs so that local communities and businesses keep access to banking in their market towns and areas?

   Hansard source
3. 5 Feb 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

   English Devolution and Local Government

   I am a strong supporter of genuine devolution of funding and powers, but when the Deputy Prime Minister says that she wants to devolve power from Whitehall to the town hall, my constituents are concerned that it could in practice mean centralising power from local communities to remote county halls. Can she confirm that the Government will not impose huge remote unitary county councils if that is against the wishes of local residents, and how can she justify cancelling local elections when the county councillors last elected in 2021 have no mandate to lead on negotiating changes that are expected to last half a century?

   Hansard source
4. 4 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Ninth sitting)

   As the parent of a former footballer, I know that the Football Association does not let people coach football, even Saturday league, without being a qualified coach, so the right hon. Member’s analogy falls down.

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

   Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Ninth sitting)

   No, I am making my point, which is that it is entirely reasonable to require that people who are in an educational role are either qualified to take that role or undergoing the process of qualification. If somebody wants to be a teacher and wants to contribute to educating our young people, I see no reason why they would not want to make sure that they have the skills to do that. <em>[Interruption.]</em> I let the right hon. Gentleman finish his sentences.

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

   Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Ninth sitting)

   When coaching young people playing football at Saturday clubs, the Football Association is the relevant regulatory body. When teaching in a school, the relevant regulatory body is that which gives qualified teacher status.

   Hansard source
7. 4 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting)

   You said that the more rigid you make the national curriculum, the more problems we will have, but we are not debating making the national curriculum more rigid. We are debating whether the national curriculum should apply to all schools. A minute ago, you said that the ability not to use the national curriculum is a safety valve against politicisation, but that goes against everything you said in the previous 10 minutes, which was all about the flexibilities that are inherent in the national curriculum, of which you gave some excellent examples.

   Hansard source
8. 4 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting)

   Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the national curriculum is a floor, not a ceiling?

   Hansard source
9. 4 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting)

   I thank the Minister for the statistics she has presented, which echo the point I was about to ask her about. Would like to challenge—as she just has—the assertion from the Conservative Benches that academies are somehow better performing? Would she agree that there is no clear evidence, as suggested by Professor Stephen Gorard, who absolutely knows what he is talking about, that academies as a whole do better than maintained schools? An ideological commitment to academies, based on a set of cherry-picked examples of individual schools, is unhelpful to the tenor of the debate. We should focus on ensuring that every child in every type of school gets an excellent education.

   Hansard source
10. 4 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I warmly welcome the proposal to ensure that there is a level playing field for pay for teachers who teach in different types of schools. Does the Minister consider that now is the time to take a similar approach to addressing pay for leaders of schools? I found it pretty jaw dropping to hear recently that the pay and pension of a CEO of a well-known multi-academy trust topped £600,000 per year. I took the trouble of having a look at that particular academy trust and found that it has 168 people on salaries of over £100,000, and it covers just 55 schools. It is clearly not sustainable for the pay of leaders of multi-academy trusts to continue to increase in proportion to the number of schools in those trusts. If that approach was taken to salary setting, the Minister herself would be on millions of pounds a year. We had an interesting discussion earlier about the difference between correlation and causation. There is worrying evidence—I have seen interesting analysis from Warwick Mansell, for example—showing correlation between the prevalence of non-QTS teachers and high pupil-teacher ratios in multi-academy trusts and high levels of executive pay. That strongly suggests that such trusts are diverting or channelling more funding into higher executive pay rather than frontline teaching, which is surely of concern. While I welcome the moves to ensure equitability across teacher salaries in all types of state school, is it not time to address pay inequalities and excessive pay in certain leadership functions in multi-academy trusts in particular? I note that the Public Accounts Committee <span id="403" class="column-number" data-column-number="403"></span>drew attention back in 2022 to the DFE not having a handle on executive pay in the sector. I would warmly welcome the Minister’s comments on whether the Government have any intention to take action to address this.

    Hansard source
11. 4 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I thank the Minister for giving way. Does she agree with me that there is a case for establishing a national pay framework for academy trust leaders, given the huge and rising salaries?

    Hansard source
12. 4 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting)

    Just to expand on that, I would like to ask the Minister whether she thinks it is reasonable and justifiable that an academy trust leader has a salary of over £600,000, when a leader in a local authority with responsibility for an equivalent or larger number of schools would have a salary nowhere near?

    Hansard source
13. 4 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I too absolutely welcome this new duty to co-operate. It is really important in the context of the problems that competition over people’s heads has led to. I am, however, like others, a bit concerned about the vagueness of the way that it is specified in the legislation. I feel that it does not make it clear enough what the duty to co-operate actually means. Would the Minister consider making it more clear, such as specifying that the local authority becomes the admissions authority for all schools in the area? Would the Government also consider reforming the legacy of partial selection that is still there for some schools? Arguably, we should reform aptitude-based tests and other admissions tests, which evidence shows have led to inequalities in admissions.

    Hansard source
14. 4 Feb 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Clean Power by 2030

    Experts are clear that the savings from the Government’s clean power action plan will be wiped out by 2050 if airport expansion at Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton goes ahead, and that relying on so-called sustainable aviation fuels would use up to half the UK’s agricultural land. Does the Secretary of State agree with the scientists that, while ambitious clean power plans are hugely welcome, if this Government also back airport expansion, they are not going to meet their climate obligations?

    Hansard source
15. 3 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

    This Bill is, at heart, Conservative legislation left over from the most dark corner of the last Administration, and I have no qualms about opposing it. I will speak against giving it a Second Reading and, alongside my fellow Green Members, will vote against it later. One of the changes that people wanted to see when they voted out the last Government was a welfare system that treats people with dignity and respect. Sadly, this Bill is instead based on blame and suspicion of people in need of help. It has a focus on fraud when a far bigger issue is unclaimed and under-claimed benefits due to a lack of awareness, complexity in the system and stigma. The people losing out are not helped by this legislation. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), set out the risk of damaging trust in and engagement with the DWP. We also have the risk of reigniting damaging and unfair stereotypes from some people involved in wider debates on these issues on social media, in newspapers and in broadcast media. All in all, this Bill is deeply concerning and disappointing, and I had hoped better of this Government on this issue. I sincerely hope that Ministers will go back to the drawing board and come up with a new, fair and humane policy for dealing with what is a very small proportion of fraud in our benefit system. I have had so much correspondence on this from constituents who are very concerned about the Bill’s sweeping powers to invade their privacy and treat them as suspects, not citizens. I am talking about pensioners who need pension credit, people who are permanently disabled and whose entitlement to employment and support allowance is clear and settled, people who are precariously underemployed or unemployed who need universal credit, family carers, and people who are simply on low wages and cannot make ends meet. These are citizens, not suspects. The clauses about what appear to be routine and regular Government access to information from bank accounts for eligibility verification—not linked to serious crime—most concern me. I am also opposed to the clauses that increase powers of search and access to homes for more serious matters, and those that would remove driving licences from people who are having difficulty paying back to the DWP overpaid money due to what may simply be human error at a difficult time in their lives, not fraud at all. I therefore suggest that the Government come back to this House with the parts relating to covid fraud and to contractors and businesses, and maybe add something on the much bigger problem of tax fraud. On the rest, I suggest that they start again with a process of genuine listening and co-production, with those who claim social security, about appropriate, fair, respectful and secure ways of ensuring that people in need of support can receive what they are entitled to, and to protect in a proportionate way against those who may seek to defraud the Government or local authorities.<span id="602" class="column-number" data-column-number="602"></span> This process would fit together very well with the recent proposal from the charity Mind in response to other upcoming changes to benefit processes, which asks for a new approach to the benefits system and a commission led by disabled people to redesign benefit assessments. Mind says that this kind of process would help to rebuild trust between disabled people and the DWP. I agree, and my personal view is that this Bill will do the absolute opposite. In summary, I believe that this Bill should go no further, and I and my Green colleagues will be voting accordingly today, to stand up for our constituents’ rights and dignity and for social security based not on intrusion and suspicion, but on support.

    Hansard source
16. 30 Jan 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Proportional Representation: General Elections

    I associate myself with the comments of many other hon. Members today, and thank the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for introducing the debate. This debate comes at a crucial time. We are in a world characterised by democratic decline and falling trust in institutions. Without public belief in making change through democratic debate, political pluralism and representation from people who listen to them, we have a society vulnerable to exploitation by populist division and tyranny. First past the post adds to these risks. Those who seek to distort our national conversation from outside, using money and influence to pursue their own agenda, can see dangled in front of them the huge prize of what is virtually absolute power if they can achieve the slimmest of margins to reach first place in a volatile system. A two-party system, which first past the post assumes, is, in fact, long out of date. As other hon. Members have said, the most recent UK general election was the most disproportionate on record. Not only did 58% of voters not receive an elected official of their choosing, but the election was one of the most disproportionate elections to a primary chamber anywhere in the world. People are voting in historic numbers for parties other than the Conservatives and Labour, representing different views across the political spectrum and bringing in points of view from across our island’s different nations, yet this Parliament does not come close to correctly reflecting that shift. We have a Parliament that is highly misrepresentative of the public’s preferences and a Government with a huge majority but only 33.7% of people’s preferences. That seems unbalanced and unrepresentative to me. I am not here to make arguments that are only in my own self-interest. Proportionality is not the goal here; a better politics is. It is not just parties, but minority groups and the interests of groups who might be ignored, face discrimination or are geographically spread out, and whose interests do not often get a fair look-in when a large majority in this House is elected by only swing voters in marginal constituencies. Like other Members from different parties, I was for many years a member of the London Assembly, elected under PR to scrutinise and hold to account a Mayor <span id="469" class="column-number" data-column-number="469"></span>elected within a modified alternative vote system. I came here to this building to give evidence to the relevant all-party parliamentary group of the time in that capacity. I talked about how, as a London-wide member, working alongside constituency Members, my role was often to listen to groups who were not necessarily getting the ear of their constituency Member or the Mayor, and who were trying to highlight issues that were happening to people like them in pockets all around London.

    Hansard source
17. 30 Jan 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Proportional Representation: General Elections

    Yes, exactly. I am describing the different kinds of work that different kinds of Members in the additional member system can do and how that benefits equality and representation. I am not making a party political point at all. I think members from other parties in the London Assembly can give examples of ways in which they have reached out and heard from people in different parts of London who have brought issues to prominence in the Assembly. In the case of the Green party, we can talk about council estate residents, private renters, young people, disabled people and older people, and the way that bringing their voices into the Assembly had a positive influence on the London Mayor’s policies and made him a positive advocate for helping to reduce the number of demolitions, for rent controls, for toilets on the London tube, and for youth services. That is very positive.

    Hansard source
18. 30 Jan 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Proportional Representation: General Elections

    I will press on, because I have one more point to make. That shows a contrast with the current system for general elections, where people believe that the national politics conversation does not necessarily involve them. We find that millions of people around the country are never canvassed or courted on the doorstep at all. They are taken for granted, and that is really poor. As the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley said, the Members for those seats are called to other parts of the country, when they would prefer to be knocking on doors in their own. On solutions, we urgently need an independent national commission on electoral reform. I want that done by the Government as soon as possible. The commission should look at how local councils and other bodies can be elected, too. We have an opportunity, presented by imminent local government reorganisation—the creation of combined authorities and potentially very large councils—to shift to a more proportional system, potentially using multi-member wards and the single transferable vote. That is the system used in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. It is incredibly simple for voters to cast their preferences. The election counts are extremely exciting—almost like the final stages of “Strictly”—and it delivers remarkably proportional results. It delivers candidates based on consensus, not division. Importantly, it delivers for many people: not only hardworking representatives in the administration but <span id="470" class="column-number" data-column-number="470"></span>people whose job it is to listen and represent them from opposition parties. That could help with the potential remoteness of the uber councils that are being talked about. That should be looked at by the commission as well. I will end there.

    Hansard source
19. 28 Jan 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Airport Expansion

    <em>(Urgent Question)</em><em>:</em> To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will make a statement on Government policy on airport expansion.

    Hansard source
20. 28 Jan 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Airport Expansion

    I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I thank the Minister for his response. It is vital that Parliament is not sidelined when the Government form new policies, especially policies that could wreck our climate ambitions. Does the Minister understand that expanding London’s airports and building a third runway at Heathrow would be vastly irresponsible in the midst of approaching climate breakdown, and would literally be flying in the face of the Climate Change Committee’s advice? How can Ministers even be considering that, when 2024 was the year that we went over 1.5° warming—the limit that <span id="168" class="column-number" data-column-number="168"></span>we committed to not breaking in the Paris climate agreement? How can Ministers see catastrophic wildfires in California, deadly floods in Spain last year, and devastating floods this year in the UK, and still pursue a wrong policy? Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero told the Environmental Audit Committee that “any aviation expansion must be justified within carbon budgets”. Can the Minister explain why we are hearing trailed announcements of multiple airport expansions, exactly in the month before new advice from the Climate Change Committee is delivered? The committee could not have been clearer in previous reports that without a framework to manage aviation demand, we should not expand airports. Has he seen research from the New Economics Foundation estimating that approving airport expansion plans for Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports alone will serve to cancel out the carbon savings of the Government’s clean power action plan? The Government’s arguments that I have seen appear to rest on the idea that there are new technologies ready to go that will cut carbon emissions and allow large airport expansions. In reality, does the Minister accept that such innovations, many of which are still not ready for commercial use, cannot be relied upon? Will he act in line with the science and our climate commitments, do the responsible thing and rule out a reckless airport expansion policy?

    Hansard source
21. 28 Jan 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Topical Questions

    No doubt we all agree that preventable deaths should be prevented, and tragedies like Hillsborough and Grenfell must not be repeated because we fail to make changes, so what consideration has the Secretary of State given to creating a national oversight mechanism to ensure that lessons are learned from every state-related death?

    Hansard source
22. 28 Jan 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

    I welcome the Minister’s statement. The suffering of civilians in Gaza is extreme, and I share her call for the immediate release of all those still waiting to be reunited with their loved ones.<span id="196" class="column-number" data-column-number="196"></span> Does the Minister agree that we urgently need accountability for the Israeli Government’s violations of international law, as exhibited in the restriction of access to tents, mattresses, medical equipment and so on? Does she acknowledge that the only way we will make meaningful progress towards reconstruction efforts and longer-term peace is to hold the Israeli Government to account for these actions?

    Hansard source
23. 28 Jan 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Sudan and Eastern DRC

    As an MP representing a Sudanese community in Bristol and as a member of all-party parliamentary group for Sudan and South Sudan, I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and his real care and concern for the innocent civilians in Sudan and the DRC, and for speaking about the need to protect them from the horrors taking place. In his statement, he said that irregular migration from Sudan to Britain has increased 16% in the past year—indeed, the Sudanese were among the top nationalities to cross the channel in 2024. Does he agree that a key part of our response, alongside support on the ground, must be to ensure safe and legal routes for Sudanese refugees to come here? Has he raised that with the Home Secretary?

    Hansard source
24. 28 Jan 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Solar Farms: Agricultural Land

    I appreciate the principles that the Minister is setting out, particularly on the impact of climate change on food security. Every model of net zero energy that I have seen includes a greater role for renewable energy on land, but is there not a risk that without a clear land use strategy that shows how we will achieve a resilient food supply while meeting net zero targets, decisions about where solar farms are located will end up getting made on a piecemeal basis, rather than the basis that the Minister is setting out?

    Hansard source
25. 28 Jan 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Agricultural Property Relief

    Diolch yn fawr—thank you—to the hon. Member for giving way. Farmers in my constituency say to me that their problem is the threshold. The on-paper values of their farms—often several million pounds, even if the farmer makes no actual surplus income from the farm—would take them well into being caught by this policy. But the current situation is not working either, because non-farmers bought up more than half the farms and estates sold on the open market in England in 2023. One local farmer told me that a 350-acre farm in Suffolk was bought by a merchant banker from London who had not even seen the farm and was clearly not intent on farming. Does the hon. Member agree that although we need the Government to increase the threshold, those arguing for the status quo are not doing farmers justice either?

    Hansard source
26. 28 Jan 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Airport Expansion

    Globally, half of aviation emissions are a result of flights taken by the wealthiest 1%. In the UK, 70% of flights are taken by the richest 15%. Is expanding aviation capacity not a matter of fairness? It will facilitate the very richest, who are already frequent flyers, to be able to fly more, while the noise, carbon emissions and air pollution impacts will be inflicted on the most ordinary people in society, including the poorest at home and around the world.

    Hansard source
27. 27 Jan 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Creative Industries

    I am late in the debate, and we have a bit of a time limit already, so I will struggle to make all the points I would like to make. I will write to the Minister with any I fail to make—I think he knows what I will be chasing him up on. I want to follow the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Bury North (Mr Frith) in being a little philosophical with my points today. I believe that participation and enjoyment of the arts is a human right, as article 27 of the universal declaration of human rights says. It forms part of our post-Holocaust legacy of putting together a strong framework to recognise and protect the purpose and value of humanity after we saw just how bad things can get. As a Green, I spend a lot of time working hard to ensure the continuation of our ecological and physical environment which is necessary for our civilisation, but the reasons for our civilisation are just as much what gets me out of bed in the morning to come and do this job. I would argue for the arts and creativity, regardless of their impact on our GDP, any day of the week. Last week, I had the very great honour of speaking at the Music Venue Trust’s annual report launch here on the parliamentary estate. I was absolutely delighted to do so because my constituency is home to so many <span id="105" class="column-number" data-column-number="105"></span>amazing grassroots music and performance venues. We have the Green Door Store, Alphabet, Rossi Bar, the Prince Albert, Hope and Ruin, the Folklore Rooms, Komedia—I could go on and on. Since I was elected, I have been shocked at the amount of work venues and their allies still have to do to fight off damaging developments. In 2023, as other Members have mentioned, the Music Venue Trust reported that we lost 125 trading grassroots music venues. That trend has now reduced, but it is still not zero. The Music Venue Trust’s emergency response service—it has a huge caseload, with more than 200 cases last year—has a very good success rate in fighting off terrible planning applications, but it does so alongside music venues that are putting a lot of time and effort into that work. We are still seeing far too many appeals taken forward, some of which are successful. I recognise that the adoption of the agent of change principle guidance in the NPPF has made a difference, but we need to go further. What remains to be done is to put the agent of change principle into a statutory framework. I raised that in this House with the Minister in November. As well as being excited that the Secretary of State and Ed Sheeran had a chat last week, the Minister told me that that chat involved talking about that precise issue. I have chased it up since, but I am still looking for a timetable, so I hope the Minister can today provide more details. It is not just music that is fantastic in Brighton and Hove. We have a huge number of artisans, artists, makers, designers, restorers and creative businesses too. They depend on an infrastructure of studios, workshops and gallery spaces to not only make their work, but to show it and sell it to Brighton Pavilion residents and visitors alike. Those spaces are facing threats, including the need for refurbishment. The amazing Phoenix Art Space needs to refurbish. It is looking for space to move into and expand into later, but it is really struggling to find it. New England House, the first ever high-rise industrial business centre, is a light industrial space that many makers use. It needs urgent fire safety work. People are facing either refurbishment over an incredibly long time or possibly moving out in the meantime. We need the Government to support those kinds of venues. My constituency is also packed full of inspiring theatre, comedy, dance and cabaret, and people working as writers and in media production and digital creativity. Many of those creatives have written to me with their serious concerns about the Government’s consultation on AI and copyright. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) mentioned the Digital Economy Act. Although not in this place, I was a campaigner on those issues at that time. In my last minute, I want to reflect very briefly on whether we as a society failed at that time, in those debates on digital impacts on creativity and copyright, to look at copyright terms—the amount of time for which copyright extends. It is very, very long, and we find now that copyright is being held in many older works not by the original creators but by rights holders. I wrote something for a national magazine which, ironically, is now behind a paywall, so I cannot see exactly what I wrote, but I remember that I suggested that a copyright term of 10 or 20 years might be reasonable so that the young man who sat down and wrote “Yesterday” yesterday is protected for a reasonable period. Then we could start to build up public domain works and provide <span id="106" class="column-number" data-column-number="106"></span>useful AI tools to train in ways that do not rip off creators. If we had thought about that earlier, there would probably be a simpler answer to the knotty question with which Ministers are grappling today. I welcome the debate, and hope that we can continue to discuss this subject in the interesting way in which Members have discussed it today—Members who are genuine experts in their fields, and genuinely creative as well. However, it worries me that we are facing a bit of a watershed whereby today’s creators will not be rewarded, and we may get the law very slightly wrong once again when we look at the interaction of the modern world with the oldest part of our civilisation that exists, which is art.

    Hansard source
28. 27 Jan 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Intensive Poultry Units

    I am honoured to have been asked to present this petition on behalf of more than 30,000 supporters of the Soil Association who are deeply concerned about the impact of intensive poultry production on river pollution. This issue is of particular concern to residents in my constituency of North Herefordshire, where the River Wye and its tributaries, such as the River Lugg, are deeply impacted by phosphate pollution, with troubling effects on wildlife and the wider economy. Indeed, the concern prompted me to establish the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution, of which I am co-chair. The 30,543 petitioners “therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce a ban on new intensive poultry units, to support farmers to exit this industry and to take action to reduce chicken consumption to more sustainable levels.” <em>Following is the full text of the petition:</em> <em>[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,</em> <em>Declares that industrial chicken farming produces huge volumes of polluting chicken manure which, when spread as fertiliser on nearby fields, can cause phosphate from the manure to leech into rivers, causing algal blooms which starve the river of oxygen; further that the River Wye is close to complete ecological collapse, with damaging pollution from industrial chicken farming as a leading cause; notes that the Environment Agency reports ‘unacceptable levels’ of phosphate in over half of English rivers; and further that other rivers across the United Kingdom are also at serious risk from an increase in intensive poultry units; and further notes that a similar online petition by the Soil Association received over 30,000 signatures.</em> <em>The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce a ban on new intensive poultry units, to support farmers to exit this industry and to take action to reduce chicken consumption to more sustainable levels.</em> <em>And the petitioners remain, etc.]</em> [P003035]

    Hansard source
29. 24 Jan 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Climate and Nature Bill

    Given that we have strong cross-party consensus, as has been demonstrated today, on the urgency of tackling the climate and nature crisis, I do not understand the hon. Lady’s argument that the Government would somehow draw back from measures that they have committed, in negotiation with the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), to take forward. A number of hon. Members think that it is important to vote on a Bill that will help move us further and faster towards tacking the climate and nature crisis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) explained, Second Reading is an opportunity to further discuss the issues and build cross-party consensus on exactly the measures needed. Will she explain why a vote on the Bill is not a good idea—

    Hansard source
30. 24 Jan 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Climate and Nature Bill

    Does the shadow Minister recognise that the point he makes about emissions from imports not being counted rather undermines the point he was making earlier, when he boasted about the territorial emissions that were reduced when he was in government, which may be the very point that the sponsors of the Bill are trying to make?

    Hansard source
31. 24 Jan 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Climate and Nature Bill

    Last week, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and I were invited to see a play called “Kyoto”. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> It looks like other Ministers were also there; I did not spot them. The play tells the story of the international climate negotiations in Kyoto, including the pivotal role that the late great John Prescott played in working collaboratively to forge a binding agreement between countries with vastly different politics and that agreed about very little. I found the play so moving and inspiring, and I thought I saw that the Secretary of State did, too. The next morning, I wrote to him, asking if he would be willing to have a call with me about this Bill and how we might be able to work together. I did that because this crisis is too big and too existential to leave to a party machinery whose prime motivation seems to be simply to be seen to win, as we saw reported in the news yesterday. This Bill was first tabled by the first Green MP, Caroline Lucas, four years ago. It is and always has been a chance for collaborative, cross-party endeavour. It is supported by many of the Government’s Back Benchers, and the Labour party itself pledged agreement with its principles not long ago. If the Government support it today, they will share in the credit of its success. We will all win if the Bill goes into Committee and emerges as strong as possible, supported across the House. I understand that the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) has agreed not to push it to a vote today, in exchange, it seems, for just a meeting with the Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero and a video, with an agreement to work together but with no specific commitments. That is her decision. <em>[Interruption.] </em>Let me continue, please. That is her decision. I am sad about it, but I wish her well and hope it works out. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot tell you how disappointed I was, and how disappointed millions of people will be, to learn how the Government have behaved. They ignored the CAN Bill campaign for months, only finally agreeing to meet its promoter 10 days before this debate—coming to the negotiation table with almost nothing new, demanding a promise <span id="1262" class="column-number" data-column-number="1262"></span>not to push the Bill it to a vote in exchange for no regulation, no legislation, no new targets. That is peanuts. After 10 days of negotiation, incredibly, the offers got worse—until, late last night, the best that the Government could offer was a meeting with the Secretary of State, a non-specific offer to work together, and a video. The climate is why I got into politics and I am not giving up that easily, so I have stood up today to say to the Government, “Please, give us real commitments, binding decisions, legislation, timetables and consequences.” The existing legislation to which the Government are working is based on science that is out of date, taking us back to a time when we thought that 2°C was a safe level of warming. It takes no account of the emissions from products and services that we import, no account of emissions from aviation and shipping, and no account of emissions from other greenhouse gases such as methane. In other words, it chooses not to count the tricky stuff and then slaps itself on the back for doing so jolly well at the easy stuff, and, as we have heard over and over again today, it does not join up climate and nature legislation or policy in any way. So I say to the Government again, “Please, please commit yourselves to real, binding, bold legislation that reflects the way in which the science has evolved since the Climate Change Act 2008, which was groundbreaking in its day but which has now been superseded by the climate science.” If they will not do so, I, as one of the Bill’s sponsors, will take this Second Reading to a vote. If they really think that they can look their constituents and their children in the eye—

    Hansard source
32. 24 Jan 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Climate and Nature Bill

    I would like to finish this point. If the Government really think that they can look their constituents and their children in the eye and say, “Look, we couldn’t help it; there was party politics; I had to think of my career,” I say to them, “Go ahead.”

    Hansard source
33. 24 Jan 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Climate and Nature Bill

    I do have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Member for South Cotswolds, who has worked incredibly hard over the years—decades—as an environment campaigner, and for months since she first proposed this Bill.

    Hansard source
34. 24 Jan 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Climate and Nature Bill

    I want to make some progress. I respect the hon. Member’s choice, although I disagree with it and I am sad about it. This Bill has been going for four years and has had cross-party support throughout. The <span id="1263" class="column-number" data-column-number="1263"></span>position of the lead proposer on this iteration of the Bill is to accept a negotiation without specific promises. My position is that stronger negotiation and getting the Bill to Committee stage is needed—

    Hansard source
35. 24 Jan 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Climate and Nature Bill

    I anticipate that I will answer many of the points that hon. Members want to make, so I will make a little progress. Even I do not love every clause of the revised version of the Bill. I would prefer its climate target to make explicit reference to the 1.5° limit and the UK’s fair contribution towards it. I very strongly disagree with the last-minute insertion of a presumption against large renewable projects, which was made without consulting the co-proposers. But the fundamental principles of the Bill are sound: laws based on the science, tackling climate and nature as one and doing things with people, not to people. It has the level of ambition that the science demands. It contains enough positive measures for me to give it my full support, putting aside my differences about those points. In the debate on Second Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, we heard powerful arguments about how it could be improved, but the House voted for it to progress because there was an agreement that it warranted further scrutiny, including potential amendments. The same applies today. If Members agree with the principles but want to change some specifics, let us debate that. In that case, I ask them not to block the Bill today, but to join me in voting for Second Reading and then to debate together, on a cross-party basis, how to make it better together.

    Hansard source
36. 24 Jan 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Climate and Nature Bill

    I am on my final sentence. Let us set aside party allegiances for a moment. We can show bold leadership together.

    Hansard source
37. 24 Jan 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Climate and Nature Bill

    With the greatest of respect to the hon. Member, taking a Bill containing binding legislation to Committee stage for line-by-line scrutiny is not placard-waving. Voting for the Bill today is voting for a liveable future. I hope that is what we all choose.

    Hansard source
38. 23 Jan 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The amendment appears to have two parts. The first is the requirement to consider the welfare of others to whom the information may relate. That seems quite reasonable; however, the requirement to take steps to promote the welfare of potentially anybody to whom the information may relate seems to me very broad.

    Hansard source
39. 23 Jan 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I, too, welcome the extension of the role of virtual school heads outlined in this provision. I would like to ask the Minister whether she has, or will consider, the opportunity in clause 6 to consider children who have been recently bereaved or are facing bereavement, particularly of a parent or sibling, as a group that has particular educational support needs. That is a surprisingly large group of people. Best estimates are that one in 29 children of school age have lost either a parent or a sibling, and there is clear evidence that those bereavements have impacts on educational achievement, as measured by GCSE results. Would the Minister consider the opportunity to use the Bill to improve support specifically for bereaved pupils? I would welcome the Minister’s comments.

    Hansard source
40. 23 Jan 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I fully appreciate what the Minister is saying regarding the way that the curriculum and so forth can be shaped to offer more support to children, a large number of whom will face some form of bereavement at some point. The point I would particularly like the Minister to take away and consider is how the network of support around the school can support children facing bereavement, particularly of a very close relative. That is both in terms of the opportunity for grief education for teachers, and the opportunity for somebody in the local authority to look at that subset of children with the same level of attention, given that, as a group, they are particularly subject to the challenges that this clause of the Bill is specifically about—hence the point about virtual school head responsibility in this area.

    Hansard source