Siân Berry MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Apr 2026 · Press Malpractice · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps her Department is taking to help protect the public from press malpractice.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Press Malpractice · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, a national newspaper intruded on the privacy of one of the families bereaved by the meningitis outbreak, publishing information that the family had asked to be kept private. In opposition, Labour promised independent regulation of the press to curb this awful behaviour, so when exactly will the Secretary of State keep that promise?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is great to see you in the Chair today, Ms Jardine. I oppose clause 1 and its many implications for justice. It takes away the defendant’s right to elect a trial by jury for all either-way offences, which, according to the Bill’s impact assessment, will reduce jury trials by half. That is no minor thing, and I agree with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that clause 1 must be removed from the Bill, as well as clauses 2 to 7, which we will debate later. Compared with the removal of half of jury trials, there would be a highly contested and—in the Government’s own estimates—much smaller impact on efficiency in the courts. There is also the potential for the workload in the magistrates court and the Crown court to increase beyond what is estimated. As Emma Torr from APPEAL highlighted during our oral evidence session, this will include new allocation processes and new multi-step processes for considering appeals, and the need for judges to spend time outlining reasons for their decisions, which juries do not have to do. The chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales also told us about the impact on confidence in the system, stating: “Overall, the jury system is seen as the only part that still works, so why are we focusing on that? We want to focus on all those aspects that will reduce delays now, rather than hacking at a constitutional cornerstone, which also reflects community participation.” –– [ Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 40, Q72.] This cutback in jury trials is not the measure promised to victims of sexual and domestic violence in the Labour manifesto, and later we will consider amendments that would what was promised. This cut is not a measure that will, under the current system, help victims through more compassionate and better trained court processes, or by improving outdated buildings where they currently risk contact with their abusers. The lack of legal support for magistrates court processes could, as we heard from the head of JUSTICE, lead to more victims being cross-examined by their own abusers. We heard clearly from the leaders of the circuits that those working in criminal justice day in, day out have not yet been able to employ the real efficiencies that could come with more investment and innovation, and that would bring down the backlog without the measures in the clause. Those include the better user of technology, more sitting days, blitz courts and improvements at the investigation stage. I believe that we must act on the backlog, but that must start with those measures and the increased investment that is needed to correct what the chair of the Bar Council told us about investment under successive Governments. She said: “We saw a rapid cutting of MOJ funding between 2009-10 and 2022-23: it declined by 22.4%. We are about 30% below where we should be.” –– [ Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 41, Q75.] The main point I want to express today is my concern about the motivation behind the choices that the Government have made in these proposals by taking up, and deviating from, the recommendations of the independent review of the criminal courts in a particular way, and about how the severe erosion of the principle of jury equity can apply to certain types of defendants and certain offences in a way that I suspect this clause is aimed at. That really eats away at a constitutional cornerstone in a truly historic way. It eats away at the principle of jury equity. We know that jury trials are more often chosen by black and other minority defendants, and that public confidence in a jury of their peers to see through institutional biases is real. We know that defendants whose crimes have been protests, motivated by the public interest and committed to expose or impede powerful corporate or corrupt organisations and practices, also feel this way. Tim Crosland’s oral evidence on behalf the campaign group Defend Our Juries, which was set up before this Bill was proposed in anticipation of an attack on jury trials, told us about key recent protest cases where juries have chosen acquittal and applied the principle of jury equity in practice. Those included: “In April 2021, the Shell six, who had spray painted “Shell Lies” on Shell headquarters, were acquitted by a jury. In January 2022, the Colston four, who toppled the statue of the slave trader Edward Colston into Bristol harbour, were acquitted by a jury. In November 2022, members of Palestine Action, who had defaced Elbit Systems—suppliers of drones to the Israel Defence Forces—were acquitted by a jury. In January 2023, members of Insulate Britain were acquitted by a jury for blocking roads.” –– [ Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 89, Q192.] Tim Crosland told us how the principle of jury equity is there to apply to cases of conscience in which people’s actions were motivated by the public interest. He told us about the High Court’s 2024 judgment in the case of 69-year-old retired social worker Trudi Warner, who had displayed information about the principle outside a court hearing a protest case. It is worth our listening to more details of what was said in that judgment. Paragraph 16 discusses how the principle of jury equity is well established in our common law and recognised across the common law world. The judge gives several examples from Canada, New Zealand and the United States of the principle being applied. The judgment also talks about how its origins lie in Bushel’s case, from 1670, which “arose out of the prosecution of two Quaker preachers for holding an unlawful assembly. The Recorder of London, presiding at the trial, directed the jury to convict. The jury refused. They were fined and imprisoned until payment. It was this imprisonment that the jurors successfully challenged by habeas corpus, on the basis that juries have a right to find facts and apply the law to those facts according to conscience and without reprisal.” The judgment also quotes Lord Bingham, in another landmark judgment, on the principle’s history. He states that “the acquittals of such high-profile defendants as Ponting, Randle and Pottle have been quite as much welcomed as resented by the public, which over many centuries has adhered tenaciously to its historic choice that decisions on the guilt of defendants charged with serious crime should rest with a jury of lay people, randomly selected, and not with professional judges.” He added: “I know of no other real checks that exist today upon the power of the executive.” In my speech on Second Reading, I pointed out that a number of offences created recently to react to successful direct action protests now sit in the triable either-way category. They include, in the Public Order Act 2023, new offences about interference with key national infrastructure, including blocking roads, and specific offences about causing serious disruption by tunnelling; and, in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the offence of causing public nuisance, which replaced a common law offence and applies a higher penalty for acts that create serious annoyance or inconvenience, such as noisy protests. Importantly, Tim Crosland pointed out to us in his oral evidence that the choices the Government have made in how to implement this measure will serve to virtually eliminate jury equity in practice. He told us that, of the more than 200 people jailed in the past few years for peaceful protest, only one has been jailed for more than three years. In that light, it is suspicious that the Government have chosen three years as the threshold in the Bill, despite the Leveson report’s recommendation of two years. Sir Brian also recommended raising the financial threshold below which criminal damage—often how direct action protests are charged—is charged as a summary offence and kept in the magistrates court, where sentences are limited, but the Government are not raising that threshold. Sir Brian also said that restricting the right to elect for jury trial was “contingent upon magistrates’ sentencing powers remaining at the current…12 months”, but the Government propose powers to increase them instead. He also recommended that the new bench division should sit with a judge and two magistrates, to maintain a lay element in these Crown court cases, but the Government have chosen to ignore that, too. As far as the recent examples of cases in which jury equity has been applied are concerned, all those deviations from the recommendations point in the same way. In the light of evidence that other measures would be more effective at backlog reduction, it therefore seems to me that at least one motivation for adopting this measure is to stop the embarrassment of jury equity. I did not get the chance to ask the Minister about this during the oral evidence, but has she discussed with colleagues, companies or other interests targeted by protesters the implications and impact of the Bill and this clause, in deviating from the Leveson recommendations in the way that it does, on the important principle of jury equity? Finally, on Second Reading, I raised the question of whether these measures are yet another part of a package of the Government’s wider attacks on civil liberties. I have described this package as a “toolkit for tyrants” that includes “digital ID, facial recognition surveillance on our streets and the erosion of fundamental asylum rights—all things contrary to our British values and which should not be packaged up for this or any future Government to use against minorities…and dissidents.” —[ Official Report , 10 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 249-250.] I would like the Minister to reflect on the potential future impact of this attack on jury equity under a much worse Government.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We are debating clause 1, which as I understand it will completely remove defendants’ right to elect; the rest of the Bill puts in place procedures whereby other people—judges—will decide whether a jury trial is held. The right to elect a jury trial is being completely abolished. Is that not correct?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Scottish Green party is a separate party from the Green party of England and Wales, so I cannot vouch for its policies. However, the Green party’s justice policies look in the round at what is effective in reducing crime, rehabilitating offenders and improving society, based on evidence. I am sure that the Scottish Green party have those principles in mind with any policy it puts forward. That is the end of what I was planning to say, and I hope we will hear more from the Minister about the erosion of jury equity and what Tim Crosland, in relation to the Bill, called its complete elimination. This will be an important effect of what is being proposed, and it has not had enough debate as yet.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Tim Crosland’s point was that the Government are, in effect, abolishing the principle of jury equity. Can the Minister tell us that we cannot ever expect a judge to triage a case based on the fact that the true interests of justice might lie with a defendant relying on the principle of jury equity? Will she admit that the principle of jury equity is being abolished by the clause?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Apologies to the Minister for heckling. The point about the right of appeal is absolutely key. If mistakes are made in the magistrates court, it is currently the case that they are corrected at quite a rate. We heard evidence on that. Those two things give Opposition Members genuine and legitimate cause for concern.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has made many points about magistrates court hearings being as fair, but she seems to have forgotten the amount of evidence we heard during the oral evidence sessions. Witnesses acknowledged that magistrate court hearings were “rough and ready” and “rough around the edges”, that mistakes may be made, and that the Bill later removes the automatic right to appeal, which is an important safeguard against what she must admit is the slightly inferior justice that can be found in the magistrates courts. Will she not admit that and talk more about the appeals situation?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Transport Accessibility for Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Select Committtee Chair sincerely for the “Access denied” report, which painted a bleak picture of legislative loopholes and lacklustre political will from consecutive Governments when it comes to addressing the huge list of barriers faced by disabled people when accessing public transport. When it comes to step-free access on the railways—on which my speech will focus—it is not just the barriers faced by disabled people that we need to talk about; these barriers also apply to older people, people travelling with children, people with luggage and work equipment, and many other travellers too. We must never ever forget that improving and enabling access for disabled people—or fixing the environment, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) called it—actually fixes access for all in an inclusive, socially just way. Sixteen years on from the Equality Act 2010 coming into force, one issue repeatedly coming up in my Brighton Pavilion constituency remains the long-term problem of step-free station access. Multiple community train stations in Brighton, including Moulsecoomb and London Road, have compromised access. The problem is most keenly felt at Preston Park station, which is used by a very large number of passengers. It is a station rooted in the heart of the community, which sees thousands of people use it to access direct trains to London, Gatwick, Bedford and Cambridge, as well as west along the coast towards Littlehampton. For visitors travelling to fabulous events hosted at the nearby park—like the Foodies festival in May and the concert due to be held in July by adopted local rock god Nick Cave, and the Bad Seeds—Preston Park station should be the obvious get-off point, yet for decades it has been overlooked when it comes to funding bids to address accessibility issues. It is a category C station with no step-free access and is simply inaccessible currently. There is no lift, with stairs to every platform, and, as the railway is a barrier for travel across the constituency, this lack also impedes active travel more generally. Without step-free access, my local residents are required to travel 2 miles to Brighton mainline station to board trains there, and this can be in addition to calling ahead to pre-book the use of a ramp at that station. This is all an unreasonable adjustment. Yet, despite all these problems and the potential benefits of fixing them, in May 2024, in the dying days of the last Government, Preston Park station did not make the 50-station shortlist for Access for All funding. In January, when making an announcement to cull the Conservatives’ 50 station list to eight definites and 19 maybes, Lord Hendy in the other place accused the previous Government of “raising significant stakeholder expectations” about the station accessibility funding, and said: “This Government is committed to a rigorous approach and only making commitments we believe are affordable and would represent value for money to passengers and taxpayers.” This example, which is so frustrating for my constituents, shows that positive aspirations for the railways are not enough on their own; they need to be backed up with concrete funding and real commitment. Step-free access is not a convenient thing to have in an ideal world. Step-free access to platforms is a necessity and an equalities issues. It enables participation in work, education, healthcare and social life. I am not filled with confidence that the Government are committed to the funding needed, or the urgency with which it is needed, but there are huge opportunities for the Government to reform their approach through Great British Railways—I really hope to hear something from the Minister on this later. What has been communicated to date by Ministers does fall short. They must take steps to commit to the funding and resource needed to rapidly remove barriers, and end the discrimination that disabled people face when trying to navigate public transport networks. Finally, I invite the Minister to visit Preston Park station to meet my dedicated local campaigners, and to see the multiple issues faced not just by disabled passengers and those with access needs, but by the general public as well. I invite him to see these problems at first hand.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q But the victims’ groups who have written in because they are concerned about the criminalisation of women are talking about triable either-way offences, which are directly affected by this Bill. Are their concerns there valid? Professor Hohl : One thing to remember here is that over 90% of domestic abuse cases are already heard in the magistrates court. VAWG comprises not just sexual violence; it includes domestic abuse, sexual violence and sexual offences. There are some that will be in the either-way category. We have had a really emotive conversation this morning. One of the issues is judge-alone versus jury trials, and there is a lot of emotion on either side. When we look back at the actual research, there is mention that judges may have biases, and a judge-alone trial may disadvantage people. If that is the genuine concern, why are we happy to accept that for sentencing and admissibility? Why is it that in all the law we are making to guide admissibility of evidence, we trust a judge to separate between myth and stereotypes and facts, but not a jury? If we are genuine about it, we have to go a lot further around oversight and accountability in the judiciary. It would be odd to just worry about it on that specific issue. I would also like the Committee to consider the evidence around juries. This is not to cast shade on juries but to pause and look at the research, which shows that juries, too, have biases, and there are worries about myths and misconceptions. The research on juries shows that these problems exist there, too. These issues exist with judges and juries. The remedy is not going to be either holding on to the status quo or not. The remedy will be something utterly outside of the discussion we are having that is about accountability and oversight. Some of the measures in the Bill go that way—for example, recording creates transparency, and judges having to spell out the reasons for their verdict also goes towards that. The debate has moved a really long way away from what the research actually tells us, to quite an emotive batting to and fro. If there is space for the Committee to consider that wider evidence, I would recommend it is looked at.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a question of clarification for any member of the panel who wants to answer. In the letter received from the wider VAWG sector, the offences they are concerned that victims of coercive control or abuse might be charged with after striking back are triable either-way offences and therefore affected by this Bill, but rape and sexual assault, as far as I understand it, are indictable-only and will remain so. The impact on those more serious cases that have been discussed will therefore be due to the impact on the time to trial and on the efficiency of the courts, which we know will be uncertain and somewhat delayed. Is that your understanding? In some of the evidence we have heard, it sounded like the assumption is that rape trials will become judge-only, but that is not what this Bill is about. Dame Vera Baird : No, it is not. It has been, I am afraid, ramped up outside these rooms, with all these Churchillian speeches suggesting that jury trial is being taken away, full stop. That is completely untrue, as you rightly say.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Riel, in my submission from the Criminal Bar Association, there is concern about risks to judges in public criticism. The example given is on sexual offences, but I want to ask about protest-related offences and more political crimes, where the victim is the state or a powerful actor. Would the risks to judges also apply in those cases? Riel Karmy-Jones: Yes. We are already seeing that in immigration cases. We are seeing judges being targeted and threatened as a result of decisions made in immigration cases. The problem is that the judge will set out his decision making in writing; it will be on a transcript; and, under these proposals, it will go to a victim. It is wrong, not for those decisions to go to a complainant in a case, but for them then to be pored over and disagreed with. What does the judge say if they do not believe a complainant victim? They have to say so, and that could lead to huge disruption and upset, whereas with a jury, those people are largely anonymous and protected by reason of their anonymity. It is far rarer for us to get jurors who are targeted and attacked than it will be, in our view. As the Lady Chief Justice pointed out recently, it is far more likely that judges will be targeted as a result of their decision making.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you so much, Claire; it has been really powerful to hear from you. I have heard from a constituent who has a close family member going through all of this, and she has been advised by solicitors to avoid the family court at all costs, describing the potential outcomes as a “lottery” and talking about very patchy training and understanding. Would you back my constituent up on those conclusions? Claire Throssell: Yes, I do back that up. Judges do need training. They are hiding behind the fact that they are independent. They should be independent—they are the law of the land—but they should not be above the laws that they serve, and they do need training. They do need understanding. Like I say, the court is another arena; it is a secondary abuser. We go through the abuse, we take the courage to leave—that is not easy—and we enter a court system where we think, “This is going to be fair; this is going to be just.” We go into these arenas, and there are no guarantees that we can protect our children. We are ripped apart, and our personalities—we go through trauma. We tell people the same thing again and again, but we are not seen, heard, believed or supported.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Visa Brake: Chevening Scholars · Hansard source

  More

  14. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the introduction of the visa brake on Chevening scholars.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Visa Brake: Chevening Scholars · Hansard source

  More

  Including prestigious Chevening scholarships in the Government’s clampdown on certain study visas is devastating for those who have been shortlisted, including students who are set to join our world-leading programmes at Sussex University. It raises questions about the value that the Government put on nurturing talent, particularly for women from Afghanistan, from whom I have seen heartbreaking accounts of terminated applications. Will the Minister and the Home Secretary urgently revisit that decision?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Air Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  I published the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, also known as Ella’s law, this month alongside the Ella Roberta Foundation, Mums for Lungs, Clean Air in London, Asthma and Lung UK and Global Action Plan. Together, we affirmed that the right to breathe clean air is a fundamental human right. Does the Minister agree that the Government should include this vital, life-saving legislation in the upcoming King’s Speech, to give clean air the statutory momentum it requires?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Air Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps she is taking to help reduce air pollution.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I confess that I am not used to being intervened on in this fashion as I am such a minority in the Chamber, but someone has to make these points and I will continue to do so. The point about buses is well made. We need bus services and we need controls on bus fares, which we did not have until recent years. These are ongoing injustices that have compounded over the years, while people buying fuel from the pumps have been somewhat protected. But I am not saying there are easy answers.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  Our current and persistent reliance on oil for transport, rising costs as a result of instability in the middle east, and the ongoing fuel duty freeze, all have consequences for people who use any form of transport in their daily lives. I agree with the Government—and with the many Back Benchers who have joined in supporting them—that it is far too soon to consider the Conservative motion’s demand for further multiple and ongoing freezes. The fact remains that ending the conflict in the Gulf and the wider middle east is the best way to ease fuel market price rises. The risk of profiteering by fuel providers is a far greater threat to household budgets than fuel duty collected for the public purse. The Conservatives should consider considering the consequences before offering their support for any more of President Trump’s appallingly badly thought-out decisions.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I have not yet outlined my plans; I have merely complained about the rising cost of bus and rail fares that has accompanied continued freezes in fuel duty. I will move on to my next point. I am very aware of the manospherical gender ratio there has been in the Chamber throughout the debate, and that is pertinent to this point. Hon. Members must remember that, in any given family with a car who are just about managing, the poorest and most disadvantaged members of that family will most likely be the spouse and children of the main driver. Those people, in any part of the country, including in rural areas, often have little or no access to the basic mobility that a car can provide. They are dependent on good public transport services—often absent. They are dependent on safe streets—often absent. They are dependent on transport services to access their jobs, daily lives and essential services when the car is in use by the main driver. Members should not forget that.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that those are good initiatives. I also celebrate the initiative of the Scottish Government, led by the Green party, to make bus fares free for people under 22. Young people desperately need that support because they rarely have access to the family car, as I mentioned. All these interventions represent good value for money. This month, analysis by the Climate Change Committee has reminded us that we can significantly reduce the UK’s exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets if we just think a little further into the future and get things done. The Committee estimates that the transition will cost around £4 billion a year to make our climate targets. That is the cost of one oil shock like the one we are experiencing now, but it would deliver huge benefits, including resilience, the next time this happens, and we can predict that it might.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I would very much like to continue with my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker. I agree with the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). We will never truly protect the families who are struggling with daily living costs, driven by fossil fuel dependence, if we do not get our economy and our transport system completely off the addiction to oil and gas that they suffer from. I remind the House that every £1 invested in achieving climate targets is estimated by the Climate Change Committee to generate between £2 and £4 in wider economic benefits. These include major public health improvements and NHS savings that could reach another £130 billion by 2050. These are all excellent investments that have been resisted for years and years by people who should know better. Finally, I would like to quote the Social Market Foundation. It has said that Government policy to keep freezing fuel duty has “inadvertently” hurt drivers, “with policies that end up encouraging car use,” argues that “the bigger issue is a lack of investment in alternatives to driving, keeping people reliant on costly cars.” The Conservatives should consider that if they wanted to carry out the measures that they ask for without corresponding consequences for public services, health and wellbeing, they might have considered that air travellers pay no fuel duty at all in this country. Air travel demand is driven by the most wealthy passengers, with the broadest shoulders, including those in the private jets owned by Conservative party donors and other owners of private jets. The Conservative motion could have gone further, and been more practical and less short term in its thinking altogether. Green MPs will not be supporting the Conservative motion and I am grateful for the time that the House has given me to explain why.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  My speech will continue to put the case for alternative interventions that will help everybody in every family in the constituencies mentioned. Campaign for Better Transport has pointed out to the Chancellor that the total cost of cancelling all the planned increases to fuel duty in line with the retail prices index since 2011 has brought real-term cuts for motorists for 14 years, and cost the Treasury a cumulative £133 billion between 2011-12 and 2024-25. The additional 5p cut, meant as a temporary measure when introduced five years ago, has alone cost £13 billion since then. The fuel duty freeze has been regressive. It has helped the richest tenth of households save nearly three times as much as the poorest tenth. The fact remains that the poorest people, who can afford no holidays whether or not the Government agree to this motion, are not driving or owning cars. Yet through all this time the cost of bus and rail travel, upon which those who cannot afford to own a car rely, has continued to rise.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  We need more robust interventions on fares as well, and we need much more help for bus companies to be able to switch to electric vehicles and to electrify their fleets. I raised many of those points on the Bus Services Bill Committee. I shall now give way to the hon. Lady.