Dr Ellie Chowns
MP for North Herefordshire · Green Party · United Kingdom
“Potholes are the bane of all our lives, including for my constituents, but I have a cunning plan: we could fix potholes much faster by tapping into the superpowers of bin men and women. Bin lorries travel every road every week.”
“I completely agree. To do that, we need to think long-term. We do not do well enough in this country at thinking long-term, or beyond the next election cycle. We need to think of the next generation. What sort of world do we want to bequeath to them?”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for securing this extremely important and highly topical debate. Having had three heatwaves in less than three months, we are all more than aware of the reality of extreme heat.”
“We have to enable everybody in the country to stay healthy in the extremes of heat that we are increasingly seeing so that they do not have to go into hospital in the first place.”
“As we have seen, there is international precedent and huge levels of support across the country We also need to recognise that we must build the long-term resilience that we require. As a country, we do not yet have an adaptation plan that is fit for purpose, or the co-ordination that is needed.”
“I have heard from parents who are deeply concerned, both about school closures and about schools not closing when their kids are struggling to learn in conditions of extreme heat, and from people who are desperately concerned about our health infrastructure, social care and homes.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Dr Ellie Chowns, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 12.
“Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) tabled a question to the Secretary of State in January asking when the responsible business conduct review would be published. The Minister for Trade responded with one word: “Soon.” It is now five months later, so perhaps today’s Minister could assure us in her wind-up that soon really will mean soon. We would very much appreciate seeing that review. Although we have some parts of an existing legal framework—for example, the Modern Slavery Act and the Environment Act 2021—they are too narrow to meet internationally accepted standards.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I am sure I speak for us all in extending warm thanks to you for stepping into the breach at the last minute to enable us to have this timely and important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing it. It is clear that UK business has global environmental and human rights impacts. UK business has impacts on climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, waste management, deforestation, and of course on human rights and labour rights, as we have already discussed. The Government have acknowledged those concerns. This debate comes at a particularly timely moment because, as the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green pointed out, we await with bated breath the Government release of announcements. I note that the hon.”
“The Secretary of State continues to tell us about the meetings that she has had, but what we want is leadership. The UK has a particular responsibility, so will she step up and ban trade with illegal settlements?”
“I would like to start by joining you, Mr Speaker, and colleagues across the House in paying tribute to the memory of Jo Cox. Her words about seeking what we have in common, and working to counter the politics of division, are today more relevant than ever—for all of us. The Secretary of State set out piecemeal and entirely inadequate measures last week in relation to west bank settlement activity. It was raised with her then that the UK would be hosting the Great Israeli Real Estate Event at the weekend, and she undertook to look into it. That event took place, with properties in illegal settlements being marketed on British territory—the Government have been sent the evidence. How is it that this Government fail even to prevent the marketing of illegal property in this country? How is it that they still fail to take action?”
“As the Secretary of State pointed out, Thames Water has 16 million customers. It does not serve them; it fails them. That is nearly a quarter of the entire UK population and they do not get any choice—this is a natural monopoly. We are all stuck with the water company that supposedly serves the area we live in, but what do customers get? They get bills going up through the roof, pollution in our rivers and seas, and crumbling infrastructure. In her statement, the Secretary of State nodded towards special administration, which would be an improvement on the status quo, but is it not time to come clean with the British people and admit that the privatisation experiment has totally failed, and to take this struggling, failing company back into public ownership, where it belongs?”
“The hon. Member is making a brilliant speech in honour of a fantastic advocate for the natural world. I have had emails from constituents about him, and I would like to share one that I received this morning, which says: “Sir David is a titan of broadcasting and has educated, amazed and enthralled generations for decades.” The point she is making is key: he has been an advocate not just for the natural world, but for our responsibilities to tackle the huge challenge of climate change. Sir David clearly deservers some sort of memorial—perhaps a living memorial. I thank the hon. Member for securing this tribute to him, and hope that we all agree that he deserves all the recognition and respect that we can give him.”
“It is also crucial that the summit recognises that tax abuse includes both tax evasion and tax avoidance. The UK economy loses tens of billions of pounds each year, as the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) mentioned.”
“I welcome the commitment from Members across the Chamber today to tackling that. I very much hope that we will hear strong words, followed by strong action, from the Government today and in the summit. It is crucial that we have full transparency over property ownership and beneficial ownership. It is crucial that registers are fully accessible to everybody and are not just, as has been suggested by some territories, accessible only to certain people at certain times—pre-qualified, with notifications being sent to owners that people are looking into their affairs. Transparency is a fundamental principle, and it is essential to prevent the abuses that we know the system of secrecy actively enables. I very much hope to see strong action from the Government on that at the upcoming summit.”
“As we have already heard, if we include the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, it is calculated that £788 billion of illicit finance from financial crime, money laundering, corruption, illegal trade and tax abuse flows through the UK and its territories every single year. That is a huge problem. I was particularly struck by the calculation from Tax Justice UK that the UK and its overseas territories and Crown dependencies are responsible for about a quarter of revenues worldwide lost due to tax abuse. That is extraordinary. We represent less than 1% of the global population. Our economy, depending on how it is measured—purchasing power parity or not—is between 2% and 3% of the global economy, yet we are facilitating 25% of global tax abuse. That is absolutely unacceptable.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important debate. I welcome the Government’s commitment to hold a summit on tackling illicit financial flows, but it is essential that more political priority is given to this issue and that the UK shows more leadership in this space. If the summit is to be a success, we need to put our own house in order and play a critical role in helping to clean up the global financial system. We must also clean up the influence of dirty money, which infests our politics and the fabric of our country. The UK plays a core part in this issue, particularly due to the role of the overseas territories and Crown dependencies in facilitating these flows.”
“The UK’s role in facilitating flows of illicit finance actively supports the impoverishment of already impoverished countries and Governments. We have a responsibility to clean up our act in this country both because it will benefit us and improve revenues to the public Exchequer for reinvestment in public services and because we have a fundamental moral duty to ensure that we do not facilitate flows of dirty money globally.”
“I have previously spoken in the main Chamber about the deeply concerning role of the illicit gold trade in funding and facilitating the horrors that we see in the conflict in Sudan, so it seems crucial that the UK Government do everything possible to clean up that particular mechanism for funding abuses globally. The huge, significant role played by the UK in supporting and enabling illicit financial flows not only harms us in the UK, with the presence of illicit businesses in our high streets and villages, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk spoke about, or, as the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine highlighted, affect us through dirty Russian money embedded in our economy; it also has huge ramifications around the world.”
“I am disappointed that the hon. Member is taking the opportunity to score a cheap political point when we have been working cross-party on these issues. On that specific issue, the leader of the Green party has apologised and made clear efforts to pay any tax that he may be found to owe. As has become clear, this a complex issue that affects potentially tens of thousands of people in the UK, and we would welcome clarification on it. But that is a cheap political point to attempt to score in a debate about abuses of the tax system that are resulting in hundreds of billions of pounds of lost revenue to countries around the world. I would like to pick up on a specific issue that I know the Government intend to address in the three priorities they have set out for the summit: the illicit gold trade.”
“Unpaid carers play a crucial role in supporting so many people who need to draw on social care, thereby supporting our health service and our formal social care system, but they tell me that they are under immense strain and need more support. They are, of course, more likely to be women and to be older. Does the Minister recognise the urgent need for more respite care for unpaid carers, and will he take action to provide it now, rather than waiting a few years for the Casey commission?”
“In the face of consistent, sustained and systematic war crimes, violations and abuses by the Israeli Government, the Secretary of State has today announced further piecemeal sanctions and guidance, which go nowhere near acknowledging the reality that the most important sponsor, financer, protector, supporter and cheerleader of that illegal settlement expansion is the Israeli state itself. Sanctioning a few organisations ignores the reality of where the power lies in this situation. Is it not long past time for this Government, who say they are concerned about this issue, to use all their limited power, influence and leverage to take action against the Israeli state itself, starting with Netanyahu, with genuine, full and comprehensive sanctions and a full ban on any engagement with settlements?”
“Does the hon. Member not recognise the fundamental problem that the House of Lords has not had the chance to approve or reject this piece of legislation because it has never come to a vote? The House of Lords has therefore not fulfilled its constitutional responsibility to fully scrutinise the legislation. Would it not be appropriate for this House to send the Bill back to the House of Lords until it does fulfil its constitutional responsibility to complete scrutiny with a vote?”
“Would the Leader of the House agree that there may be a way to respect both the principle of the primacy of the Commons and the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, including full scrutiny in the Lords, by coming to the point of a vote? That would not be the Government taking forward the Bill, but him, in his role as Leader of the House—the role of representing the Commons to the Government—reintroducing this Bill in the Commons so that it could be sent directly to the Lords to complete the process of parliamentary scrutiny: to the point of a vote in the Lords. That would fulfil the fundamental democratic principles that have been argued for on both sides of the debate today.”
“I thank the Leader of the House for allowing me to clarify my point. My point is not about the specific content of the Bill; it is about the constitutional crisis caused its blockage. Is it really okay that the only way out of that is to wait for another private Member’s Bill? Is there a role in ensuring that it comes through the Commons?”
“Like many of us here in this Chamber, I have not yet had the time to read the 1,000-plus pages of material released today, but the release shines the light of disinfectant on the political culture of how we treat the victims and survivors of heinous abusers of women and girls, and on the scandal of how Mandelson, despite being matey with the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, was allowed back into the highest possible office. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that this sorry episode in British political history leads to a fundamental change in political culture, so that the voices of women and girls who survive abuse at the hands of people like Jeffrey Epstein are always listened to and put front and centre?”
“Earlier this month, I was delighted to at last receive a response from the Department for Work and Pensions to a letter I wrote on 25 November last year, raising a constituent’s case. That is more than a five-month delay; the original acknowledgment said that it aimed to respond within 15 days. Such a delay is unacceptable, and this is by no means an isolated case; I have had multi-month delays in several other cases. What are the Government doing to improve departmental complaint processing times, so that constituents and MPs get a response within a reasonable timeframe?”
“I would like to start with the positive. I know that care workers in my constituency of North Herefordshire will really welcome the increase in mileage rates, and I welcome the measures that the Chancellor has announced that seem to be starting to tackle profit shifting, which is a key problem related to tax avoidance. Does the Chancellor not recognise, however, that struggling families need help year round, not just short-term sticking plasters in the summer holidays? The Green party is calling for free bus travel for everybody under 22, year round. We are calling for free school meals for all children, to help all families year round. The cost of living crisis requires year-round action. This could be funded easily by taxing wealth fairly. Will she take that year-round bold action to tackle the cost of living crisis properly?”
“The Minister recognises that the Netanyahu Government are imposing a stranglehold on any possibility of Palestinian self-determination. The expansion of settlements and the ongoing horror in Gaza are all completely unacceptable. He said: “I have been clear that we are prepared to take further action and will not hesitate to do so”, but he comes to the Chamber again and again to hesitate. It is nearly two years since the ICJ judgment. We should have banned settlement trade years ago. It is nearly one year since the sanctions—that he repeatedly referred to today—came in, and what have we seen in that year? Ongoing horror in Gaza, in the west bank and in Lebanon. The time for hesitation is over. When will the Government stop repeatedly hesitating and take action?”
“It is clear that the tired old first-past-the-post voting system is utterly unfit for purpose. This winner-takes-all system means that a party can secure a huge majority of seats on a minority of votes, which poses a major democratic risk. It is long past time we had proportional representation is this country, so that every vote is represented equally and seats match votes. Will the Government finally take the opportunity to legislate for proportional representation in the Representation of the People Bill, which is set to return to this House, so we can have a fair voting system in which every voter’s voice is heard and given equal weight?”
“Having recognised that, as Sir Philip Barton said this morning, there cannot be any doubt that there was pressure to get this “done as quickly as possible”—that is, to jump through all the hoops, to confirm an announcement that had already been made that Mandelson was appointed as ambassador— [ Interruption. ] That first bit is a quote; the next part of the sentence is my words. It simply stretches the bounds of reason to breaking point to suggest that pressure on timeframe, within the context of an already announced decision where there was no contingency plan, had no impact on pressure on the content of that decision—”
“The Prime Minister, as the motion says, made it clear that his position was that Mandelson’s position was “subject to developed vetting”, and that, “No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case.” —[ Official Report , 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.] That is clearly not a tenable position. Some colleagues on the Government Benches are asking us to believe, although it is perfectly clear that considerable pressure was put on the timescale—within the context of the already announced appointment of Peter Mandelson, within the context of there being no contingency plan if the vetting process failed him, and within the context that it would have been a complete foreign affairs crisis for that vetting process to have failed him—that there was still no pressure whatsoever on the process.”
“Our decision is not even on whether the Prime Minister misled the House, still less to judge whether it was an intentional or reckless misleading—our decision today is whether the Prime Minister has a case to answer on whether he may have misled the House, and it is absolutely clear that he does. Looking at the detail of the motion, it cites three quotes from the Prime Minister’s own words. The first is his assurance about “full due process” being followed in the appointment of Peter Mandelson. Just this morning, we heard yet more evidence from Sir Philip Barton, the primary civil servant in the Foreign Office at the time. He was categorical that the normal process is that vetting comes first and appointment comes later, but it was the opposite way round in this case.”
“It is well known that I have many criticisms of the Prime Minister and this Government, as do constituents across the country. Yes, he has repeatedly shown poor judgment. Yes, he has betrayed the hopes of those who voted for real change in 2024. Yes, I am deeply frustrated that we are having to spend so much time debating these issues, when our constituents face pressing daily concerns and a cost of living crisis to which we should be giving more attention. Yes, I think the Prime Minister should resign. However, that is not what we are here to discuss today.”
“I will aim to be brief and to the point. I pay tribute to the moving, powerful and thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) at the beginning of the debate. I do not underestimate the bravery that it takes to stand up and speak out, and I really welcome and value all Labour colleagues who resist the Whip with courage today. What is at stake today is trust, honesty and integrity—those issues go to the core of what our politics should be about—and the behaviour of a Prime Minister who promised to restore honesty and integrity to government. I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), who said powerfully that our constituents do care about honesty, truth, trust and integrity.”
“The hon. Gentleman has said a lot today, and there are others still waiting to speak. It is clear that there is a case to answer here. The decision we have to make is not whether we are definitively certain that the Prime Minister misled the House, but whether we feel that there is a case to be answered, and therefore whether this matter should be referred to the body that is in existence to deal with these issues: the Privileges Committee. As many Members have commented, the Prime Minister could and should refer himself to that Committee. It would clearly save a great deal of heartache within the Labour party. If he will not do that, all of us—whatever our party—owe it to our consciences and to our constituents to refer him to the Privileges Committee and to vote for this motion.”
“Is it due process to make a public announcement of an appointment before vetting is completed? Is it not the case that having made a public announcement, the Government created pressure on the process?”
“The Prime Minister appointed Mandelson in a desperate and doomed attempt to pander to Donald Trump, despite knowing about Mandelson’s friendship with the paedophile Epstein, and his links to foreign states. The Prime Minister resisted vetting, and then took a “dismissive” and extraordinarily incurious attitude to it, compromising national security, and now he has thrown a civil servant under the bus to save his own skin. All this from a Prime Minister who pledged to restore trust and integrity in Government, but who has repeatedly betrayed the trust of voters and let the country down. Does the Prime Minister not recognise that the best thing that he can do to restore trust and integrity is to take true responsibility and resign?”
“Israel is acting illegally in supporting settlement expansion, in committing genocide in Gaza, and in attacking Lebanon and Iran. As the Secretary of State says, all those actions are flagrant violations of international law. She says that we must “put pressure” on Israel, but she is doing nothing. Time and again, she and her Ministers come to the Chamber to condemn, but take no action. When will she ban settlement trade? When will she stop all military co-operation with Israel, which is conducting these illegal attacks? When will she take action?”
“In reference to the point that the hon. Member has just made, is she familiar with the YouGov poll that regularly asks the UK population how well they think Keir Starmer is doing as Prime Minister? Is she aware that the latest data shows that 70% of the UK population think that he is doing badly?”
“10 to put him into a position without even informing the Foreign Secretary. Now, the PM has a temper tantrum and sacks the civil servant because he is furious about that. The country is furious with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has previously said that he takes responsibility for mistakes made in his team, but there is no accountability on show today. There is no responsibility taken by the Prime Minister. This is just one of numerous errors of judgment by the Prime Minister. He should resign.”
“He displayed terminal professional incuriosity and wilful ignorance. That is totally unacceptable. It is clear that no value was placed on the vetting process by No. 10, despite the PM now claiming that he is completely staggered that he was not told about it. Indeed, Olly Robbins today said that No. 10 had a “dismissive attitude” towards the vetting, putting in place a culture that established “a very, very strong expectation” that vetting would be passed. There was no culture of paying attention to due process; there was simply a culture of getting a political appointee in post as quickly as possible with minimal scrutiny. That did not apply just to Mandelson, either. Again, as we heard today from Olly Robbins, it applied to Matthew Doyle, with a request coming from No.”
“It is clearly a process that the Prime Minister did not understand, despite the fact that at least one hon. Member has said today that this was very clearly notified to him in advance. The Prime Minister did not even want to do the process. Again, it is clear from Olly Robbins’s testimony that, even before he took up his position, there was a tussle between No. 10 and the Foreign Office about whether to undertake the vetting at all, with No. 10 just wanting to rush through the appointment and the previous permanent secretary having to dig his heels in to insist that the vetting was done. The FCDO was subsequently hassled by No. 10 to get the appointment done before Trump’s inauguration, without any curiosity or caveats about whether the vetting was passed. The Prime Minister asked no questions.”
“He did not want to do the security vetting process in the first place. He created a culture of political pressure that overrode that process. Finally, he has thrown a civil servant under the bus for failures that should be placed clearly at his own door. The Prime Minister did not clearly understand the process. There was a process of UKSV doing the developed vetting and then of the Foreign Office considering that. We have had Sir Olly Robbins giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee today, saying that there was a degree of grey area and that the case was borderline. He said that he only had a verbal briefing—he did not even see the piece of paper that made it clear that UKSV felt that Mandelson should not pass developed vetting—and that he decided that mitigations could be put in place in that system.”
“Before I begin my remarks on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US, I want to stress my profound respect for the victims and survivors of the disgusting child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. I very much hope that they are in the minds of all of us in the Chamber as we have the debate. We should remain mindful that the chain of events that has brought us to this point stems from their bravery in standing up and speaking out to expose Epstein’s crimes. What is at stake here is the future of the Prime Minister; there are certainly questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment. The Prime Minister’s sole defence appears to be that he just was not told, but it is clear that he did not understand the security vetting process, and actually he did not want to understand it.”
“The Prime Minister says it is “staggering” and “unforgiveable” that he was not told about the vetting, but what is really staggering and unforgiveable is that he appointed Peter Mandelson before the vetting—that he appointed Peter Mandelson knowing about his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. What is unforgiveable is that the Prime Minister was more concerned with pandering to Donald Trump than with standing with the victims and survivors. The Prime Minister has not accepted a simple “sorry” from his civil servant—he thinks that is inadequate. The country thinks that a simple “sorry” is inadequate from him. Will he take personal responsibility for his staggering and unforgiveable errors of judgment—and resign?”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I rise briefly to say that I fully support these measures, which are clearly welcomed across all parties. I also support the comments of the hon. Member for Guildford in relation to extending the measures further, because by definition, anybody who is essentially associated with the political process is potentially subject to the hostility that we have discussed. Extending those protections is clearly important.”
“I completely support the thrust of these new clauses tabled by the hon. Member, in terms of protecting British democracy. I have a specific question in relation to new clause 3. Last year the Government proscribed a protest organisation. That proscription has since been overturned in the High Court, and it is still being considered. Is the hon. Member concerned about her new clause might interact with that particular case? Is there a case for thinking carefully about that issue?”
“Just to be clear, my concern is that literally hundreds of people have been arrested for holding placards in relation to that organisation. Potentially, under the hon. Member’s new clause 3, all those hundreds of people could be forbidden forever from donating to any political party. I am not sure that that is proportionate. It strikes me that there is complexity there, relating to the specific new clause. I am fully on board with excluding promotion of political violence and so forth, but that particular case highlights a complexity, particularly around the hundreds of people arrested for holding placards.”
“There are some people who renounce political violence— Nelson Mandela comes to mind. Obviously, he was never a British citizen, but there is a genuine question there.”
“That is a risk, but as RUSI points out, the more significant, under-recognised and under-dealt with risk is the indirect use of crypto. It is very easy to translate crypto into a fiat currency at the point of donation, so although I am moving new clause 4, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), which would “prevent parties and candidates from accepting donations in cryptoassets”, we actually need a stronger regulatory environment and to recognise that there may be even bigger risks from the indirect use of crypto further down the chain, which could still be used to hide the provenance of funding, even though it may not be in the form of crypto when it enters the coffers of a political party or candidate.”
“Philip Rycroft pointed this out himself and recommended: “The government should legislate in the Representation of the People Bill to introduce a moratorium on political donations made in cryptoassets, with a power to end the moratorium only once Parliament and the Electoral Commission are assured that relevant regulation is effective.” There is some debate about whether we should have a blanket ban on cryptoassets or a moratorium with safeguards. I am mainly concerned about the outcome, rather than the particular terminology that is used to deal with this. We must ensure that crypto is not used as a vehicle for the pollution of British politics. One of the key issues is the use of AI to split donations into lots of tiny fragments that go under the radar of any benchmarks or limits, and of the scrutiny of donations.”
“Again, as Transparency International points out, “it is reasonable to assume there is a strong likelihood that this alternative payment method is being used by hostile actors, such as Russia, to destabilise Western political systems.” We need to take these warning very seriously. Indeed, the Royal United Services Institute says: “Cryptocurrency donations to UK political parties present an urgent and under-addressed challenge to the UK’s electoral integrity and, by extension, to its national security.” It points out that “the Bill does not mention cryptocurrencies”, and says: “This leaves a critical gap in our foreign interference defences as the pseudonymous, cross-border and decentralised features of crypto enable it to be used as a political money laundering accelerant”. There are clearly many risks associated with crypto.”
“There is consensus across wide parts of the political spectrum that cryptocurrency poses particular risks in relation to political donations. Transparency International has highlighted a number of factors: cryptocurrencies are fast and borderless, there are various exchanges offering anonymity and they are increasingly used for money laundering. There are clear risks with crypto, which makes it a high-risk vehicle for political donations through which foreign actors, who would otherwise be unable to, might be able to donate to political parties and candidates and try to influence British politics.”
“I rise to move new clause 4, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). I will also speak briefly to new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, and new clause 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. She is here and I am sure she will speak. This incredibly important group of new clauses responds to a glaring absence in the Bill relating to crypto donations. As I will get on to, Rycroft has talked about this and the Government have committed to bringing forward related amendments. I am pleased about that, but it is very important that, in Committee, we take the opportunity to discuss in detail what shape those amendments might take and what the issues are around this topic.”
“I suggest that, at a minimum, the criteria for lifting any such moratorium should be that an adequate regulatory environment is in place for controlling the ultimate risk and that there is triple positive approval from Parliament, the Electoral Commission and the Financial Conduct Authority—the three most important oversight organisations on this issue. It will be very difficult and complex to find a mechanism to regulate cryptocurrency; I hope that we just get rid of it from our politics completely. But if the Government are going to introduce a moratorium, the conditions under which that moratorium might be lifted must be included in the primary legislation that puts it in place.”
“I welcome the commitment that the Government have made. I participated in that statement in the Chamber before Easter. As the hon. Member will have noticed, I even welcomed and congratulated the Government on their positive actions under the Bill without prompting from the Government Benches. It is important to give credit where it is due. It is also important to have the opportunity, in this Committee, to debate some of these details. If the Government are to bring forward legislation to institute a moratorium, it is important to think about what conditions will be set under which any such moratorium might be lifted in future. That is crucial, because it could otherwise be overturned very easily.”