Siân Berry MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  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 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.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  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 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.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Airport Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  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 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?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Airport Expansion · Hansard source

  More

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

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  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 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 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.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Following up on the case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah in Egypt, will the Secretary of State say when he expects a substantial response to his engagement with the Egyptian Government? Will he confirm that he will not travel to Egypt unless he is confident that he can return with Alaa?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report · Hansard source

  More

  This is a very harsh statement. It admits wrongdoing but offers a bitter dose of nothing to a generation of women who already faced prejudices and disadvantages in their careers and were caught out by Government decisions. If the Secretary of State will not reconsider her decision despite being urged to do so by Members on both sides of the House, what else will she do to ensure that those women can enjoy levels of security in retirement closer to equal those of their male counterparts?

• 12 Dec 2024 · LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard some very powerful stories today. It is not every day that my constituency surgeries lead me to well up—I am normally as hard as nails—but I recently had the pleasure of meeting Craig Jones MBE, one of the founders of Fighting With Pride. He talked so powerfully about his own and other veterans’ stories of pain and injustice, but he also spoke of honour and pride. It was deeply moving to speak with him. During our meeting, the word “honour” came up time after time, as Craig described his LGBTQ+ colleagues in the armed forces who suffered so much under the ban which, we must reflect today, was lifted only in 2000. In the period before that, thousands and thousands of LGBTQ+ service personnel were removed or forced from service and many, as we have heard, were physically or sexually abused. Craig told me that many of his colleagues felt “washed in shame” because of what happened to them. In those days, simply admitting to being gay was dangerous and had far-reaching consequences, which we must compensate for today. Although homosexuality was decriminalised for civilians in 1967, it remained a criminal offence in the armed forces. These people faced imprisonment. We must compensate fully for that. Craig described moving to Brighton, saying that our city was the only place in which he and his partner felt safe. On the day that the ban was lifted, he came out as gay and, after a few more years, he left the forces. He helped found Fighting With Pride, and took part in that excellent campaign that led to the Etherton review and the actions that we are pleased to welcome today. But I do not think that this is finished. As other Members have said, the financial scheme is crucial; it must provide full compensation. It appears that Lord Etherton was unable to go higher than the recommendation in the review of a cap of £50 million, and was unable in his terms of reference to recommend a financial scheme that was unconstrained. This £75 million is a rise, but, as others have said, it is not high enough. Fighting With Pride has said that £150 million would be a more realistic estimate if it is to provide real justice to the people who might come forward. In the interests of real justice, I do not believe that we can cap this number at all. As the Royal British Legion has said in response to the earlier proposed cap, the cap provides an incentive for the Ministry of Defence to limit the number of people applying for compensation, in opposition to the aim of achieving fair recompense. Moreover, Fighting With Pride today asked whether the flat rate of £50,000 would really be able to compensate for the pensions that would have been earned by all those people who were discharged early. As Craig pointed out to me, this has been a “discreet” community. We still do not know how many people could come forward having been harmed by these unjust policies in ways not envisaged by the strict types of payment described in today’s statement. For the wider impact payment, we are talking about harassment, invasive investigations and imprisonment. I would welcome some clarity from the Minister today as to whether this could go further. People may have resigned because they felt that they could not come out; because they were not able to live in the way that they would choose to live. They have still suffered harm. They have been unable to fulfil their full potential, which is genuine harm. We have spoken about shame and honour in the stories that we have told today. There could be people who wanted their colleagues to preserve their honour to help them not feel ashamed and who wanted to be discharged for stated other reasons, so that nothing in the written record would confirm that they had suffered from the harms for which the flat-rate payment is envisaged, but who have none the less suffered exactly the same harm. I would welcome some clarification on whether you might go wider, and be willing to be challenged—

• 12 Dec 2024 · LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review · Hansard source

  More

  Sorry. Would the Minister be willing to be challenged on those terms in the future? This compensation must bring the full comfort and security in older age that is enshrined in the armed forces covenant. It must bring true justice for the community that was shamed so shamefully. These payments must be looked at again.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Puberty-suppressing Hormones · Hansard source

  More

  I am extremely worried and fearful about this decision to continue the blanket ban, and I want to ask the Secretary of State about his reliance in the terms of reference and reasons for this decision on the purpose for which these drugs are being prescribed—that is, being trans—when they are safely used by young people for other conditions, as he acknowledges. Does he understand that this is, at heart, discriminatory?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In Brighton’s non-academy sixth-form colleges, the current teacher strike action stems largely from the Government not providing the same funding to cover pay uplifts as they do for schools and academies. Will the Secretary of State urgently correct that unjustified funding anomaly?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Planning Committees: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  In advance of these proposals, has the Minister made any assessment of the number of senior local authority planning officers who move on to work directly for, or as private planning consultants to, large developers? Will he consider something I would like to see done anyway, which is registers of interests, gifts and hospitality, and bringing senior planners under the wing of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, or a similar independent body, so that we can have the transparency we really need?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I am here to talk about the people, their treatment and their rights, and I am sorry I do not have more time to do the topic justice. I had been a London Assembly member for one year in 2017 when the Grenfell disaster happened, and it had such a huge impact on my work and on me personally. I will never, ever forget the many things that I saw and heard. I will never forget the smells, the burned debris on garden hedges, the community’s shock and heartbreak, and its spirit as it called me and many other elected representatives down there to try to deal with the issues that they themselves were dealing with and identifying. The people around Grenfell, the victims, the 72 people killed that day—they are constantly in my heart when I work on any related issue. I was also a councillor in Camden, and a few days later five of our blocks had to be evacuated due to related issues, so I have a perspective of dealing with a non-fatal but nevertheless disruptive evacuation and incident. Let me rattle quickly through a few of the recommendations relating to people, and to these issues. I am desperate on behalf of the residents I represented then, and those I represent now in Brighton Pavilion, where we have a huge number of medium and high-rise blocks that need work. For no good reason I still see many of these issues emerging in relation to the treatment of residents in blocks, the information they can get out of their landlords, the slowness of the action, and the fact that substandard work is still being done on many people’s blocks—I should not still be doing this so long afterwards. Let me start with the recommendations related to management. The way that the TMO treated its residents was abysmal. We have seen much evidence for that, but the report gets to the heart of it when it states that however “irritating and inconvenient” it may have been to deal with those residents, “for the TMO to have allowed the relationship to deteriorate to such an extent reflects a serious failure on its part to observe its basic responsibilities.” The housing ombudsman echoed that, speaking of gross imbalances of power. Residents who ask questions, or who start to organise their neighbours to have some kind of collective voice that might get things done, are still talked about as troublemakers, as militants, or as a nuisance. I am still encouraged not to listen to those residents when there are issues, which is not correct. I also want to focus on transparency of information—these things are the basic building blocks on which resident trust can possibly be built. In 2017 I was having trouble getting fire risk assessments from Camden council. I went to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which responded in a fantastic way. She was clear that councils needed to publish those assessments proactively, yet here I am representing residents in Brighton, and it has taken 18 months. My predecessor, Caroline Lucas, first asked the council to publish its fire risk assessments when she realised that it was not complying with the ICO’s recommendations. I wrote to the council about the issue back in September when I realised that was the case, and finally last week I was told that some assessments would be published imminently. That is just not good enough from councils. I do not even know where to start when trying to get information about non-council landlords. It has been ridiculous on behalf of so many residents. Finally, I want to talk about the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and its recommendations, which are tremendous. The humanitarian response on the ground was nowhere near good enough—

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry, but I have no time. Like many other Members, my colleagues and I have heard many concerns expressed about the availability of palliative care. I hope that we are seeing the start of a much more open conversation about the practical problems that people face at the end of their lives—something we are generally not comfortable with talking about in this country—and about the provision that we do not currently make for people in anything like an adequate way. We must do better and, like other countries, make sure that we see improvements in palliative care at the same time as making this change. While we do not have to choose between the Bill and better palliative care, we do have to give dying people the right to choose which ending is right for them, so please, please, vote for the Bill today.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank everyone who has spoken so far. This has been a very respectful debate, and I do not think any of us here have not shed tears at the messages that our constituents have sent us this week. I have received so many profoundly moving letters, postcards, emails and other messages sent to my office, and numerous people have told me about their personal experiences of loved ones facing really hard choices at the end of their lives. It is very moving. This is a big decision for us. Well-informed public opinion shows that a very large majority of people want the option to choose assisted dying in the circumstances envisaged by the Bill, and this level of public support reflects the fact that the law, as it stands, too often forces people to endure horrific deaths. I have heard so many stories from constituents of the trauma and pain that they have witnessed in loved ones. Too many people are affected by the current law in truly painful ways, and too many of those who are able to do so now seek unregulated, distressing and unsafe alternatives, because there are no legal options. Those who wish to end their lives at the point when their suffering from a terminal illness becomes unbearable may act too soon. They may take their own lives, and do so before they reach a point at which they require assistance—in secret, leaving a legacy of shock and confusion, instead of peacefully planning an ending to their final few months. Some of the testimony that I have seen from family members and partners who face the consequences of these secret decisions are truly heartbreaking, because the current law also makes it a prosecutable offence for anyone to advise or assist someone in this horrible situation in any way, thus putting at risk anyone who even knows. Several people have also raised concerns about coercion with me, and I have listened very hard. I aim to cast a vote today that will protect people better. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) made, very well, the point that the Bill will be a clear improvement on the current law in respect of safeguards against potential coercion for terminally ill people, and we should all listen to that argument. Like the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), I do have one constructive point to make. I think we should be discussing it during the Bill’s ensuing stages, which I hope we will vote for. It concerns the time limit. Other jurisdictions already allow for different time limits, or no time limits for terminally ill people, or a separate time limit for a number of well-known, specific neurological diseases, in which the period of terrible suffering can be much longer than six months.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In Brighton Pavilion, we love our grassroots music venues, and we often need to make robust use of the “agent of change” principle to protect them when it comes to licensing and planning, but it is hard work to enforce that and ensure that it happens. Is the Minister having any discussions with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government about putting the “agent of change” principle on a statutory footing?

• 26 Nov 2024 · “Get Britain Working” White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has given us some positive new spending plans today, but she has also given some mixed messages to young people, with some investment on the one hand and new conditions, which she calls responsibilities, on the other. Will she commit herself to working with and empowering young people to shape this new spending in local areas and potentially challenge any new conditions on support? I am thinking in particular of neurodiverse young people, whose perspectives are vital and who are worried about what this will mean for their wellbeing and life chances.

• 21 Nov 2024 · Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this debate, and I thank everyone who has taken part so far. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), who laid out precisely how abusers can benefit from abusive lawsuits, which continue, with a growing impact in silencing those who speak out in the public interest. I also thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) for mentioning the McLibel case, which is a classic of the genre of using legal might against the smallest and most local publishing operations in an effort to stop grassroots public-spirited campaigning. As the Anti-SLAPP Coalition says: “Without a dedicated anti-SLAPP law, everyone in the UK remains at risk if they choose to speak out on matters of public interest, undermining the democratic health of our society.” The case I will talk about today is that of Ben Jenkins, a citizen who made critical posts and comments in various forums about GreenSquareAccord, the housing provider with which he co-owns his home as a shared owner. In my work as an elected representative—as a local councillor, as a London Assembly Member, and now as an MP— I have often met, worked with and supported people like Ben. These campaigners speak up when their housing provider fails, when their complaints disappear into the system and when their attempts to work with others to show the patterns in the impacts on fellow residents are delegitimised. We have all seen how those dynamics worked around the disaster at Grenfell and how the residents were treated before the fire in relation to the ongoing issues in the building. Such situations are all too common, and it is exactly the kinds of concerns that local grassroots campaigners bring out that the big, powerful companies and organisations that operate these homes most want to suppress. We can see why the dynamic of SLAPPs comes into play in such cases. Ben Jenkins has faced a series of serious legal threats from his social housing provider. He spoke out about the company’s inadequate response to residents’ concerns, including drug taking in corridors, poor quality repairs and safety risks. It is very much in the public interest for Ben to speak out freely on such issues, because safety in housing completely depends upon maintaining good standards and public accountability. Ultimately, that depends on this kind of whistleblowing. Residents in his block had tried to raise the issues through official channels, but had not been adequately listened to, so taking things to a higher level was legitimate in this case. No one is saying that Ben did not send a lot of communications and did not publish negative information about his housing provider, but people should be free to do that, and Ben’s activities have been vindicated in their substance. The evidence of the issues in his block is well documented. Images and video footage were published by ITV, which reported the issue based on Ben’s public campaigning. There were also many complaints by other residents posted to Facebook. Those have since been taken down, but there was an admission by the housing company in response to ITV that residents’ complaints had not been adequately handled. Jenkins and numerous other residents have now received payouts, and the Housing Ombudsman has found that the housing provider had failed to adequately respond to a series of serious complaints, including a rat infestation, a broken boiler, a burst toilet cistern, noise complaints and a roof that needed to be repaired. By speaking out about these issues that needed to be dealt with, Ben faced a series of legal threats for his campaigning. He was accused by GSA’s lawyers of harassment, of copyright infringement for using the logo on his blog and of putting himself forward to complain on behalf of tenants who should have contacted the company directly. I have heard that familiar phrase many times before. GSA claimed that Ben Jenkins’s criticism was excessive and targeted individual employees, who he named on social media. GSA also said that the criticism was so frequent that it prevented the company from being able to respond to other residents’ issues, which obviously GSA was clearly doing. It demanded in its legal threats that Jenkins sign undertakings to avoid legal action himself, including a commitment to refrain from “any conduct that causes or is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to any of the Claimant’s employees, agents or contractors”. That condition was so broad that Ben Jenkins felt he had no choice but to refuse. The letter itself threatened that failure to sign these undertakings could incur “legal costs which are likely to run into thousands of pounds”. That phrase is clearly a threat to someone living in affordable housing. Ultimately, Ben Jenkins signed a more limited series of undertakings, but he refused to take down his website criticising the housing provider. The battle with GSA has had a serious ongoing effect on Ben’s mental health. He hopes that by shedding a light on these matters, the wellbeing and safety of residents will be protected and the proper upkeep of homes across the UK will be ensured. He wants to contribute to the raising of awareness about the challenges faced and ensure accountability. I hope that the Minister will look at this case, these issues and abuses of legal proceedings and the use of bullying lawfare, where money and resources are used to shield the powerful from proper public scrutiny when they should be held to account. Will the Minister look at bringing in new action to put in a robust, broad and compressive Bill to prevent it from happening?

• 13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I am aware of Big Brother Watch’s excellent campaigning on this issue. It has identified a serious breach of human rights. There is the potential for a serious injustice if people are denied access to their local shops based on a suspicion that has put them on a watchlist that may or may not be accurate. There is no oversight. We need to debate these things and legislate for them. I tabled a written question to the Minister about putting regulation and legislation behind the police use of live facial recognition. The answer stated that the technology is governed by data protection and equality and human rights legislation, and supplemented by specific police guidance. I do not believe that police guidance is sufficient, given the enormous risks to human rights. We need a debate on primary legislation. I hope that the Minister will announce that that process will start soon and that this unlawful grey area will not be invading our privacy for much longer. This issue is urgent.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source

  More

  I thank every Member here for coming to this debate and I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing it in the first place. I have worked on this issue for many years. In my previous job, I attended and observed the first deployments of live facial recognition by the Metropolitan police, which is many years ago now. Since then, the gap between its increasing use and the lack of a legislative basis has grown wider and wider. In that time, many thousands of people have had their personal data captured and used by the police when there was absolutely no reason for that. Many people have been misidentified, but the accuracy issue is not my main concern. The unlegislated use of the technology is incredibly worrying. In my previous job on the London Assembly, I asked the Met and the Mayor of London many questions about that. I asked for watchlist transparency, but I did not get it. I heard the initial promises—“Oh, it will be very transparently used, we will communicate it, and no one will have to walk past it without knowing.” All those reassurances just faded away, because there is no real scrutiny or legislation. We need to debate the subject from first principles. As other Members have pointed out, we have had proper debates about identity cards and fingerprint and DNA data, but not about this extremely intrusive technology. It is more concerning than other technologies because it can be used on us without our knowledge. It really does engage our human rights in profound ways. For all those reasons, the use of facial recognition by the police has been challenged by the Information Commissioner, the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the Biometrics Commissioner, London Assembly members, of whom I was one, Senedd Members and Members of Parliament here. The only detailed scrutiny of the technology has resulted in calls for a halt to its use; I am thinking of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee has also called for primary legislation. That is the absolutely key question. The EU has had the debate and looked at the issue in detail, with the result that over there what is used so much by the UK police is restricted to only the most serious cases of genuine public safety. That absolutely needs to happen here. The legislation needs to look not just at police use of the technology, but private use. I have seen its use by private companies in the privately owned public space in King’s Cross. Data from there has been shared with the police; the police initially denied knowing anything about it and then later apologised for that denial. If private companies are collecting data and sharing it with the police, that needs to be scrutinised. If private companies are using the technology, that needs to be legislated for as well.

• 12 Nov 2024 · National Youth Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I give the Secretary of State my sincere and heartfelt thanks for the focus of her statement. I have worked with the youth sector to highlight the severe loss of professional youth worker jobs that occurred under austerity. Serious revenue funding is needed to fill this chasm, so can she give an estimate of the number of new permanent youth worker posts that revenue funding will create under these plans?

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to speak in this debate, and the Green group of MPs is pleased to back this Bill. I will be speaking in support of new clauses 2 and 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), which are designed to make the Bill even stronger. The new clauses would create a new nature recovery duty for Great British Energy and prevent investments that increase climate emissions. I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for her statement of support for my hon. Friend’s work and for making the Bill better for nature recovery. I also thank her for her proposals on insulation and community energy, which we support. All those things are vital for the Bill’s success.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure we can have those debates in the context of a statutory duty. These are important questions to consider. I want to give some other examples of public bodies damaging nature, because they abound—from the granting of new oil and gas licences in marine protected areas by the North Sea Transition Authority, to Highways England pursuing damaging road construction projects on the edges of national parks. Without legal backing, nature considerations can be and are brushed aside. There is no reason to think that Great British Energy, without a duty to consider nature recovery, will be any different. A statutory duty to deliver for nature’s recovery would be complementary to GB Energy’s other objectives around clean energy, energy efficiency and energy security. It would also reflect the Government’s manifesto commitment to tackle the interconnected nature and climate crises together. I hope the Government will carefully consider those arguments. New clause 3, which was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley, is vital to guarantee that our energy investments are not only financially responsible but aligned with the legal requirement to reach net zero by 2050. As legislators, we have a duty to hold GB Energy accountable, preventing investments that will lock us into high-carbon energy pathways and undermine our net zero commitments. The new clause mandates environmental impact assessments before any investments are made, ensuring that each decision is grounded in evidence. It forces us to ask, “Will this investment push us at speed towards, or risk pulling us away from, our climate goals?” Publishing those assessments opens the process to public scrutiny—an essential principle in democracy. The public deserve to know exactly how their tax money is being used, particularly when it comes to funding projects that may exacerbate the climate crisis. The new clause would also bar public money from being spent on fossil fuel and unsustainable high-carbon projects such as biomass. We cannot ignore the facts: Drax, the largest biomass-burning plant in the UK, emitted over 11 million tonnes of CO 2 in 2023. Worse still, it receives nearly £900 million in Government subsidies a year. If we allow investments in projects such as Drax or new fossil fuel infrastructure, we risk undermining the very goals we are trying to achieve. The new clause would close the door on such contradictions. When we talk about greenhouse gas emissions, it is crucial to acknowledge that carbon dioxide is not the only danger. Methane is a greenhouse gas with over 80 times the warming potential of CO 2 over a 20-year period. Methane emissions, often associated with fossil fuel extraction and agriculture, must be tightly controlled to ensure that the UK meets its climate commitments. The new clause would ensure that all climate emissions, including methane, are thoroughly assessed before any public investment is made. If we do not account for methane and other greenhouse gases, we risk underestimating the climate impact of certain energy projects, and particularly those related to natural gas production and transport. Fossil fuel infrastructure does not just burn carbon; it locks us into long-term dependence on dirty energy. Every pound spent on high-carbon infrastructure makes it harder and more expensive to transition away from fossil fuels in the time that we have. This amendment ensures that we avoid that trap, by making it impossible for Great British Energy to invest in projects that would limit our ability to end our reliance on carbon-emitting technologies. Great British Energy should also be a true trailblazer in the global transition to clean energy. The amendment strengthens that mission by making clear that only projects contributing to emissions reductions should receive investment. With countries around the world watching, we have a unique opportunity to lead by example. A failure to act boldly now will leave us behind in the global race for climate leadership. We are in a climate and nature emergency, and we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past by further locking ourselves into harmful high-carbon infrastructure. These amendments reflect that. The stakes could not be higher. These decisions are about securing a liveable planet for future generations. I hope the Government will listen.