Siân Berry MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I have incredible sympathy for the people whose cases have been outlined in this debate. I am setting out a case for action that is going to make a difference, including de-escalating the conflict in the middle east—a conflict that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) briefly supported. I will move on to the alternative plans. Transport & Environment recently reminded us in its briefing, ahead of the spring statement, of the investments and initiatives that are really needed to help people in transport poverty. The Social Market Foundation has pointed out that despite over £100 billion being spent on cuts and freezes to fuel duty, it has made little impact on transport poverty. We have to find ways that are better value for money. Transport & Environment has suggested salary sacrifice public transport travel cards, reinstating £2 bus fare caps, and, in the current context, targeted payments for vulnerable people and direct support for small businesses, sole traders and low-income households. That would ensure that help reaches those most exposed to the energy price rises, rather than repeating the regressive tax cuts that have taken place.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It was a privilege to be here for the powerful and effective speech from the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). When literally thousands of venerable members of the legal profession are saying so clearly that jury trial restrictions will not be effective or practical and may be counterproductive, and that they threaten our rights, surely the Government must listen. The Green party’s reasoned amendment sets out clear reasons for the awful court backlog that is letting down so many victims—it talks about Conservative underfunding over many years—and sets out the missing resources that will help to properly solve it. It is rare for us to agree with some colleagues on anything, but the fact is that we are all right on this point. We need alternatives to the restrictions on jury trials in the Bill, including intensive listings, more sitting days, legal aid investment, better buildings and better services to deliver defendants to court. The Green amendment also raises the question of whether these measures are yet another part of the Government’s wider attack on civil liberties. They are building a toolkit for tyrants also out of 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, protesters and dissidents. This is all so dangerous. Can the Minister truly deny that the growing acceptance by juries of defences of proportionality or necessity in some protest cases was not a factor in the inclusion of the unnecessary and dangerous curtailment of jury trials in the Bill? The category of triable either-way cases where jury trials will be restricted includes several of the specific offences created or made more serious by successive Governments in the wake of successful non-violent protest action. By successful, I mean non-violent actions that have—yes—caused inconvenience but which did what non-violent direct action is for: directly aiming to prevent harm to people or the environment, or to create a stir that raises public awareness of serious injustice. Actions made into more serious offences have included interference with infrastructure, blocking roads or demonstrating in airports, specific tunnelling offences, conspiracy to lock on to each other during protests, or symbolically using statues in actions, as well as some kinds of noisy protests—for being annoying. Along with the wider principle here, I am so concerned, in connection with rights and liberties around dissent and resistance to state power, that juries could no longer be able to judge the public interest or proportionality of the actions of defendants of these kinds of charges. Such people have achieved so much progress throughout our history—that, nobody can deny. The Bill should not affect our citizens’ rights in this way. It should be about real investment in our courts to ensure that justice is not delayed for the victims, who we all care about.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  The result in Gorton and Denton shows that voters want bolder action from politicians against sky-high privatised bills and rents and want no families to be left struggling in poverty. Will the Chancellor listen and scrap her dysfunctional fiscal rules, starting with scrapping the overall family benefit cap, which still means that over 200,000 children are not getting the help they need to live if not a nice life, at least one without needless grinding hardship?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to all the young women who have risked so much to stand up and push for justice in relation to the vile and corrupt web around the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and to the crimes and abuse that they suffered as children. Let me turn to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Transparency about the workings of an organisation is a key way to prevent corruption—sunlight is the best disinfectant—although I appreciate that a police investigation is ongoing and must not be jeopardised. Green MPs support the Liberal Democrat motion. We note that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) apologised and gave his reasons for saying—when he was in office in 2011—that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was doing an excellent job. That was during the debate held in this House by the late Paul Flynn, the formidable former MP for Newport West, to whom other Members have referred. The royal family is sheltered from scrutiny in too many ways, and it is now very clear what a risk that poses. We have heard many examples of MPs facing restrictions on what we can ask about royal activity, but it is reasonable and right that we should scrutinise fully any work that they do on the country’s behalf, and consider how those restrictions might be removed. As I understand it, section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 exempts communications between relevant authorities and members of the broader royal family—not just the King—from being released under freedom of information requests. It really is one rule for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us, a situation which the Minister condemned earlier. I believe that that serious transparency loophole for royals must be closed. It could mean, for example, that if trade envoy positions are filled by members of the royal family, it would—predictably—be significantly harder for the press, public and MPs to ensure that things are above board, and to get details when things go badly wrong. One example of the effect on transparency is demonstrated in The Guardian today. In a profile piece, the author Andrew Lownie, who wrote the biography “Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York”, talks about stacks of his freedom of information requests being rejected by different Departments. That is why the Humble Address is so important: it would uncover whether those restrictions in the FOI Act were part of the equation in making the appointment. My early-day motion 2769, which has the support of MPs from six political parties, calls on the King to release all communications between members of the royal family and the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. Obviously, that is just the start of what is needed, which is why I am very grateful for this motion. If the reports that the royal family were aware of concerns about Andrew’s financial dealings ahead of his appointment are correct, there are serious questions about whether and how that knowledge matches the King’s statement following Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest, in which he suggested he had only recently learned about his brother’s misconduct. It is reasonable to raise those questions and find out what advice was given from the palace—including from the King—for or against the appointment. The royal family’s reactive co-operation with any investigation cannot be enough, because it suggests that they are waiting to be asked by the police, rather than proactively checking their records and visitor logs, speaking with palace and Royal Lodge staff to encourage them to share information with the authorities, and ensuring that there is an effective whistleblowing policy within the palace. We also need to be able to scrutinise the exact provenance of the £12 million payout from Andrew to the brave, late Virginia Giuffre. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should never have been a trade envoy for this country, but that is not the only matter that requires urgent transparency. His relationship with the child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein has turned the nation’s stomach. We also need to know who in the royal household knew what and when, as well as what he did when he was trade envoy. As part of that, I hope that the Minister will make it clear today that royal freedom of information exemptions—which have for too long allowed royal power to act in the shadows, and to conceal important truths from MPs and the public—also need to go.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister tackle the point that I made in my speech? There is a possibility of people being denied disability benefits, as the result of separate work for which he is responsible, and potentially falling into the cap by losing the exemptions. That worries me greatly with respect to my own constituents.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman sincerely for that intervention. When I raised this matter on Second Reading, Ministers gave answers that echoed, rather horribly, the prejudicial, stereotypical arguments that we heard moments ago from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), implying that leaving the cap in place would incentivise people to work, when we know that it really only drives people into poverty. We also have excellent proposals in new clauses 3 and 4, which have the same goal. I appreciate fully the request for consultation and the provision of cost estimates in new clause 4. New clause 3 is very helpful in looking at the impact of the Bill on families with disabled people and on mental health, which are all important considerations. The debate on Second Reading and today, and the amendments, reflect a near consensus across many parties —excluding the Conservative party—that the Government are not going as far as they should. The fact is that the overall benefit cap is just as cruel and just as driven by prejudice and stereotype as the two-child limit, and the Conservatives should never have introduced it. Those affected include nearly 1,000 families in my constituency—a high proportion due to our excessive housing costs. That is the point: whatever extreme examples those on the right wing of politics wave around, these families do not get to keep and enjoy the funding they get from social security; instead, it goes straight out again on the absolute basics. Sky-high rents are responsible for most of the higher living costs putting people on benefits, with the money they receive, often on top of hard-won low wages, going straight out and into the pockets of landlords. This cap punishes the wrong people. Today I want a clear commitment from the Minister to set out how the Government will collect data, analyse it, and report back to this House very swiftly on the families that they are not helping with this Bill. Then I want a clear commitment for the Government to fill this huge gap in their child poverty strategy, which is something that many charities agree with. Some might call this a U-turn, but through another lens it can be seen as a very welcome last-minute equaliser. Real help and more support, not spin and delay, is what these children’s lives deserve.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Government should have brought this Bill forward as soon as they were elected 19 months ago, but they failed to do so. They could have listened to the families and children—with more than 200,000 children affected—enduring the overall benefit cap before making their final plans, but they failed to do so. Ministers still could have listened to the many hon. Members, including myself, who said on Second Reading that the policy was too narrow. They could have widened the scope of the Bill, but they failed to do so. The Bill is not wrong, but it fails to do right by far too many children. I speak in support of new clause 1, which has wide cross-party support. It would mandate a full assessment within six months of the families left in poverty by the failure of the Government to tackle the overall benefit cap, showing its impact on each of our constituencies and the families we represent. We need to know who is left out from the help provided in this Bill, including those who are left in poverty. We also need to know the wider impacts as the change takes hold. That includes the removal of exemptions, because this Government are seeking at the same time to remove people from the few qualifying benefits that exempt people from the cap, including disability benefits. This wider attack on benefit claimants threatens to make the gap in the Bill even worse.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Standards in Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  A Government in thrall to men and corporations drunk on power is the rot at the centre of the Mandelson scandal. When people operate in the shadows, they think they can act with impunity. Of all seven Nolan principles, openness can help to build back the most trust. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that we must drive out corporate influence and money, and as a start, will he cap political donations, and ask all MPs and peers to follow my example in releasing logs of all lobbying meetings, so that people can know that we work for them?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. Despite all that President Trump is doing to wreck global stability, our Government still spend billions a year on digital technology contracts, including with US tech giants. Will the Secretary of State immediately put together a UK digital sovereignty strategy to build our resilience and security, as France and Germany are doing?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have drawn this Bill too narrowly. It will, as Members have mentioned several times, leave at least 150,000 children in larger families with no extra help at all. For example, Maryam, highlighted by the Z2K charity, is a lone parent of three. She fled from domestic abuse and relies on us for her income while she restarts her life. Abolishing the two-child limit alone will not improve her life one bit, because she is affected by both the two-child limit and the overall benefit cap. In December, after this policy change was finally announced—about 18 months after the Government should have taken action—I asked Ministers how many families and children would be excluded from the extra help, and they told me that that information was not available. It is beyond me how they could decide that this policy would leave out children without knowing exactly how many. DWP data shows that there are nearly 1,000 families subject to the benefit cap in my constituency, but I was not told—and I still do not know—how many of my families will be excluded from the provisions in the Bill. We do know how many children in total will be left out and not helped. The impact assessment for the Bill says that 50,000 families will see no gain at all, and that another 20,000 families in the first year will only partially gain before the household benefit cap kicks in for them too. In total, at least 200,000 children will not get the help they need from the Government. The benefit cap, like the two-child limit, was always unjust. Introduced by the Conservatives who used headlines and misrepresentations, they drove up stigma and demonisation—demonisation of children in poverty and their parents. The Conservatives failed to see that social security is security for everyone, and that this spending pays back in wider benefits that the Treasury and the country will see. We should not limit lives through prejudice,

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for pointing out yet again that some of us in this House voted to move on this issue many, many months ago, and it is about time that the Government caught up. I utterly reject the racist agenda of Reform’s objections. The fact is that the Bill is not wrong, but it fails to do right by far too many children, so what will the Government do to fix that? The scope of the Bill could be widened by the Government to remove the benefit cap. This could be done through a motion, if not by a simple amendment to the Bill—and I have been trying on that score as well. It is down to the Government to listen to Members who have spoken on this issue today. I quite simply ask them whether they will now act.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Government narrowed the scope of the last benefits Bill, and it could widen this Bill to take in the wider benefit cap, too. The Chancellor who could find the money for that is right next to the Minister. Can the Minister explain why, despite the interest in lifting the overall benefit cap in the Chamber today, according to the impact assessment the only options assessed were doing nothing or this very narrow measure?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Protest-related Offences: Remand · Hansard source

  More

  I am disappointed that the Minister has not acknowledged the real harm and suffering that is going on, which is an obvious consequence of the escalation by Ministers of the number of crimes with which people taking protest action are being charged. Does he not agree that incarcerating people for long months and years without trial for offences that are in essence political has no in-principle place in a democracy such as ours?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Protest-related Offences: Remand · Hansard source

  More

  11. If he will take steps to reduce the length of time people are held on remand for protest-related offences.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Police Reform White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Home Secretary give us some clarity on the bespoke legal framework on police AI, please? Will its scope be commendably narrow, getting police use of facial recognition under control while clearly outlawing other uses, which would match the EU’s AI Act, or will it be too narrow, leaving other public authorities, such as potentially the Border Force, local authorities and the private sector, in the ungoverned wild west of uses that we see now?

• 8 Jan 2026 · High Street Gambling Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I give huge thanks to the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for proposing the motion. I was pleased to support the application for the debate. We have just heard an excellent case for action and some really clear examples of the harm that gambling causes. I am also a member of the APPG on gambling reform; I thank its chair, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), for his work. It is clear that Members across parties feel passionately that the Government are ignoring clear evidence and going far too easy on this industry. This debate is very timely: by chance, tomorrow I will be visiting the excellent Breakeven charity in Brighton, which provides free support for Brightonians dealing with gambling-related harm, including people’s partners, family members and friends. I want to thank some of the brilliant campaigners on gambling reform and harm who I meet regularly for their work, including Matt Zarb-Cousin of Gamban, Gambling with Lives, which is incredible, and the many other local charities in Brighton that are working on addiction, including to gambling, and recovery. The motion focuses on planning policy, and we have heard excellent further suggestions about licensing. I fully support the proposal in the motion to remove the “aim to permit” provision. Councils must be able to control the spread of gambling premises in every way possible. Currently, gambling debates often centre around online gambling, which is clearly a growing menace, and its excessive levels of advertising, but much of the harm still occurs in our neighbourhoods. GambleAware research has shown that shopfronts on the high street are the source of a high number of advertising views. My recent work on that aspect has included proposing changes to Brighton and Hove city council’s gambling policy. My response to its review highlighted the proliferation of high street gambling establishments in my city. As evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee last year stressed, gambling companies concentrate their efforts in areas of greater deprivation. However, coastal constituencies such as mine also have a very high density of gambling facilities due to our history as seaside resorts, which I believe has a harmful impact on my constituents. According to the council, the total number of licensed gambling premises where residents and visitors can gamble in Brighton and Hove was 257 as of May 2024. In comparison, we have 25 GP surgeries, 13 libraries, 44 dentists, around 20 youth services and seven leisure centres. Soon, we could have more gambling establishments than the city’s 340 pubs. For that reason, my submission to the council called for the introduction at the very least of a one in, one out principle for gambling establishments to represent and respect our licensing objectives of preventing harm to children and people with vulnerabilities, including problem gambling and addiction. To back up that policy, I also want to see the prohibition of advertising gambling on billboards, bus stops, buses and any other outdoor advertising sites in the city. Advertising bothers me in many ways, but on this topic it makes me really angry. I think the Government could do a lot more about it. With the physical adverts in our neighbourhoods alongside all the gaudy shopfronts, coupled with the ever-present marketing on social media and television every time we tune into sport, it is no wonder that we are seeing increased gambling harms. The Gambling Commission has estimated the problem gambler rate to be close to 2.5%. Based on the Office for National Statistics’ latest population estimates, that puts well over 1 million people in Great Britain into the category of problem gamblers. The commission also estimated a further 3.1 million people to be classified as at risk, with many more harmed indirectly. That is experimental data using new survey methodologies and it is regularly challenged by the industry, which does not surprise me, because it is so shocking. However, it is backed up by other evidence. We know that the national gambling helpline is receiving more calls and online chats than ever before. The NHS has also reported significant growth in referrals to its gambling harm services. Young people are increasingly at risk from this harm. In 2018, the GambleAware charity commissioned two reports to consider the extent and nature of the impact of gambling marketing and advertising on children, young people and vulnerable groups in the UK. It reported that, although children are not directly targeted by advertisers, almost all children and young people see gambling adverts. Only 4% of 11 to 20-year-olds who participated in the survey reported that they had not been exposed in the previous month. High street premises clearly contribute to that, alongside the advertising that bothers me so much. It is clear that the Government have worked to advance the 2023 White Paper proposals. I welcome the introduction of a statutory levy on gambling operators in place of the voluntary scheme, which will generate money for research, prevention and treatment. I also welcome next steps on financial vulnerability checks and enhanced risk assessments for the online services, and the withdrawal of gambling sponsorship from the front of premier league players’ shirts by the end of this season—although that will not address the significant volume of gambling adverts that are visible during top-flight matches. We are also ambling towards a gambling ombudsman, but it should have been up and running by the summer of 2024. As the hon. Member for Brent East said, we need bolder action, and it must focus on the high street, as the motion rightly sets out. We must give local councils the powers to properly regulate the spread of gambling premises, among other things. I have encouraged my local council to get together with other councils and to use the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 to produce proposals—

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am also grateful for the motion and for the opportunity to object, cross-party, to the restrictions on our important rights to a trial by jury. I was, however, hoping that the Conservatives would, in this debate, admit some real responsibility for the awful state of our criminal justice system. Will he correct that gap in any further way in his contribution?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  To the credit of those on the Conservative Front Bench, one line in the reasoned amendment mentions the need for a duty to grow passenger numbers. A number of hon. Members across the House have mentioned that today. Will the Minister come back to the House on the question of a duty to raise passenger numbers?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Green party welcomes the Bill. It is right in principle to end the failed, long experiment in surrendering public services to the private market. We are pleased to see an extended role for the passenger watchdog set out in the Bill, and clear requirements for business plans and strategies to be published and consulted upon. I want the measures in the Bill to include deep scrutiny of those plans and strategies. Passengers, rail workers and locally elected representatives must use their voices to have more control over what Great British Railways offers, both in advance and during the development of these plans and strategies. I am pleased that the duties laid out for Great British Railways include consideration for “potential passengers”. That will help to better include many people when they use the railways, such as disabled people, people with buggies, older people, people for whom toilet access is more than crucial and others for whom accessibility barriers are still too high on our railways. This and the public interest duty should help to create social benefits for people for whom the cost of rail travel is prohibitive, including young people, who need more connectivity and access to jobs and training. However, the Bill still lacks on its face a specific duty to grow passenger numbers. We have an integrated transport strategy on the way, but the Bill contains a mode shift target for freight without including one for passengers. The Bill needs to say more about the need to plan for new capacity and services on the basis of creating maximum potential to reduce car dependency, to shift people away from the most polluting and socially unequal modes of transport, not just to respond to current demand or congestion on the railways. Public ownership is popular with the vast majority of people. Before the last election, it was even backed by 60% of those who intended to vote Conservative. It is a strong desire for people in Brighton Pavilion, for whom the legacy of privatisation is too often one of expensive and unreliable services, with big gaps in accessibility. I believe strongly that local voices, such as those in Brighton, must be more in control of our public services. We need more clarity on how mayoral, local and combined authorities will be able to control investment plans and services. During the passage of the previous rail Bill, I argued that there should be public ownership of rolling stock companies. I understand that decisions are being made for future rolling stock not to be purchased through the evil twin of the private finance initiative. However, the fact remains that the current rolling stock is a scandal. Rolling stock leasing companies—ROSCOs—paid £275 million in dividends to shareholders in 2024-25, and those payments are up by 59% in five years. That is outrageous profiteering and a drain on public finances, so I urge the Government to cut that waste, find ways to bring our rolling stock into public hands and look at a windfall tax on the current ROSCOs to address this injustice.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot. This is the expensive leopards-eating-faces party of policies. It must be stopped. It is too risky to go ahead with. The Government need to answer so many questions to make anybody happy with it.