Olivia Blake
MP for Sheffield Hallam · Labour · United Kingdom
“Mr Evans applied for early release of his civil service pension on health grounds because of terminal illness in November 2025, but sadly passed away this May. His case is still not resolved, despite repeated urgent representations from my office. Capita has failed inexcusably.”
“In my constituency, the consequences of the system are painfully clear, as has been mentioned by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed).”
“Under this system, people who have bought homes find themselves paying escalating service charges, opaque administration fees and arbitrary costs imposed by freeholders.”
“At present, leaseholders of houses do not have this right, while leaseholders of flats do. If a freeholder decides to sell the freehold of a house, the leaseholder has no guaranteed opportunity to buy it. They may learn of the sale only once it has occurred, several months later.”
“I declare an interest as a leasehold homeowner, which is very common in Sheffield. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this important debate. I agree wholeheartedly with the recommendations of her Committee, and of Lord Best, about a regulator.”
“A two-bedroom flat on that estate was advertised for sale with an annual service charge of £5,067, or £422 a month, which in Sheffield is a staggering amount of money, given our relatively low housing costs.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Olivia Blake, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 13.
“The amendment is eminently sensible. I speak with the experience in my constituency before Christmas of what is now referred to as the great gas flood of Stannington. Hundreds of millions of litres of water entered the gas system, causing 3,000 properties to have water ingress, in some cases it was so harsh that water was coming through gas appliances and hitting the ceiling with force, or wrecking the whole interior of people’s properties. I mention that because almost every property involved in the crisis had to have its meter replaced. To the exasperation of some of my constituents, their smart meters had to be replaced with refurbished meters. We had issues with the second-hand meters that were put in. I am still carrying out conversations with the energy companies because there were differences in the units of some of the meters.”
“We know from safeguarding failures that have been reported both historically and more recently that safeguarding must be everyone’s top priority. The Government cannot pass the buck on this; they must intervene to keep children safe and to ensure that these children are found and then made safe.”
“The cruelty in that is evident, especially when we are considering children. Others have touched on how the Illegal Migration Bill will affect children and significantly undermine the Children Act. When will the Government finally produce their impact assessment of the Bill and why, after all the failings the Government have presided over in this space, does the Home Office intend to legislate for new powers to house asylum-seeking children outside the provisions of the Children Act? Will the Minister look again at the individual approach to safeguarding that is necessary for each child? Will he recognise that children can, and do, often have other vulnerabilities such as disability? What actions are being taken to ensure that those are being taken into account? We all have a responsibility to keep children safe.”
“I have spoken in this place before about the current extreme costs of placements for local authorities, where £15,000 is not enough and will not cover months or weeks of many of the placements that local authorities are trying to procure from the private sector. More needs to be done in that space. A recent report in the UK on the implementation of the UN convention on the rights of the child found a serious regression in the rights and protections of refugee children in the UK. That is shocking and forms part of a worrying trend that the Government are providing substandard care and potentially dangerous accommodation to refugees, whether that be through overcrowded hotel rooms, disused army barracks in which diseases spread or now a new masterplan for barges that essentially detain people offshore.”
“Will the Minister clarify whether that is due to the Home Office’s failure to systematically record the data that has been requested, or whether it simply constitutes a refusal to provide the information? Two years after the Home Office began using hotels, there is still no strategy for moving children into suitable accommodation. It is business as usual and that is unacceptable. Will the Minister provide an update on the plans to develop a strategy to move the children out of hotels and into the care of social services through the national transfer scheme? Will he outline the steps taken to support local authorities with procuring additional placements for children?”
“The matter needs to be thoroughly looked at because it is clear under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 that the Home Secretary is obliged “to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the United Kingdom”. Children in Home Office hotels must be treated like all resident UK children in the statutory children’s protection framework. Does the Minister seriously believe that accommodating children in hotels is compatible with that obligation? The Children’s Commissioner has been mentioned. The Home Secretary was given a hard deadline of 17 April to provide a response to the Children’s Commissioner about her concerns around the appropriateness of care and I am surprised that that has not been provided. That is highly unusual.”
“The policy of accommodating children in hotels was supposed to be temporary, but as is so often the case with the Government, a crisis has turned into business as usual. To my knowledge, since 2021, 4,500 unaccompanied children, some aged as young as 10, have been placed in hotels. Will the Minister make available as soon as possible the latest figures on how many unaccompanied children are currently housed in Home Office hotels? According to the Refugee Council, those hotels essentially operate outside the child protection system and that is a fundamental point in this debate. Local authorities are often not involved in looking after those children’s welfare or their best interests. They are not classed as looked-after children, but children are children both morally and under the law.”
“When a child first goes missing, those crucial early hours and days can help in finding them quickly and preventing further harm. Will the Minister give clear assurances that the protocol has been followed for every missing child? Will he also say whether there are instances in which the full guidance was not completely followed? If so, why that was the case? Can he give any new update on the number of children who have gone missing since the start of this year? If we do not understand how it is possible for that to happen in the first place, we cannot prevent it from happening again. Therefore, will the Minister commit to publishing a report on the circumstances around the disappearances, including lessons learned and immediate steps to prevent a repeat?”
“It is alarming that the Government seem interested in the horrific crime of people trafficking only when it can be used as an opening to restrict the rights of people claiming asylum in this country. When we deal with missing children who are in real danger of ending up in the hands of traffickers, it seems that the Home Office is not concerned enough to act swiftly and thoroughly. Will the Minister update us on what steps he is taking to ensure that children in Home Office care are given the care and support they need and that they are safe? What actions have been taken to find the lost children? Some organisations I have spoken to have raised concerns about whether the missing persons protocol has been properly followed. That is an important point.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) for securing this important debate. Before I begin, I point Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the support that I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project for my work on these issues. I also co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on migration. It is an absolute scandal that 440 asylum-seeking children have gone missing from Home Office hotels and that, according to the Home Office, there are still 186 who have not been found. But that is only half the question. Are the children who have been found safe, and what is happening about the remaining 186?”
“I ask her to think again about closing that loophole so that, no matter where a person is in the system, they have the same rights around restraint and that it gets recorded.”
“To be clear, it is not just the people I have described who are suffering because they must wait for access to the care they need; it is also causing tension between psychiatric staff and medical staff on wards because these people are getting inappropriate care. It is shameful that in such settings the use of restraint does not need to be recorded. Its use is heavily regulated in mental health settings for a reason. The use of restraint and restrictive practice is really consequential to the conditions that people go on to develop and their ability to recover. I am disappointed that in a letter and in response to me following a debate, the Minister refused to act and close the loophole.”
“Members that these are not nice experiences to relay, but they should be shouted from the rooftops because they are the human consequences of a system that is understaffed, under-resourced and under strain. One person told me that, as a 17-year-old, they were restrained for feeding via a nasogastric tube three or four times a day by five people; that went on for about 10 months. Another person told me that they were restrained for daily NG feeds by five to six staff at a time for six months. Sometimes, they were held for an hour after the feed and would come out with bruises, despite their screams during the restraint. I have heard stories of 15-year-olds being restrained at 11 o’clock at night for NG feeding.”
“They would have gone anywhere in the country to get their child seen given the care they received while they were waiting. They needed urgent in-patient mental healthcare, but no tier 4 beds were available, so they had to be admitted to a general ward instead. When the parents first contacted me, their child was being restrained most days to be fed. They were worried that, without specialist support, repetitive restraint was only making things worse. I have since spoken to numerous eating disorder specialists, researchers and medical staff who have all told me about the rising number of children with eating disorders being restrained—often unnecessarily —by staff in general medical wards without training, recording or following guidance. I have heard more first-hand stories. I warn hon.”
“Many of those who cannot access the mental health care that they need are children. A quarter of 17 to 19-year-olds have a probable mental illness. Nearly one in 10 seven to 16-year-olds and a third of 17 to 24-year-olds have tried to self-harm. My own NHS South Yorkshire integrated care board has a waiting list of 10,015 children. If those figures were not horrific enough, I want to talk about one further horrifying effect: that of people with eating disorders—often children or young people—having to wait to be given a tier 4 bed in a specialist ward owing to the acuity of their condition and because of the lack of preventive care available. Last year, a parent wrote to tell me that they were struggling to secure a mental health bed for their child, who had been diagnosed with anorexia.”
“As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on eating disorders—an issue that I will raise in my speech—I thank the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) for her bravery in sharing her experience. The statistics on the crisis in the NHS, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) and others, speak for themselves. The 5.4 million hours that people with mental health problems are waiting in A&E is a scandal. We know that the longer patients wait for treatment, the worse and more dangerous their conditions can become. While I would love to make this speech about the importance of prevention, unfortunately we see a crisis in the NHS, so I will focus on the issues of acuity mentioned by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper).”
“It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell. I know that this is not really a declaration of interest, but my mother, Baroness Blake, was actually the person who moved the amendment in the other place. It is interesting that mother and daughter are both working on this Bill in different ways.”
“I urge them to think again for the benefit of all those who struggle to pay their energy bills now and for those who may struggle in future if the levy comes in.”
“As the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell set out, it is really important that we bring the public with us. Government amendment 12 is almost a wrecking motion for net zero, because the opposition to this will be huge. I ask the Minister to think hard about whether the Government want to champion such a burden on households when it is not clear whether the benefit will ever fall on households. We do not yet know the questions about hydrogen, let alone the answers, or what the benefits to home heating will be, if that is the path we go down as a nation when there are many alternatives growing at speed, as we have discussed. I think the Government’s amendment is very challenging.”
“The figure of £118 that the shadow Minister mentioned came from Onward, which is a Conservative think-tank. The discussion is also about who has the broadest shoulders to help with the changes that desperately need to be made to our energy system. I completely agree with the shadow Minister that the Bill gives the public all the risk and potentially none of the benefits. There are 37 independently published reports that set out that they do not believe that the UK will move fully to hydrogen for home heating. Obviously there are massive benefits for steel—Sheffield is the city of steel—that could be unlocked through hydrogen, and there are many benefits for industry, but it seems wrong for Government amendment 12 to remove the protections given in the other place to the levy to prevent that cost from falling so dramatically on households.”
“Possibly a record. Who knows? I rise to defend the amendments made in the Lords and to speak against Government amendment 12, predominantly because of the aims of the Bill that the Secretary of State outlined when it was brought forward. Those aims were about security, but also about tackling fuel poverty. The facts about fuel poverty in the UK at the moment are very telling. I will cite the End Fuel Poverty Coalition’s numbers: 1,000 people died in 2022 as a result of living in cold, damp homes, unable to heat them because of costs. We also know that 7 million people in the UK last winter were living in fuel poverty. Taken together, those are staggering numbers, and it is important that they are at the forefront of our minds when we discuss the levy. It is telling that there seem to be unified voices against the policy.”
“It would enable us to reach the goals we need to protect us from a 1.5°C increase in global temperature. We need to bring about a democratic transition. We urgently need to protect our precious natural environment and expand our democracy when talking about these issues, not curtail it. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill will do the exact opposite, concentrating power even further into the hands of a few Ministers. That should concern everyone in the House who claims to represent their constituents. The truth is that the Government do not value our natural environment. Just look at the key pieces of environmental law that were missing from the dashboard, or the way it treats the people who work every day to protect it at the Environment Agency.”
“Despite the recent climbdown on what the Bill will cover, the truth is that it still hands power to Ministers to rewrite, revoke and replace hundreds of our vital laws on substantive issues. Without the Lords amendments, the Bill places our rights at work, our environmental protections and hard-won equal rights on a cliff edge. From working with my constituents on the Hallam citizens’ climate manifesto, our vision for climate action locally and nationally, I know the importance and appetite for democracy, especially around protecting our natural environment. Our response to the climate and nature emergency must be led by communities across the country who already feel the impacts of the climate crisis. That is why I have been working with campaigners to bring forward the Climate and Ecology Bill as a 10-minute rule Bill.”
“I wish I could say I was happy to be called in this debate, but the truth is that I do not believe we should be having it at all. I am not sure that if I tried, I could design a worse way of withdrawing from a legal framework. Not content with crashing the economy, the world being literally on fire, and our food prices and energy bills being so high that people are no longer able to afford to eat or heat in many parts of the country, Ministers now want to waste our time and energy driving us off this regulatory cliff. I wonder how many civil servants have been drafted in and redeployed to deal with the legal consequences of the sunset clause—I am pleased the Government have now dropped it—which was ridiculous and absolutely unworkable.”
“Lords amendment 15 stops regression on environmental standards and it is really important that it stands tonight. At the exact moment when we should be strengthening regulation to protect nature and biodiversity, the Bill does the complete opposite. I remember the debates on the Environment Bill and how we were repeatedly assured that there would be no regression on environmental standards. Without Lords amendment 15, the Bill will put all that at risk. The Government have refused to legislate to provide any guarantee that they will be protected.”
“For over a decade we have seen a decline in workers’ pay and conditions, and we have seen a cost of living crisis. People have rightly had enough, which is why we have seen rather a lot of strike action recently. Rather than address the root cause and improve pay and conditions in the workplace, the Bill puts basic workers’ rights, equality rights and paternal leave rights in the firing line.”
“I am not sure I totally agree. When I asked officials about the number of laws affected without the sunset clause, they could not give me an answer on even the number that would be affected. There is a lot more that underpins all the regulatory frameworks we work under when we are protecting our environment. I accept that the Act passed after we left the EU, but I do not believe that we are protected at the moment and that is why Lords amendment 15 is so important. If we do not act tonight to ensure we have those safeguards in place for our environmental protections, we will be undoing a lot of the good work that may have been done by the Environment Act. However, the nature emergency is not the only one that the Bill will potentially make worse.”
“Thank you, Mr Gray. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. Having spoken to researchers at the University of Sheffield, and understanding that carbon capture and storage is more complicated than just the big carbon capture and storage programmes, I think his amendment is crucial. Modular and small carbon capture is really important, but where the captured CO 2 then goes is really important too. Having a CO 2 hub provider in this space is important for the circular economy of products, which, although not within the Bill’s exact remit, is fundamental to reducing carbon in the environment.”
“There are two points to this, are there not? There is a set amount of carbon at the moment, which is increasing annually. Usage allows us to reduce that—instead of new forms of carbon going into the atmosphere, we would reuse what we have. That is why the amendment is key. I hope that the Government take it away to look at again. It is also basic chemistry that if we are putting CO 2 into a chemical reaction, we will not get CO 2 coming out the other end until the product degrades, so it is a falsehood that it will all immediately leak—”
“How can Members hold the Government to account on the money they are giving to schools, where that is being directed, and whether those are the correct places? How can we have confidence in the surveys that we have? Parents have a right to know whether the school they send their children to is safe, and teachers have a right to know whether their workplace is at serious risk of collapse. I hope that the Minister will outline what immediate steps are being taken to ensure that the whole school estate is safe, commit to publishing that condition survey of schools and pledge finally to end austerity in our schools so that students in all our constituencies can receive the good-quality education they deserve in—importantly—a safe and supportive environment. Anything less is a complete dereliction of duty.”
“Thirteen years of reckless Conservative cuts have left us with capital spending on schools cut by 50% in real terms between 2010 and 2022. Despite promises to end austerity in our schools, new capital spending pledges are a drop in the ocean. In my city, 153 of 163 schools face cuts in 2023-24 and are set collectively to lose about £7.7 million. What is worse is that Ministers are keeping parents in the dark about how bad the situation is. This is not about sowing fear; it is about sowing facts and informing people about what is happening in our education system. For more than a year, Ministers have known that school buildings have posed a risk to life, yet still the Government refuse to tell parents or the public where these dangerous school buildings are.”
“I have been left with headaches, minor scarring around my eye and I am still waiting for an ENT referral for intrusive tinnitus. I know this accident could have been prevented and it was pure luck that no one died: 10 minutes after the accident, a classroom of children were filing out from where I had just been injured. We can’t wait until the inevitable happens before meaningful action is taken. Steps need to be taken now to ensure the safety of all children, teachers and staff.” Clearly my constituent has had to go through a lot, and it should shame us all. It is horrifying that we have got to this point. Our children’s school buildings are literally falling apart and, as Carla said, it is surely only a matter of time before something even worse happens. Carla is also right that this could have been prevented.”
“I am obviously pleased that two schools in my area are to receive funding, announced yesterday, for urgent safeguarding interventions, fire safety compliance and urgent drainage interventions, but I raise to speak not about those schools that received funding but an incident earlier this year where my constituent Carla suffered a serious head injury while dropping off her children at school. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will share Carla’s message to the House. She said: “I have two boys, aged 9 and 10, at primary school in Sheffield. On the 12th of January a large strip of board around 15 ft long fell off the school and hit me in the face. I had a significant black eye and needed 3 weeks off work as I had no ability to concentrate.”
“(18) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House. (19) (a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day. (b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.— (Mr Steve Baker.)”
“(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed. (e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion. (16) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown. (b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith. (17) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies. (b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings in respect of such a debate.”
“83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order. Miscellaneous (13) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill. (14) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies. (15) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order. (b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion. (c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.”
“Subsequent stages (10) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly. (b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed. (11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Order. Reasons Committee (12) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No.”
“Consideration of Lords Amendments (8) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly. (b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed. (9) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (8) of this Order.”
“(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill. (6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions. (7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.”
“(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply: (a) any Question already proposed from the chair; (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed; (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown; (d) the question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision; (e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (15)(a) of this Order.”
“Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put (2) When the Bill has been read a second time: (a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put; (b) the Speaker shall leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given. (3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question. (b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.”
“Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Bill (Allocation of Time) Ordered, That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Bill: Timetable (1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order. (b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. (c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.”
“I am delighted that so many members of local councils, including Councillor Georgia Gould, and local Mayors, including the Mayor of London, have recognised that and are backing the Bill. It is time that we got the action we need from the Government to ensure that we can survive. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Olivia Blake, Geraint Davies, Caroline Lucas, Colum Eastwood, Ed Davey, Wera Hobhouse, Liz Saville Roberts, Stephen Farry, Sir Peter Bottomley, Derek Thomas, Alan Brown and Brendan O’Hara present the Bill. Olivia Blake accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 304).”
“Clause 4 contains duties on the Committee on Climate Change and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to evaluate, monitor and report on the implementation of the strategy. Clause 5 ensures that measures in areas of devolved competence would be agreed by the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) said so well during a debate on the principles last November: “We know that climate action must be nature-positive action and that we must halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity by 2030 for the benefit of all people and the planet.” —[ Official Report, 9 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 150WH.] This Bill brings that vital issue to the fore.”
“The climate assembly set up by six Select Committees that reported in September 2020, as well as the citizens’ assemblies that have taken place on climate and biodiversity in Ireland and the many others around the world, demonstrate the value of including citizens in the difficult decisions that we will have to take. From my work in Sheffield Hallam on the climate manifesto, which comprises ideas directly sourced from my constituents, I know the importance of democracy in the transition to net zero and in protecting nature. For that reason, clause 3 would provide for a representative sample of the UK population to consider expert advice and reports on recommendations for inclusion in the strategy as part of the temporary nature and climate assembly.”
“The clause contains measures that must be met in achieving the Bill’s apex targets, including accounting for all of the UK’s imported emissions, as well as those that take place on UK soil, so that the UK is not offshoring our pollution; ending the exploration, extraction, export and import of fossil fuels by the UK as rapidly as possible; ensuring that all UK policies prioritise avoiding the loss of nature; and ensuring that the UK takes account of its entire ecological footprint and all the destruction to nature caused by the production, transportation and disposal of the goods and services we consume. The transition to a zero-carbon, nature-positive UK will affect how we all live, travel and work, so we should all have a role in planning how we get there.”
“The Bill’s holistic nature target would therefore see the health, abundance, diversity and resilience of species, populations, habitats and ecosystems visibly and measurably on the path to recovery by 2030, measured against a baseline of 2020. That is what this moment requires: to follow the science, to invest in nature and to restore our once-wild isles. Clause 2 is focused on the development of a climate and nature strategy. It states that the strategy must produce a just transition for all, by protecting vulnerable communities and providing financial support for workers transitioning from fossil fuel and ecosystem-intensive industries into the jobs of the future.”
“That is why the Bill’s nature target is to halt and reverse the UK’s overall contribution to the degradation and loss of nature in the UK and overseas. It is aligned with the international commitment to halt and reverse the destruction of nature by 2030, which the UK signed up to at the UN biodiversity conference, COP15, in 2022. Current legislation contains a target to halt the decline in the abundance of species by 2030, as well as a longer-term target to increase species populations. However, the absence of any concrete plan to address the current rate of decline means that the state of nature is on course to worsen considerably by 2030, which risks pushing ecosystems beyond danger points from which they may not be able to recover.”
“By transitioning to a renewable energy future, we would not only end our reliance on deadly fossil fuels, but create the jobs of the future and tackle the soaring cost of living crisis at source. Bridging the ambition gap between current emissions reductions and what is needed for 1.5°C is essential if we are serious about restoring the natural world, and it could not be more urgent. We know that human activities have already altered 70% of the Earth’s land, degrading up to 40% of it, and 87% of its oceans. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services has found that 1 million animal and plant species now face extinction and that mammal, bird, amphibian, reptile and fish populations decreased globally by 68% between 1970 and 2016.”
“The Bill also seeks to protect people by ensuring that no one is left behind via its fairness provisions and through the inclusion of a climate and nature assembly to incorporate public opinion in the unprecedented pace of change that is now required. Clause 1 contains the Bill’s apex climate and nature targets. Having a net zero date is an important marker, but we need to understand the area below the curve—in other words, how much carbon we can emit into the atmosphere before we breach 1.5°C. The Bill would limit the UK’s total carbon emissions to no more than its proportionate share of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s remaining global carbon budget for a 67% chance of limiting heating to 1.5°C.”