Green Party — partytracker.uk

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

24 Jan 2025ParliamentCarla 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 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
24 Jan 2025ParliamentCarla 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
24 Jan 2025ParliamentCarla 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
24 Jan 2025ParliamentCarla 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
23 Jan 2025ParliamentDr 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
23 Jan 2025ParliamentDr 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
23 Jan 2025ParliamentDr 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
23 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting)
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 7, page 11, line 38, after “support” insert “and staying put support”. This amendment would include staying put support in the support provided by local authorities under this section and extend the provision of Staying Put for young people to the age of 25.
Hansard source
23 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting)
I am pleased to move amendment 12 to clause 7, on extending Staying Put for children in foster care to the age of 25. This group of amendments seeks to address the potential two-tier system that the Bill will create by extending provisions for Staying Close but not Staying Put. Many care leavers face a cliff edge in care at the age of 18. Staying Put is a scheme that has been introduced to enable young people in foster care to stay with their foster carers until the age of 21 to support them into adulthood, whereas Staying Close is for young people in residential care. In the UK, it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people to reach independence at the age of 21. In fact, the Office for National Statistics published a report last year showing that the average age at which young people move out of the family home is 24. The independent review on children’s social care recognised the disparity between young people in care and their non-care experienced peers, and it recommended that both Staying Close and Staying Put be extended to the age of 23. It appears that the Bill has responded to that recommendation by putting in place provision to extend Staying Close to age 25, but it does not do the same for those in Staying Put arrangements. I tabled this probing amendment to ask the Minister to explain the justification for that disparity and for the effective creation of a two-tier system for young people in those situations. Evaluations of Staying Put have found that it significantly reduces the risk of homelessness for care leavers. The care review found that it would contribute towards savings of £84 million over five years, mostly due to reduced homelessness. Of course, the financial savings are not the primary motivation; it is about what is best for young people and ensuring that they have the best possible opportunity to successfully transition into adulthood. Foster carers and young people consistently report that the extension of Staying Put would result in better outcomes for young people, providing them with the choice—not insistence—to remain in the family environment. In the words of a foster carer who recently spoke to the Fostering Network: “The increase in the age for staying put would be of amazing benefit to care leavers. At the age of 21 many young people who have had the opportunity to go to university are just obtaining their qualification and then have to face negotiating their next huge step, the job market, and to find that they are possibly homeless due to leaving their placement. This is a catastrophic step backwards.” I warmly urge the Minister to consider ensuring that there is parity in the Staying Close and Staying Put schemes, given that foster care and a family environment have the best long-term outcomes for young people in care transitioning into adulthood.
Hansard source
23 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Vicky Foxcroft.)
Hansard source
23 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I rise to speak to amendment 49 regarding family group decision making at the point of family reunification. Reunification—the process of returning a child in care to their family—is the most common route by which children leave care, accounting for 27% of all children who left care in 2023. It is also one of the most sensitive and significant transitions a child can experience. When done well, it can offer children stability, security and permanence at home with their family, but too often the reunifications fail. In fact, one in three children who return home then re-enter the care system, so thousands of children are enduring yet more displacement, disrupted attachments, instability and broken trust. The human cost of those failed reunifications is immeasurable, but the financial cost is also stark. Failed reunifications cost the public purse £370 million annually—money that would be better spent supporting families in the first place. Research tells us that too many reunifications break down because families do not receive the support that they need to make that process successful, tut there is no national strategy for supporting reunifications. Support across the country is inconsistent, and alarmingly, 78% of authorities report that the support that they offer is inadequate—the authorities report that themselves. Amendment 49 provides a clear, practical, evidence-based solution—effectively a mirror to the Government’s clause 1. The amendment would require local authorities to offer family group decision making no later than one month after the discharge of a care order for the purpose of family reunification. Of course, in practice, it is envisaged that the family group decision-making process would be offered before the child returns home to support that return. As the Committee has already heard and discussed, family group decision making is a powerful tool. It brings families together to identify solutions, develop a plan and build a network of support around the child. It can empower families to take ownership of the challenges that they face, and foster collaborative work with professionals that promotes the safety and wellbeing of the child while also amplifying the child’s voice. My argument is that that is as important towards the end of a care process as it is at the beginning. Family group decision making is well established and recognised as best practice by professionals. We already have clear evidence on its effectiveness, and we are awaiting more, as the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said. However, the lack of a statutory duty to offer it has led to patchy practice across the country. One third of local authorities do not offer family group decision making at all during reunification. Amendment 49 addresses that gap. It would ensure that every family in England has the opportunity to benefit from that approach. The requirement in the amendment is to offer it; it does not impose any sort of time limit. Some Members might worry about the practicalities or cost of introducing the duty, but as I have already explained, the breakdown of family reunification is an incredibly costly process, both financially and for the child’s welfare. The amendment is a financial cost-saving measure as well as a child-centred one. Research shows that providing support to meet a family’s needs during reunification costs just £7,857 per child. By contrast, the cost of a single reunification breakdown is £105,000. Amendment 49 would be The amendment is practical and allows for professional judgment, recognising that every family is different. Where a meeting is not in a child’s best interests, the local authority would be exempt from the duty to make the offer, and that flexibility ensures that the needs of children always come first. The amendment also complements existing provisions in the Bill. It effectively mirrors the duty to offer family group decision making before care proceedings, and therefore offers a coherent support framework at both ends of the care process—effectively bookending it. It brings much-needed consistency to a fragmented system. With more children in care than ever before, as we have noted, and with children’s services under immense strain, the amendment represents a real opportunity. By embedding family group decision making we can enable more families to stay together, reduce the number of children returning to care, which is an incredibly damaging process, and relieve pressure on an overstretched system, all while delivering better outcomes for those children. This is about fairness, consistency, investing in what works and ensuring that all reunifying families, not just some, are given the help they need. It is about recognising the importance of successful reunification within the care process. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on the proposal and the other questions raised this morning.
Hansard source
23 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)
Will the Minister give way?
Hansard source
23 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)
Will the Minister respond directly to the thrust of amendment 49? The Bill is shifting from a position where the consideration of family group decision making is already encouraged to a statutory requirement before starting care proceedings. Amendment 49 asks for a mirroring of that at the potential end of care proceedings. Why does the Minister feel that it is important to move to a statutory footing at the start but not the end, particularly given the statistics that I have referenced on the frequency of breakdown? Would it not be entirely consistent for the Bill to specify this—bookending both ends of the care process?
Hansard source
23 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)
Chair, may I ask a question of the Minister?
Hansard source
23 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)
I wish to ask the Minister if she would meet with me to discuss this matter.
Hansard source
23 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)
No.
Hansard source
23 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)
indicated dissent.
Hansard source
22 Jan 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Certificate of Common Sponsorship
I am delighted to serve under your chairship again, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this important debate. Having worked with him on the issue, I know we share a commitment to securing a fair solution for the workers affected by these rules. As the hon. Member outlined, the situation for people on health and care worker visas is uniquely difficult. The way that visa works puts employees into an incredibly and intolerably vulnerable position. If they lose their job, they lose their right to live and work in the UK, unless they find an eligible alternative employer within 60 days. A survey conducted by the Work Rights Centre found that only 5% of those who tried were successful within that timeframe. The situation can be even more difficult when, as Unison reports, employers withhold references for employees trying to change jobs. We can see it is really difficult for those workers to change employers. What does that mean? It means that employers hold significant power over their employees’ right to live and work here. Their lives are effectively under the control of the employers. That can be disastrous, as it has been found that many employers wield that power to make unfair demands on their workers. There have been reports of unreasonable demands made under the either implicit or sometimes explicit threat of revoking sponsorship. Employers do not have the right to deport people, yet that is what they are threatening to do. The Royal College of Nursing told us about a member who was asked to work on days she was not contracted to, tried to refuse and was told in reply by the employer, “We sponsor you.” That was a clear threat intended to intimidate her into compliance with work outside the contract. That is echoed by a domiciliary care worker from India who told Unison that every conversation they had with managers felt threatening and often ended with the word “visa”. The RCN has also reported threatening tactics being used to get employees to sign new more restrictive contracts, including—shockingly—being given just 30 minutes to sign before having their sponsorship revoked. Care worker Divya told Citizens Advice that she had not been paid in two months, while her British colleagues had been paid as normal. She was falling behind on bills. Having contacted her employer once about it, she was understandably scared to follow up, in fear she would be dismissed. She said: “I feel like we’re being treated as slaves.” There are other horrific examples, such as being given unsuitable and overpriced housing, or finding out that they do not even have the work that was promised when they arrived. Citizens Advice reports that a quarter of the migrant care workers it spoke to were given no work when they arrived in the UK. One in eight contracts were changed on arrival. It is blatantly clear that that is completely unacceptable. The Government have acknowledged the harm of those rogue employers, and have taken action around increasing sanctions for the breach of rules. However, as the hon. Member for Poole pointed out, those measures do not do enough to address the toxic power imbalance that arises when so much of an employee’s life is in the hands of a single employer. In short, they do not prevent this injustice. That is the crux of the issue and must be addressed. A certificate of common sponsorship would change that. It would mean that an employee’s sponsorship would not be chained to a single employer and it would break that exclusive link that is so often exploited. I strongly urge the Government to consider that as a solution. We have already had helpful suggestions for how it might work. Then we can empower migrant care workers to demand the fair conditions they rightly deserve.
Hansard source
22 Jan 2025ParliamentAdrian Ramsay
Education, Health and Care Plans
I appreciate the work that the Minister is doing to address this issue and that there are no quick fixes, but given the terrible cases we have heard today—I have constituent who had to wait two years for an assessment, which spanned the whole length of their GCSE courses—does she agree with those who point out that the funding allocated so far will, given council debts, hardly touch the sides in terms of the SEND capacity that is needed?
Hansard source
22 Jan 2025ParliamentAdrian Ramsay
Engagements
Expanding London’s airports and building a third runway at Heathrow would be incredibly irresponsible in the midst of a climate emergency, flying in the face of the Climate Change Committee’s advice. The Prime Minister clearly knows that, because he and seven Cabinet colleagues voted against a third runway at Heathrow in 2018. Will he confirm his position?
Hansard source
21 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{DDC275E0-3D94-41B6-AAB0-6B98C448C632}"> </QNum> You have enthused about family group decision making. Do you think it would be useful at other stages in the process, particularly in approaching families for unification at the point of discharge for care leavers? Dr Homden: Yes, we would support that. We would also call for specific coverage in the statutory guidance on how children with family members abroad can benefit, and for consideration in that guidance on contact, particularly with siblings. Anne Longfield: I would also look at the mechanism at other points, such as when children are at risk of becoming involved in crime and the like. But for now, yes.
Hansard source
21 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{682BB120-8AE2-48A1-A142-8D15A87AD132}"> </QNum> Clause 8 specifies that local authorities need to set out a local offer. You have talked about the need to avoid fragmentation, and about corporate responsibility across the country and across Departments. Would you like to see the Bill amended to require a national offer of support to care leavers, and what do you think should be in it? Ruth Stanier: We certainly would want to see corporate parenting duties extended at a national level to Government Departments and relevant public sector bodies. We think that is incredibly important. Otherwise, we are very much supportive of the measures in the Bill in respect of the kinship offer, though we think it is important that there is a clear threshold for that support so that it is realistic and affordable and can be implemented. Andy Smith: I would support that. A national offer for care leavers is an interesting concept. There should be some absolute minimum requirements we expect in an offer, and I think you would broadly see that in many councils in what is provided for children in care and for care leavers. It is usually co-produced with representatives who were care leavers, and with councils and so on. I think that would be an important reflection within the context of a much broader understanding of corporate parenting.
Hansard source
21 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{6D8563B5-9B9A-4D0B-9706-398024EAB836}"> </QNum> The Bill talks about breakfast clubs, but says nothing about free school meals more widely. Would you like to see an expansion of eligibility for free school meals? Julie McCulloch: We would.
Hansard source
21 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)
Could you elaborate on that? Julie McCulloch: Happily. We would like to see the expansion up to 18—at the moment, it goes up to only 16 —and we would like to see it expanded to all children in families receiving universal credit. Paul Whiteman: We are in a similar position. We absolutely accept the evidence that well-fed students perform and work better. Our only concern is the level of funding that comes with it. The provision has to be funded properly, not just for buying the food but, importantly, for the capital costs to make sure that those things can be delivered properly.
Hansard source
21 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{D52B89CE-1871-47E0-BA57-6621B073220E}"> </QNum> To follow up a little, do you think the Bill does enough to centre the voices of children ? You have talked particularly about that in terms of family decision making, but are there other aspects of the Bill where you would like to see amendments made? Jacky Tiotto: Deprivation of liberty, definitely. May I say something about elective home education and also the Staying Close provision? The Bill’s intention to formalise elective home education is long overdue, and children’s views about that education should be well and truly sought before any decision is taken to permit it. It is a bit permissive at the minute, in terms of how section 47 is drafted: if the local authorities had cause to think that you had been, and now have established that you have been, significantly harmed or at risk of significant harm, then on no day of any week could it be okay for you to be out of sight being educated somewhere else. I think it should be a flat no if you are on a child protection plan. If you are a child in need under section 17, there should be more regular review of the child in need plan if you are being electively home educated. But every time, that child should be asked how it is going: “Is this helping you, are you feeling safe?” More generally, at every one of these points where we are mandating something about safety, the first thing should be: what is the view of the child? If the child cannot speak, or is a baby, then somebody with the ability to speak on their behalf should be asked. We should tick nothing off without that being the case.
Hansard source
21 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{DBFB806C-DB30-4C34-9B14-A183145EB58A}"> </QNum> And Staying Close? Jacky Tiotto: Again, another welcome introduction and formalisation. CAFCASS is involved with 25,000 children a year in public law proceedings. It would be nice if the drafters could require CAFCASS—at the end of proceedings, in its closing letter to the independent reviewing officer—to say, “We think, having come to know this child, that x, y, or z would be an appropriate provision for them in terms of Staying Close.” We will have got to know and had a relationship with that child throughout the proceedings. The same could apply when we are asked to discharge care orders, which is 10% of our work—again, asking us to write back to the local authority as the child’s guardian and say, “This child will not benefit from being housed 45 miles away,” or “This child will need access to grandma.” Asking us to do that at the end of proceedings would be an important addition to regulations or guidance. We are a bit missed out from the process, and we bring that voice of the child.
Hansard source
21 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{D83FADF8-0CED-4DC6-B911-CE981866EBD4}"> </QNum> What about the idea of expanding Staying Put in addition to the expansion of Staying Close? Jacky Tiotto: All good. It is the same thing.
Hansard source
21 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{B3E4EF35-A799-497A-85C3-504638EE17B6}"> </QNum> You would like to see that too. Jacky Tiotto: Yes.
Hansard source
21 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{A25D5A30-26D2-4834-BEA2-FE8F642C3A02}"> </QNum> Because that is missing from this Bill. Jacky Tiotto: Yes, it is. I have worked with many children who are terrified of the cliff edge of 18; in fact, they start worrying about it at 16. It often blights the last few years of their care.
Hansard source
21 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{27B17255-74BD-4AE4-8BE8-3A78F31659A1}"> </QNum> What would you like to see, ideally? Jacky Tiotto: The provision mandated to 21, everywhere. I will probably be shot for saying that—
Hansard source
21 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{D155DB74-12A2-4213-AAEC-368B68AE5E77}"> </QNum> Or even beyond 21. Jacky Tiotto: Well, yes.
Hansard source
21 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{E2CDC1ED-4EEF-4A74-BD26-D6213D91D8C4}"> </QNum> On balance, do you welcome the provisions in the Bill to ensure that all schools follow the national curriculum? Lee Owston: Obviously there is a review, from Professor Becky Francis, of what the national curriculum will contain, and we are speaking frequently with members of that review. From an inspector’s position, it will always be about how providers are adhering to the legal requirements set by Government and Parliament. Obviously, we look forward to seeing what the Bill produces in how we then interact with it. In terms of a broad legal requirement, and what all children as a minimum should be able to access, I would support that statement.
Hansard source
21 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{79CFB19A-7069-49E0-B837-02D0DF043549}"> </QNum> Lynn, what is your view on the fact that the Bill does not contain provisions to give children equal protection from violence to adults? Lynn Perry: We think that this is an opportunity for that to be addressed in legislation. As a charity that works across the devolved nations, we have obviously seen change in other areas. Now is the opportunity for us to address the defence of reasonable chastisement in legislation and give children equal protection. It is important to note that values, public attitudes and the way in which we frame childhood have changed significantly, so to consider that further would be very welcome.
Hansard source
21 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{BFBA27A6-5DDE-4E9B-AA39-7624EA3B4742}"> </QNum> So you would like to see the Bill amended in that way? Lynn Perry: We would.
Hansard source
21 Jan 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Environmental Protection
rose—
Hansard source
21 Jan 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Environmental Protection
As the MP for Bristol Central, I cannot speak directly on behalf of councillors for Brighton and Hove, other than to point out that my understanding is that their hands were tied by a deal that was agreed by the previous Labour administration
Hansard source
21 Jan 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Environmental Protection
I and the Green party welcome this scheme; however, I am disappointed to see a deposit return scheme that does not include glass. Implementing a deposit return scheme that includes glass is really not unprecedented; it is absolutely possible. In fact, there are around 50 schemes around the world, 46 of which include glass. The remaining four do not, but that is only because there is a separate glass scheme. While I welcome the progress, which I am sure will help, will the Government look at this again, and work closely with the Welsh Government to see how glass can be included? On a tangentially related note, I want to quickly respond to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who appears to have stepped out of the Chamber. Since my response to him earlier, a resident of Brighton and Hove has been in touch—the hon. Member may regret having raised this—to explain that the 25-year private finance initiative deal that Brighton and Hove council was locked into, which heavily restricted the range of products that could be recycled, was originally brought in by a Labour Administration, but was later extended by a Conservative one.
Hansard source
21 Jan 2025ParliamentAdrian Ramsay
Environmental Protection
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to correct the record following my intervention on the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill on Friday. I said: “Regulations were due to come into force in 2016 that would have required all new homes to have zero carbon standards. Those regulations were scrapped by the coalition Government.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 631.] In fact, regulations that would have required all new homes to have zero carbon standards were due to come into force in 2016, but they were watered down by the coalition Government in 2014, and the requirement for all new homes to have zero carbon standards was scrapped. What was left of the watered-down regulations was subsequently scrapped by the following Conservative Government in 2015.
Hansard source
20 Jan 2025ParliamentCarla Denyer
Family Visas: Income Requirement
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate, and Shannon for starting the petition. I am grateful to be able to speak here, on behalf of the hundreds of my constituents who signed this petition, to highlight the negative impacts of the previous Government’s policy to increase income requirements for family visas. Those negative impacts have been present since the inception of this income requirement, but were made substantially worse by the increase. We are talking about a tax on love: an ugly policy that fundamentally discriminates against migrants’ families and implies that love, and family reunification, is a privilege that people must earn enough to afford. Just last week, I was contacted by a constituent who was forced to choose between being separated from his wife and moving to her home country of Taiwan. I will quote what he wrote to me after deciding to leave: “Now in the UK we judge people by their country of origin and the content of their wallet... If you have money then you are welcome here, if you don’t, then don’t you dare fall in love with someone foreign.” Is that really the country we want to be? As we have just heard, around half of UK employees earn less than the current income requirement of £29,000 a year, and as job offers and prospective earnings for the non-UK citizens are not included, meeting that requirement is made even more difficult for many couples from overseas who just want to be together. That is not to mention the regional inequality factor, as average salaries differ throughout the UK, so a person’s ability to love who they love may also depend on where in the UK they live and work. I do appreciate and welcome the Government commissioning the Migration Advisory Committee to review this horrible rule, but I note with disappointment that in the meantime the income requirement remains in place. It is clear that the intention of this policy was not to benefit UK society, or even the economy; it is simply a cruel attempt to appear tough on migration. In fact, this policy harms society and public finances. There are cases where enforced separation has caused UK citizens to be reliant on state benefits, which they would not be if their partners were allowed to live with them. There are also often costs on the NHS and social services, as the trauma of families being forced and torn apart causes long-lasting mental health issues. Children in affected families are often aware of this policy and feel its impacts deeply. They report feeling sadness, loneliness and guilt, with some explaining that they struggle to sleep or to focus at school. Often, children are aware of the financial strain caused by this rule, and some kids told Reunite Families UK that they were trying to earn money themselves to help with costs. The impact of this policy on children and young people can last a lifetime, affecting their mental health, financial stability and sense of belonging. I wonder why! As RFUK told the Migration Advisory Committee, this has long-term impacts on people’s integration into society and their economic performance. I reiterate that this is a cruel and nasty policy. It fundamentally discriminates against people based on who they love and how much money they make. It is unjust and it undermines its own purposes, sending an offensive message to families and their children. I urge the Government to get rid of it without delay.
Hansard source
17 Jan 2025ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill
I have been listening carefully to what the Minister has said. Does he agree that a vote on Second Reading is a vote on the principle of the Bill, and the objections that he has been raising are micro, technical ones? Does he not agree that the urgency of the climate crisis and the immense benefits associated with solar PV mean that he should stop raining on the parade of this Bill and give us the opportunity to vote on photons?
Hansard source

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

Climate and Nature Bill

Climate and Nature Bill

Climate and Nature Bill

Climate and Nature Bill

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)

Certificate of Common Sponsorship

Education, Health and Care Plans

Engagements

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting)

Environmental Protection

Environmental Protection

Environmental Protection

Environmental Protection

Family Visas: Income Requirement

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill