Siân Berry MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 16 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to press you slightly on the make-up of audit committees. Mr Davies said that it was not for him to say, but given the varied make-up of councils across the country, I do not think it would be too hard for you to say that an opposition councillor could be the chair, or something along those lines. In your experience, what makes a good audit committee? Gareth Davies: It is about the person and their skills and approach more than any office they hold or party they come from. You need the right approach and the right skills to do a good job. I have seen elected politicians fulfil that role brilliantly. The reason I said what I said is that I am a bit suspicious of anything that says, for example, “We must have an independent chair who is not a member of the council.” The audit committee is there to be part of the council’s governance arrangements. If it is too independent of the council, it does not engage with the machinery of running the council or influence the decision makers sufficiently, in my experience. If it is entirely made up of members who, with the best will in the world, do not have the skills required to perform a role that sometimes has technical elements, that model also has weaknesses. The best models I have seen consist of a cross-party committee of members who are very interested in getting value for money for the taxpayer and ensuring that controls are operating properly across the council, and in ensuring that the council is maintaining public trust; you need people with those kind of motivations, supplemented with some independent membership. The chair does not necessarily have to come from that independent membership, but it must be somebody who is prepared to read all the accounts and ask difficult questions about why a surprising number has appeared out of nowhere. That is why I would not be prescriptive. You need a mix of skills around the table and the committee must be connected to the leadership of the council, so that difficult messages coming out of the audits are relayed to the decision makers, raised in full council if necessary, and certainly raised with the executive or the mayor. That linkage needs to be clear and fully operational for it to work properly. Bill Butler: That is not different—

• 16 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Could each of you lay out what you think are the benefits of the Bill from a planning perspective? Are there lessons from London? We just listened to John Denham talking about how there is a gap at London level below the unitaries, but there is nothing in the Bill that is changing the way the boroughs are, and maybe that works; maybe it does not. Can you tell us more about that? Richard Hebditch: I think the Bill could be a very powerful tool from a planning point of view. The ability to co-ordinate across housing, transport and planning is really important. As in the London model, which obviously you know very well, that can be very powerful. One thing that is interesting with the Bill is the comparison with London’s accountability. What has been really important in London is the fact that you have the directly elected Assembly, committee structures with powers, and active civil society and media. There is also the statutory passenger watchdog in London, London TravelWatch, of which I am a board member. There is a developed infrastructure to scrutinise what the strategic authority and the mayor do, and that is important. Particularly given the increased powers there will be for strategic authorities elsewhere to call in planning applications and have mayoral development bodies, it is important to have that level of accountability.

• 16 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My question was about resourcing. Have you had assurance that you will get some resources for this? Miatta Fahnbulleh: Resourcing is a challenge across the piece. As we think about the structures that we are creating, we are also thinking about how we build capacity, because if we do not do that, we will create structures that will not be effective, which is not the outcome that we are trying to achieve.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my fellow members and the Chairs of the Public Bill Committee for the work they did; I felt work on the Committee was very constructive from the different Opposition Members. It followed some very constructive amendments that were made and agreed in the other place, too, including on villages and vision zero for road danger. I was sad to see so many good ideas defeated and removed in Committee. I think this issue crosses party boundaries; it should be about practicalities, not party politics. On road danger, I am pleased to have tabled new clauses 41, 42 and 43, with support from members of the RMT, which seek to improve safety through driver support and wellbeing. These measures are all necessary to achieve vision zero for road danger for our buses. I am full of support for new clause 2 and other measures that seek to remove time restrictions on concessionary bus passes. Having these time restrictions is a major disincentive to working. The Government cannot keep dodging this contradiction in their stated policies, and must act to enable disabled people’s mobility and enact real equality. Young people, too, have received attention with the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and in Liberal Democrat measures. I myself have tabled new clause 44, which seeks simply to enact a policy that is already in place in Scotland in order to give free bus travel to anyone under the age of 22. Today, however, I want to advocate mainly for clean air, as the promoter of the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill—Ella’s law—and for toilet access to be taken seriously by Government in relation to buses. My amendments 62 and 64 would help to fix those policy gaps. The clauses in the Bill on zero emission buses seem to block the highest ambition by not setting the earliest date for a mandate on new procurement of zero emission buses until 2030. That is a really long time still to be buying dirty, diesel-powered buses. It is extremely poor when dirty air is a killer, and when in certain streets and hotspots—often where the least advantaged live—cleaner buses can make a real difference and it is in the gift of public authorities to deal with it. I believe that the Mayor of London and Transport for London began procuring zero emission buses only as long ago as 2021. Given that some London routes are very long indeed, such buses could be introduced in other areas much sooner. With the right help and investment, the infrastructure could be built and good, green jobs could be filled, as implied by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank). I have yet to hear good reasons from Ministers why the clause is so tragically unenterprising. Another vital issue of equality is ensuring that access to toilets features in local transport plans for bus infrastructure and facilities. This is the ideal time for me to be talking about this topic; I apologise to Members who have also been in the debate for a while. As Age UK said in January in its delightfully named “Lifting the lid” report, for older people, those with health conditions and many others, the availability of public toilets can determine whether they feel able to leave their homes. It is basic equality of mobility. My Green colleagues on the London Assembly are famously very persuasive. Working with groups including Age UK, they have gained consensus and won investment, and targets have been set for toilet access on the tube network—toilets should be no more than 20 minutes of travel time away. The Minister talked about creating more accessible stopping places. That kind of standard access to essential toilet facilities on bus routes would enable mobility, and it is so achievable. I hope that Ministers will listen and take these proposals forward in their work.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Early Education and Childcare · Hansard source

  More

  The work I did this year with Mandu Reid, the former leader of the Women’s Equality party, found a continuing crisis among the providers of childcare. Our call was for broader investment in pay, conditions and training, to mitigate national insurance contribution burdens and to take real action on morale. How will the £45 million announced today really help those existing childcare workers who are right on the verge of leaving the sector?

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There are ideas in this Bill that devolve powers that we Greens can support. A layer of strategic government with funding and fundraising powers could empower areas of the country, such as Sussex, to improve daily life for our citizens and could strengthen democracy. However, it is worrying that the process for doing that so far and the ways in which decisions are moving forward on the reorganisation of local government have not listened to people who want to maintain their district and borough councils and have not properly engaged local people in devising new proposals rather than just commenting on them. If this is done without consent or respect for local areas, it will not be democratic or empowering. Clause 57 is very unfair in grandfathering in existing mayoral arrangements for local councils but not preserving any committee systems—not even those chosen recently by referendum. On fair voting, the Bill is inadequate. For the new elected mayors, the Bill specifies a supplementary voting system that is better than first-past-the-post, but, as other Members have pointed out, that should be used next year in Sussex. Also, for the new authorities where new councillors are being elected, there is a genuine missed chance to have a fairer voting system for councils too. The Bill is dangerously light on the democratic scrutiny of new mayors and combined authorities, and poor on standards in public life. There should be transparency duties on mayors to disclose their lobbying meetings, as Ministers do and all MPs should. Mayors will also be able to appoint commissioners for different areas of their powers, which will be powerful positions that are likely to be well remunerated. Yet the Bill appears to be silent on any higher standards of accountability, transparency or conduct for such people. Mayors and commissioners should all come under the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, as other people in this place do. There are big missed chances in the Bill in terms of new duties for poverty and inequality, climate, nature, healthy air, land and water pollution and health, particularly in relation to the impacts of transport and housing policy. On health determinants, the Bill mentions prosperity but not poverty or inequality; nor does it mention the huge chance to improve health by cleaning up filthy air pollution. Why not? Greens will be arguing for all these goals and duties and more to be put in place firmly and clearly in the Bill, and for them to be matched with powers, funding and the ability to raise and use investment for homes, transport, education, justice, social justice, public health and all these other things to close the gaps that have so shamefully grown under successive Governments and continued Labour austerity. This Bill could help to deliver great things, but it will take many big changes, much work and much listening to good ideas from this part of the House for the Government to achieve that.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. Two major reports—one from Shelter, which is coming, and one last week from Heriot-Watt University—have exposed something that I have observed myself in housing casework for many years, as a councillor and as an MP: people from some minority groups, even beyond the structural racism in society, experience worse outcomes and even direct discrimination from councils in regard to their access to housing. Will the Secretary of State commit to writing a formal response to me on the recommendations in those reports?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for giving those examples of the vital things that additional payments are used for. They are so necessary, and it is so necessary not to cut them. My amendment 39 affects clause 1, the only at all positive clause in the Bill as it stands. The clause uplifts the rate of increase in the standard allowance of universal credit beyond inflation—by 2.3% in the year starting April 2026, rising to 4.8% for 2029. My amendment simply sets the uplift percentage at 4.8% for the whole period. This sustained rise in the basic rate of universal credit is much needed. Setting out the case for an essentials guarantee, the Trussell Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation state: “The basic rate of Universal Credit should at least cover the cost of essentials like food, household bills and travel, but it is not currently set according to any objective assessment of what people need.” Amendment 39 goes some way towards ensuring that, and the joint briefing to MPs from 20 charities, service providers and disabled people’s groups highlights this need in its recommendations. I realise that the question on many people’s minds is, “How can the country pay for this boost to universal credit and the removal of cuts to the personal independence payment?” The answer lies with the Chancellor and something that my Green colleagues and I have called for many times, especially on this issue, ever since the Secretary of State introduced the Green Paper. On that day, 18 March, I asked “why impoverishing” disabled people “to the tune of £5 billion is a higher priority than a simple wealth tax.” —[ Official Report , 18 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 181.] The hon. Members for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) also spoke up for such a tax on the same day. Many hon. Members have asked the same question in the House, and it is not just MPs making this suggestion. It is not just charities such as Oxfam and the Equality Trust, not just campaigners such as Tax Justice UK and Green New Deal Rising, and not just Patriotic Millionaires UK, which says that its polling shows that 85% of people who have more than £10 million would happily pay 2% of their wealth to support a better society and public services. Two former leaders of the Labour party are also now talking about it as a serious option. There are, I should say, other ways to tax unearned wealth, as part of a wider package, than the way set out in this simple proposal, which is making unlikely allies of Greens, millionaires and Labour leaders. I think the view of this House is clear: when fairer taxes on assets, which absolutely can work and should work for the nation, are finally put into the Budget, first to go should be the cuts target set out in the Department for Work and Pensions spreadsheet, and the two-child benefit cap. It is through such a tax that we should pay for the improvements needed to the Bill.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 39, page 1, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert— “(4) The relevant uplift percentage for tax years 2026-27 to 2029-30 is 4.8%.” This amendment would apply the full standard allowance uplift percentage currently specified in clause 1 of the Bill for 2029-30 to all preceding years 2026-27 to 2028-29 as well.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When one in five people receiving universal credit and disability benefits has used a food bank in the last month, and when Scope has found that the disability price tag is £1,095 per month, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today. When the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper has terrified so many of our constituents, and when the basic rate of universal credit cannot cover the basic essentials, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today. When the ultra-rich are orders of magnitude away from the tough choices disabled people face, and when we have such a deeply unequal society, and a wealth tax would break no manifesto commitments, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today. From the Green Paper to where we are now, the Government’s behaviour has been an insult to disabled people, and I think they should be ashamed and should apologise. My constituents who receive benefits, and the people who love and care for them, have been subjected to chaos, confusion and indignity. Instead of making improvements, with careful consideration, to a complex and treacherous benefits system, the Government have rushed to fit the imperatives of the Budget timetable, bypassing evidence gathering and line-by-line scrutiny in a Committee of this House, and further limiting the power of the other place by making this a money Bill. Yes, a tremendous effort of people power and bravery from Labour Members has won last-minute concessions for current claimants, but the Government should still scrap this unfair and harmful legislation, due to the harm that it will do to people who find themselves in need of support in future. This Bill is not a tough decision; it is the wrong decision. Here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that question. I refer him to Patriotic Millionaires UK. It has done considerable work on this issue, with its considerable resources, and set out proposals for a 2% wealth tax on people who have more than £10 million in wealth. It polled the general public on that, and found that 75% of them hugely supported the measure, not just as an alternative to cuts to welfare, but as a general principle. Clause 1 would be made into a genuinely good policy by amendment 39, but that change alone will not make this a Bill that the House should pass. Removing clause 5, as Government amendment 4 proposes, will not be enough, either, to make this a Bill that this House should pass. Clause 2, even once amended by the Government, would cut in half the health element of universal credit for nine in 10 new claimants. I will speak later about the severe conditions criteria and fluctuating conditions. Without amendment 2(a), tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), clause 2 should be removed from the Bill. Clause 3 would freeze the health elements of universal credit for the rest of this Parliament, so clause 3 should also be removed from the Bill. Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 4 would freeze legacy benefits for disabled people, so they should be removed from the Bill, as my amendment 40 proposes. A Bill that just consists of a much-improved clause 1 and possibly a much-improved clause 2 would almost be a Bill that this House could, in conscience, pass. We have the choice to craft such a Bill today. As well as those changes, amendments such as amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), are needed, and there are some new clauses that would help make the Bill even more fit for purpose. The vital principle we must stand up for today is that any policy changes relating to disabled people must be led by disabled people. On the day the Green Paper was published, I raised the matter of co-production with the Secretary of State. That word has been much talked about by many others with experience of co-producing policy, and by the Government, thanks to strong campaigners and pressure from MPs.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member greatly for that intervention. When I have gathered together young people in my constituency, I have found that the issues that they face are unique, and their voices absolutely must be heard. The Government have said that they are committed to co-producing the Timms review with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, but organisations such as Disability Rights UK have told us that those promises are hard to trust. They fear a tick-box exercise, co-production in name only, and that the Government’s original plans will be the inevitable result. That is why I have signed up to new clause 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), as well as new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). If clause 2 and its schedule remain, the severe conditions criteria simply cannot stand as written. It appears that the Government either meant to exclude people with fluctuating lifelong conditions such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis from the higher rate of the universal credit health element, or that Ministers completely overlooked that community when rushing all this through. Criteria that withdraw support from people with fluctuating conditions are unacceptable, and that is why I signed amendment 38 tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and amendment 17 tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie). The severe conditions criteria also say that any diagnosis must be made in the NHS. Again, that is either careless drafting or a deliberate restriction, so I have also signed amendment 33 from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). I am trying to bring to this House the voices of disabled people in Brighton Pavilion and across the nation who are closely watching what we do today. So many of our constituents remain scared by the Bill. Right from the day of the sudden and careless release of the Green Paper, which contained terrifying policy details that were not in the Labour manifesto, they have been forced into a cruel limbo. It is shameful that the Government have chosen this path. This Labour Government are showing themselves far more willing to punish disabled people than ask the most wealthy to shoulder the burden of fair public spending on real social security. I am so proud of the people power that has been brought to bear on the Bill. Action by disabled people and their allies has forced MPs to listen and take action, and forced the Government to withdraw the most brutal cuts, but still the Bill remains unacceptable without the serious amendments that I have outlined. I look forward to hearing much sense, including what the United Nations has told us, from the many hon. Members in this debate who share my values. My Green colleagues and I are ready to do all in our power to minimise the consequences of the Bill; to make it do good, not harm; and ultimately, if that does not happen, to see it fall. I hope the Government will truly learn from the cruel mess that this has become.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the work that has gone into the shadow Minister’s speech, but when he will address the petition’s point about advertising? It seems to me that most of the speech so far has been merely an advert for the fossil fuel industry.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  Before the Minister winds up, I want to ensure that he tackles the question of sponsorship, which is a key part of the petition. I think that focusing only on advertising ignores the lack of choice that people have if their much-loved sports team, the gallery they want to visit or the theatre company that they support is sponsored by a fossil fuel company. The Minister needs to reflect on why so many people signed the petition, having been put in an invidious position by these sponsorship deals.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I shall do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 13 Duty to commission a safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops “(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commission an independent safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England. (2) The review specified in subsection (1) must be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.”— (Jerome Mayhew.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared bus boarders, and for the independent review to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thought so—I am not as radical as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham thinks. I think that the amendment is entirely reasonable on bus availability and procurement. It does not speed up the rate of procurement, or mandate that at all. I am aware that there are challenging issues at certain depots. However, having spoken to private bus operators about this, they often do not lack the willingness to invest in charging infrastructure, and I am sure the imperative for a publicly owned bus company would be even higher. Instead, the constraint for some of them is the ability of the local electricity infrastructure to support the load produced by the rapid charging of very large vehicles with very large batteries.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 10 Review of the English national concessionary travel scheme “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme (ENCTS). (2) A review undertaken under this section must assess— (a) the effectiveness and impact of the ENCTS for eligible persons, (b) the impact of the timing restrictions of the ENCTS, and (c) the approximate cost of removing timing restrictions of the ENCTS to allow eligible persons to use the scheme 24 hours a day and seven days a week. (3) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils, transport authorities and relevant user groups.”— (Siân Berry.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme (ENCTS) and explore the consequences of removing timing restrictions. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 37, page 40, line 23, leave out from “after” to “and” in line 24 and insert “1 January 2027,”. This amendment, along with Amendment 33, would mean that operators of local bus services may not use vehicles registered before 1 January 2027 which produce the emissions specified in subsection (3)(c).

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Following on from my other new clauses, this new clause would simply mandate that those who work in franchising authorities and who are responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing franchise schemes be qualified through the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health and the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health. That would, I hope, lead to greater focus on health and safety in the work that they do.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 37 is a good clause on the mandate for the use of zero emission buses in England. In essence, as it stands, it sets zero emission standards for new buses registered after a certain date. Rather than mandating that that date may not be before 1 January 2030, my amendments 32 and 33 would set it as 1 January 2027. I think that is the appropriate level of ambition for the Bill. I am very aware that air pollution remains an enormous, preventable public health threat and that road transport plays its part in that. In certain hotspots in every town and city, bus travel is responsible for a significant amount of the pollution that people breathe in. That pollution is disproportionately experienced by the people who use and wait for those buses, and the pedestrians along the routes of those buses. We need to have the highest possible ambition. Buses under Transport for London have had that mandate in place since 2021, despite any legal requirement. All buses procured in London since that day have been zero emission capable, and have been deployed without any kind of problem. The investment has been put in, and it was done in part because of the imperative to clean up dirty air. Bus availability is now clearly no obstacle to the amendment being accepted. Double-deckers, single-deckers and all kinds of buses are available to provide services. One constraint, though, is the ability to charge those buses at depots.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This new clause would set a permitted driving time for bus drivers—drivers of public service vehicles—that matched the permitted driving time for heavy goods vehicle drivers. Currently, the permitted driving time for bus drivers is considerably less stringent than for HGV drivers. Some of the data that we have received from the RMT on this issue shows that bus drivers can drive up to 10 hours a day and they have a 30-minute break as a minimum—I am sure that many operators operate different shift patterns than that, but this is what is permitted—after five hours and 30 minutes of driving. In every two consecutive weeks, there is a requirement for them to have 24 hours off duty. However, there is some flex in the rules, which means that someone can actually drive for 130 hours across two weeks. To me, that is asking for trouble. I feel that drivers are potentially being put under far too much pressure by these rules and that we need to look at having this kind of limit in our law. Two similar new clauses have been tabled: new clauses 42 and 43. They take the same limits but treat them more in aggregate, which may be an attempt to be more flexible. I would be really interested to hear what the Minister has to say about how bus drivers’ hours will be regulated in a way that ensures greater safety than is currently the case.