Siân Berry
MP for Brighton Pavilion · Green Party · United Kingdom
“The Bill will address section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which gives a more or less blanket exemption to communications between relevant authorities and members of the broader royal family, not just the King.”
“Countless other questions along those lines should have been answered long ago. Andrew Lownie, who wrote the biography of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, has seen the exemption at work time and again.”
“Instead, the Bill I present today will go some way to adding a brick of transparency to the wall of secrecy and privilege that surrounds our own monarchy nearly 250 years later.”
“The fifth Nolan principle is openness. It says: “Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for doing so.” Clearly, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was created in that spirit.”
“The Act is very comprehensive, because we rightly expect transparency from the whole range of public bodies that owe us the Nolan duty of openness in exchange for our funding, patronage and respect—and we should of the royal family too.”
“No one has damaged the reputation of the monarchy in this country and abroad more than Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who was able to carry on his nefarious activities in the comfort of knowing that he was protected by this shroud of secrecy.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Siân Berry, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 12.
“I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish the right to breathe clean air; to require the Secretary of State to achieve and maintain clean air in England; to make provision about environmental targets and minimum standards in relation to clean air; to make provision about the powers, duties and functions of public bodies in England in relation to air pollution; to give the Office for Environmental Protection additional powers and duties related to clean air; to require the Secretary of State to comply with the United Nations Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution; to require the Secretary of State and public authorities to apply specified environmental principles in carrying out their duties under this Act; and for connected purposes.”
“Today, we must vote down these proposals, so that the Secretary of State can listen and learn and go back and do better. Those who are sick, injured or disabled today and in the future need our solidarity, and they will get it from the Greens.”
“The Secretary of State knows that I have raised with her the terror that people are feeling right from the start. Will she now apologise for that? I have heard from a roundtable of organisations in Brighton who are supporting people to get by. They have told me how people are using disability benefits to cover just the very basics, such as shortfalls in rent, heating costs and food. I have heard how local employment services are hanging by a thread and local authority support has been hollowed out. Brilliant organisations such as Amaze, Money Advice Plus, St Luke’s and Citizens Advice are already inundated with people concerned for their futures. They want structural barriers and inequalities removed first, but they want investment in people as well.”
“The compromise proposals that mainly protect current claimants are unfair and divisive, and so many will remain unhelped if our honourable colleagues give in. What about the young people whose disabilities are yet to develop and who will need PIP to thrive? What about the people who fall sick or get injured the day after these measures come into effect? And what about the people with conditions such as Parkinson’s, MS or ME, who are still effectively excluded from the Government’s serious condition criteria because the Bill does not allow for fluctuating conditions? This whole process has truly scared people, and it has mobilised them. I have heard directly the testimonies of worry and fear from hundreds of my constituents in Brighton Pavilion.”
“Why not raise the investment needed to save on future spending from fair taxation on the very wealthiest, who are orders of magnitude away from the struggle to survive that MPs hear about every day from the people the measures are aimed at? The least advantaged should not pay, but there are those who clearly should. I echo many Members across the Chamber when I say that I am sad that a Labour Government have brought us here. This is in such contrast to the post-war principles that the party once stood by, which were about real social security alongside investment in jobs. Shamefully, in its current form, the Bill brings in the largest social security cuts since summer 2015, 10 years ago when George Osborne was Chancellor.”
“The Bill will further impoverish hundreds of thousands with cruel cuts in support. The Government’s promises of changes from removing to denying support will harm millions in future and create a multilayered mass of injustices. The Bill clearly must fall today. Instead, why not do what Greens, disabled people’s organisations and many Members across the House have proposed and work with disabled people to co-produce a social security system that is fair, humane and accessible, without pre-emptive criteria? A whole playbook of proposals was put forward by the hon. Member for York Central on tabling her amendment. Why not do that? Why not develop policies that are genuinely good value, which do no harm and which achieve the stated objectives of helping to invest in people to save money?”
“This cruel mistake of a Bill must fall today. The reasons in the amendment tabled by the Green party stand, and with my colleagues I will vote to stop it on Second Reading and support the reasoned amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). The proposals are a mess, the timetable is breakneck and other hon. Members have said it right: it is about the spreadsheet. The rush to get it through before the Budget is a dead giveaway that this is about making cuts and not improvements. The Government’s actions in that way do not respect sick and disabled people. Way before making any changes to social security, real dialogue should have taken place that respects their rights and needs. Already, three in four people who need to use a food bank have a disabled person in their household.”
“Amendment 46 would remove the requirement for the service not to have an adverse effect on local services. Bearing in mind what the shadow Minister said about the impossibility of commercial viability for some rural services or non-radial routes in cities, is it correct that the amendment would allow commercial entities to come in and take away part of the market, even where a local transport authority had built up the potentially profitable part of a wider, well-planned public network? The requirement as it stands is intended to prevent commercial companies from parasitising on a market that has been built up with public money. The Minister is not proposing that it should be easier for commercial entities to come in and develop new markets where there is potentially pent-up demand in rural areas.”
“I just want to give an example in which “may” is more appropriate. Proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b) talk about a local service that is provided. If a local transport authority is building out a planned network and, in the very near future, a service will be introduced in an area, it may want to prevent disruption of the benefits of an integrated local service there by such an application. I believe it is very appropriate that “may” remains in the clause.”
“The shadow Minister was looking at me while making those points, and I agree that our parties have very different philosophies on this issue. The circumstances that he has just described as “cosy” relationships that are improper, are ones that I characterised earlier as public money being invested in building up a market that should not be parasitised. Those are, very clearly, different points of view, and I want to make sure that is on the record at the right time.”
“I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 13, page 8, line 5, after “operators” insert— “or local government bus companies”. This amendment, along with Amendments 35, 36 and 37, would mean that franchising authorities may directly award public services contracts to local government bus companies.”
“Regulation 13 of the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations states: “(1) A competent local authority or a group of authorities providing integrated public passenger transport services may— …(b) award a public service contract directly to an internal operator.” If we made these amendments to the Bill, I believe that the wording in the regulations would automatically change to include the terminology “a local government bus company”. I would really like the Government to consider making the amendments, or to take up the point in some other way. In order to plan and deliver local public transport, councils and local transport authorities must be able to act in this way. We should not simply rely on the existing regulations; we should state the powers explicitly in the Bill.”
“Councils operate very differently from the wider market. They have strict budgetary restrictions and costly rules of commissioning. That means that, without explicitly making it easier for local authorities to take advantage of the new powers in the Bill, we might just be going through the motions. These changes are necessary in order to really incentivise local authorities to get involved in providing transport, not just in planning for it. To have real weight, the Bill must make it easier for local councils to make direct awards. That would mean that they could transform local services more efficiently for the passengers who need them, which would be of real public benefit. The tools for local authorities to do this actually already exist in secondary legislation.”
“Amendment 34 would add “local government bus companies” to the title of the proposed new regulation in the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023; amendment 35 would add the choice of a “local government bus company” to the direct award options; amendment 36 would add the name of the local government bus company to the information required; and amendment 37 would add reference to the definition of a local government bus company as set out in clause 22. We need these changes to help make integrated local transport planning simpler and less bureaucratic. There are many examples of hugely successful publicly owned bus companies across the UK, including Lothian Buses and Reading Buses. The publicly owned Nottingham City Transport bus service is consistently ranked one of the best in the country.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Desmond. I am delighted to present a number of amendments to clause 13. The clause should be in the Bill; I can clearly see why we would want to directly award a contract to an incumbent to keep an existing contract going. This seems to me to be the ideal place to insert the opportunity to make a direct award to a local government bus company, the new type of body set out in clause 22—I believe that would be a really good move. I have tabled several amendments to add the words “or a local government bus company” in order to make the whole thing make sense.”
“For clarity, the intention behind my amendments is not to allow for incumbent operators that are local government bus companies to be added to the Bill; it is to ensure, completely separately, that any local bus company at any time, or an incumbent operator, can be given a direct award.”
“I very much appreciate that my amendments would do different things from clause 13, and I also appreciate that the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023 provide the ability to make a direct award to an internal operator at other times. However, I worry that if we do not make sure that we have that ability in primary legislation—I cannot find it elsewhere in the Bill—there is a risk that private companies will issue legal challenges against direct awards. That is the key thing that I would like the Government to address, potentially in a different clause.”
“I do not; I just hope that the Government realise what I was trying to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment , by leave, withdrawn. Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 Socially necessary local services”
“I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 14, page 9, line 32, after “activities,” insert— “(iv) health care services, or (v) schools and other educational institutes,”. This amendment would include services which enable people to access health or educational services in the definition of ‘socially necessary local services’.”
“For the number of regulated services, which is a different measure of service capacity, the loss was 29%. It will come as no surprise to my colleagues from the east of England that one of the regions with the biggest losses was the eastern region, alongside the north-west of England. The services lost were socially necessary, and they ought to be able to be defined as currently socially necessary, even if they do not exist. I commend both amendments to the Committee.”
“It aims to include clearly in the definition services that have been cancelled. If this aspect of the Bill is to work effectively, it is essential that it works to undo the damage caused by cuts made in bus services, particularly local authority-supported ones since the start of the enormous austerity squeeze on local councils. The proposed time period of 15 years in amendment 38 is no accident—it goes back to the start of austerity. Many figures show the loss of bus services around the country since the beginning of that period. For example, a Campaign for Better Transport figure shows that from 2012 to the second year of the pandemic, 2021, more than a quarter of all bus services across England, measured in vehicle kilometres, were lost.”
“When they are not able to take part in after-school activities in the same way as their peers at the school whose parents can drive them back and forth, there is a social justice issue that deserves its own bullet point, as part of the clause. I do not need to tell Members about the importance of public transport access to hospitals and other healthcare services. Later, we will discuss amendments pressing for the timing of older and disabled people’s bus passes to be extended so that they can access healthcare services with their free cards. The actual provision of the services is the absolute bottom line here, and they should be named. There is absolutely no reason for the Government to oppose my amendment. Amendment 38 was originally proposed by my Green party colleague, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, in the other place.”
“I am pleased to move an amendment that both I and Liberal Democrat colleagues had the idea of. The Liberal Democrats have withdrawn their version of the amendment, but we are essentially aiming at the same thing: to be specific in proposed new section 138A of the 2000 Act by specifically naming healthcare services, schools and other educational institutions as activities that we as a Parliament consider to be essential. I believe that that would really help transport planners to focus their efforts on those particularly essential services. It would strengthen the clause considerably. In the past, I have worked with many young people who value bus services and feel undervalued when those services are not helping them to get back and forth to school.”
“On a point of clarification, clause 14 adds proposed new subsection (15)(b) to section 138A of the Transport Act. The measure is quite specific that a current service is envisaged—it refers to a service “if cancelled”. Amendment 38 would respond to that by making sure that recently cancelled services were covered. Such services might have been taken away because operators anticipated the risk that they would be defined as “socially necessary”. Can the Minister reassure us on that point?”
“Is it a sign that we will see high-quality, reliable, frequent, high-performance, accessible bus services for the whole country? The Government should explain more why they want to remove this very good clause. I support new clause 22, tabled by my Lib Dem colleagues the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk. It would extend a stronger duty, including an accountability, to local transport authorities. Empowering local authorities is great, but those who need buses—those who struggle with car dependency and cannot reach essential services—need the good measures in the Bill to be backed up by both those duties and real funding as soon as possible.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. This is not my first Public Bill Committee, but I will certainly benefit from your guidance on the particulars of the proceedings. In general, I am a big fan of the Bill. I am a bus person at heart. Wherever I go in the country, I make a point of taking the buses—I take notes and sometimes write to local councillors. That is how passionately I feel about this. The good measures in the Bill need to be backed up by clause 1, which was added to the Bill in the other place. The Bill has come from the other place in very good shape, and the clause is part of that. I worry about what the move from the Government to strike out the clause portends for the rest of the Committee proceedings. Is it the sign of real commitment that the bus services deserve?”
“On the proscription of Palestine Action, I remind the Minister that there are number of recent examples of juries finding defendants, in cases similar to the Brize Norton incident, not guilty based on a necessity defence, as people believed they were acting from a desire to prevent war crimes. Given those juries were clearly able to draw a proportionate line between direct action protest and serious crime, does the Minister agree that the use of the Terrorism Act in this case sets a dangerous and worrying precedent?”
“In contrast to the Minister, I fully support the decision that has been made by the major Pride organisations to tell us that as political parties we are not welcome this year on parades or marches. Is the Minister not as sad as I am at the absolute state of political policy and discourse around trans rights that has directly led to this action?”
“As drug-related deaths are now at record levels, particularly because of the increase in synthetic opioids, I believe that we need to look again at supervised drug-consumption facilities, which are an evidence-based intervention that could save lives and public spending. Both the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Health and Social Care Committee support the idea. Will the Solicitor General consider facilitating a legal mechanism here, as in Scotland under the Lord Advocate, to enable local health and police authorities that wish to pilot such facilities to establish their efficacy to do so?”
“That means that communities that have historically been over-policed will be more likely to be identified as being “at risk” of future criminal behaviour. As I have always said in the context of facial recognition, questions of accuracy and bias are not the only reason to be against these technologies. At their heart they infringe human rights, including the right to privacy and the right to be presumed innocent.”
“If a force has reached the point of requiring formal monitoring due to systemic issues, it is right that the most intrusive and abused police powers are subject to heightened scrutiny or even suspension. New clause 30 would prohibit the deployment and use of certain forms of “predictive” policing technologies, particularly those that rely on automated decision-making, profiling and artificial intelligence, to assess the likelihood that individuals or groups will commit criminal offences. My hon. Friends will recognise that danger. Such technologies, however cleverly sold, will always need to be built on existing, flawed police data, or data from other flawed and biased public and private sources.”
“First, new clause 26 would require the Home Office to publish quarterly data on antisocial behaviour orders, including the number of times that stop-and-search powers were used prior to such orders being issued and the protected characteristics of individuals who receive those orders. That is important scrutiny to make sure the powers are being exercised fairly. New clause 27 would enable regulations to vary the ability of police forces to use stop-and-search powers. Specifically, it would require the Government to suspend the use of those powers by any police force subject to Engage status under His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services.”
“I will not be able to speak to all the amendments that Members have worked so hard on and that I have supported so many times by putting my name to them, but the Members know that I support them. New clauses 21, 25, 13, 18, 10, 43 and, in particular, new clause 122 are all important proposals that the Government should listen to. I do not support new clause 7 from the official Opposition, and I cannot support new clauses 2 and 3, as I do not believe there is any evidence that those measures would help make sex workers safer. We have to respect evidence and listen to sex workers and their voices on these issues. Principally, I rise today to speak to my new clauses 26, 27, 109, 30 and 49, and new clause 50 from the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel).”
“I urge all Members of the House to support these proposals. Together, we can take a decisive step towards better protecting vulnerable children from exploitation.”
“The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is clear: children cannot consent to their own exploitation, and this principle must be upheld by our removing this part of the offence. Finally, amendment 8 to clause 53 would insert the words “aged 18 or over”. This would ensure that children could not be criminalised under the new offence of cuckooing. It would recognise that they are more often than not the victims, not the perpetrators, in these situations. The children targeted are often very young and extremely vulnerable, and they need protection, not prosecution. These amendments are not merely technical; they are essential. They reflect the lived experiences of children, and the findings of numerous reports and reviews that provide compelling evidence of the need for a more robust and child-centred legal framework.”
“Secondly, amendment 7 would remove clause 38(1)(b), which currently amounts to a defence if the perpetrator reasonably believes that the child is over 18, unless the child is under the age of 13. While such provisions are common in other areas of law, in the case of criminal exploitation, this clause risks undermining the prosecution of perpetrators due to the well-publicised issues of adultification and racism within the criminal justice system. The recent Independent Office for Police Conduct report into race discrimination and the Alexis Jay report on criminally exploited children on behalf of Action for Children both highlight the roles of adultification and racism in the criminalisation of children, and how it leads to failures in safeguarding responses specifically, but not only, for young black boys.”
“Examples of this include carrying large amounts of cash on public transport, being used as a look-out or decoy, and guarding unsafe accommodation alone. Amendment 6 expands the definition of “exploitative activity” to ensure that preparatory acts, such as grooming and coercion, are captured by the offence. I welcome the Minister’s comments earlier, and am grateful for the engagement with these amendments, but it is not yet obvious to me how referencing only the facilitation of future offences covers the gaps that would be closed by amendments 4 and 5, and amendment 6 seems to have been only partly addressed. I would therefore welcome further clarification, or a discussion of the issue with the Minister, ahead of consideration in the other place.”
“Criminals are exploiting thousands of vulnerable children; Children In Need data shows that more than 15,000 children were at risk of exploitation in 2023-24, and that is likely to be just the tip of the iceberg. The perpetrators of exploitation include serious organised crime gangs, which are well versed in taking advantage of legislative gaps. Even though the Bill takes a huge step forward, areas of it must be strengthened if we are to protect children and bring the perpetrators of that abuse to justice. That is why I have tabled amendments 4 to 8. First, amendments 4 and 5 would amend the wording in clause 38 to ensure that the offence includes activities that put children at significant risk and are linked to criminal conduct but are not in themselves criminal offences.”
“Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) has also tabled mitigating amendments on that subject; amendment 184 would create exceptions, and not just defences, relating to health, work, and religious faith coverings. I also support amendment 185, which proposes an equality review. I hope the Government will look at them all. I welcome the efforts in the Crime and Policing Bill to protect vulnerable children, and I particularly welcome the introduction of a new offence of child criminal exploitation, which will signal to perpetrators that coercing, manipulating and exploiting children into criminal activity is child abuse and will be treated as such.”
“I rise to speak to amendments 4 to 8 on child criminal exploitation. I thank the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for their speeches and proposals. I voice my support for amendment 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), which would prevent driver’s licence information obtained by the police being used for the purposes of intrusive facial recognition and gathering biometrics, and amendment 164 tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), which would remove clause 108 and the ban on face coverings in protest situations. The hon.”
“Does the Secretary of State agree that this Bill has a missing half, which could cut aviation emissions by demand management, and that at the very least, if there is to be public money spent setting up this system, it should be raised from the most frequent flyers and private jets?”
“In the city of Brighton and Hove, my constituents tell me they need more and cleaner buses, and more reliable trains and stations without barriers to people with children, older people and disabled people. Will the Chief Secretary assure me that the wider review of Treasury rules will mean great value projects such as the ones I mention are prioritised in the south-east, and that our transport investment does not just consist of major, unnecessary road building and expanded international airports that will not help people’s daily lives?”
“I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I understand that Ministers are focused on wider marriage reform, but there is a much quicker and simpler process by which to enable humanist marriages, which is to act on the High Court ruling of 2020 that the current law is discriminatory. Will Ministers therefore lay an order so that humanist couples and celebrants can have legal recognition for their ceremonies in line with their beliefs, the same as their religious counterparts?”
“I hope that this Government will reconsider. That is the question I ask the Minister today. Even though the benefits of people having their true gender legally recognised are now in question, we can continue those arguments. Reforming the process is still sorely needed, so I ask the Government, “Please support my constituents, the petition and trans people across the country today, and get the reform moving again.””
“I cannot explain that, it is simply true.” Let us bear Abigail’s words in mind and try to build back to a consensus on these issues. The fact that trans people are real and have rights, including the right to have their gender legally recognised in a fair process, was something that Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May acknowledged in 2017 and brought forward for consultation. The fact is that the current process of obtaining a gender recognition certificate remains protracted, complex and very unnecessarily intrusive. The question asked then was how to change the process to make it better, not whether to change it. The plans were officially dropped in 2020—by Liz Truss, I understand, during Boris Johnson’s Government—and no Equalities Minister has yet officially gone back on that decision and relaunched the reform.”
“Ahead of this debate, my constituent Abigail, who volunteered on the doorstep during my campaign last year, wrote to me telling me more about what this issue means to her. She said that “I transitioned in April 2002. Before then, I drifted through life wanting to die, sometimes suicidal. Now, I know who I am and what I want. Before, life was black and white, and it changed to full colour. Everyone has heard of ‘gender dysphoria’, the pain of pretending to be who one is not, trying to be ‘masculine’ and feeling wholly inadequate, but on transition we feel trans joy, the liberation of being who we really are. It is a gift to society: there are people, being truly ourselves. Many people do not manage that. Before, I could not form relationships because I could not reveal who I am. Now, I have close friends and a loving partner. I am a woman.”
“Meanwhile, my inbox is full of words such as “shock”, “disbelief” and “fear”, used by Brightonians worried about what the future may hold for themselves and the people they love. As always, however, my brilliant constituents are coming together in solidarity. As their MP I tabled an early-day motion last week that was co-written with a trans woman in my constituency. So much of this debate happens without trans voices playing the part they should, and I am grateful to every Member who has brought a trans voice into this Chamber today. Our EDM is a simple call for solidarity and respect, recognising that “transgender transition liberates trans people to be their true selves”, and I believe that every hon. Member in this House can and should sign up to it.”
“It is also formal Green party policy to recognise non-binary and intersex people on legal documents, something countries such as Iceland, Germany and Malta already do. Of course, as others have already reminded us, the context for this debate is a highly worrying and uncertain time for trans people and their rights in the UK. Daily lives are being conducted in the shadow of the Supreme Court’s ruling on sex and gender in the Equality Act 2010. In what ways guidance for institutions and businesses will be changed permanently, and how that ruling’s decision on one act affects the whole basis of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, is still under debate and facing legal challenge.”
“Members that my Brighton Pavilion constituency has by far the largest number of signatories; indeed, when I last checked, it had almost twice the number of signatories of any other constituency. In fact, every petition related to trans rights that I could find on the parliamentary website demonstrates just how trans-inclusive Brighton Pavilion’s residents really are and how much they care to keep things that way. Trans inclusion runs through Brighton like the letters through its famous rock. I am immensely proud to represent such a famously compassionate city and constituency. However, agreeing with this petition is not just a Brighton thing. The policy of the Green party, voted on by our members, is to allow transgender people to self-declare their gender without facing barriers to securing their rights.”
“It is a pleasure to take part in this debate under your wing, Mr Mundell. I too thank John Baic for launching this petition and congratulate him on getting enough signatures to secure this debate. I associate myself with the compassionate, thoughtful, rigorous, clear and helpful contributions that many hon. Members have made so far. I know that the Minister is here in Westminster Hall to listen to this debate, but I hope that the Government more widely are also listening hard to it, because it shows that we can have a practical debate with compassion and inclusion at its heart. I see many colleagues here today from constituencies whose citizens have signed this petition in large numbers, but it will probably be of no surprise to other hon.”