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 3 of 12.
“It enables participation in work, education, healthcare and social life. I am not filled with confidence that the Government are committed to the funding needed, or the urgency with which it is needed, but there are huge opportunities for the Government to reform their approach through Great British Railways—I really hope to hear something from the Minister on this later. What has been communicated to date by Ministers does fall short. They must take steps to commit to the funding and resource needed to rapidly remove barriers, and end the discrimination that disabled people face when trying to navigate public transport networks.”
“In January, when making an announcement to cull the Conservatives’ 50 station list to eight definites and 19 maybes, Lord Hendy in the other place accused the previous Government of “raising significant stakeholder expectations” about the station accessibility funding, and said: “This Government is committed to a rigorous approach and only making commitments we believe are affordable and would represent value for money to passengers and taxpayers.” This example, which is so frustrating for my constituents, shows that positive aspirations for the railways are not enough on their own; they need to be backed up with concrete funding and real commitment. Step-free access is not a convenient thing to have in an ideal world. Step-free access to platforms is a necessity and an equalities issues.”
“This is all an unreasonable adjustment. Yet, despite all these problems and the potential benefits of fixing them, in May 2024, in the dying days of the last Government, Preston Park station did not make the 50-station shortlist for Access for All funding.”
“For visitors travelling to fabulous events hosted at the nearby park—like the Foodies festival in May and the concert due to be held in July by adopted local rock god Nick Cave, and the Bad Seeds—Preston Park station should be the obvious get-off point, yet for decades it has been overlooked when it comes to funding bids to address accessibility issues. It is a category C station with no step-free access and is simply inaccessible currently. There is no lift, with stairs to every platform, and, as the railway is a barrier for travel across the constituency, this lack also impedes active travel more generally. Without step-free access, my local residents are required to travel 2 miles to Brighton mainline station to board trains there, and this can be in addition to calling ahead to pre-book the use of a ramp at that station.”
“Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) called it—actually fixes access for all in an inclusive, socially just way. Sixteen years on from the Equality Act 2010 coming into force, one issue repeatedly coming up in my Brighton Pavilion constituency remains the long-term problem of step-free station access. Multiple community train stations in Brighton, including Moulsecoomb and London Road, have compromised access. The problem is most keenly felt at Preston Park station, which is used by a very large number of passengers. It is a station rooted in the heart of the community, which sees thousands of people use it to access direct trains to London, Gatwick, Bedford and Cambridge, as well as west along the coast towards Littlehampton.”
“I thank the Select Committtee Chair sincerely for the “Access denied” report, which painted a bleak picture of legislative loopholes and lacklustre political will from consecutive Governments when it comes to addressing the huge list of barriers faced by disabled people when accessing public transport. When it comes to step-free access on the railways—on which my speech will focus—it is not just the barriers faced by disabled people that we need to talk about; these barriers also apply to older people, people travelling with children, people with luggage and work equipment, and many other travellers too. We must never ever forget that improving and enabling access for disabled people—or fixing the environment, as the hon.”
“It has been, I am afraid, ramped up outside these rooms, with all these Churchillian speeches suggesting that jury trial is being taken away, full stop. That is completely untrue, as you rightly say.”
“Q I have a question of clarification for any member of the panel who wants to answer. In the letter received from the wider VAWG sector, the offences they are concerned that victims of coercive control or abuse might be charged with after striking back are triable either-way offences and therefore affected by this Bill, but rape and sexual assault, as far as I understand it, are indictable-only and will remain so. The impact on those more serious cases that have been discussed will therefore be due to the impact on the time to trial and on the efficiency of the courts, which we know will be uncertain and somewhat delayed. Is that your understanding? In some of the evidence we have heard, it sounded like the assumption is that rape trials will become judge-only, but that is not what this Bill is about. Dame Vera Baird : No, it is not.”
“The remedy is not going to be either holding on to the status quo or not. The remedy will be something utterly outside of the discussion we are having that is about accountability and oversight. Some of the measures in the Bill go that way—for example, recording creates transparency, and judges having to spell out the reasons for their verdict also goes towards that. The debate has moved a really long way away from what the research actually tells us, to quite an emotive batting to and fro. If there is space for the Committee to consider that wider evidence, I would recommend it is looked at.”
“If that is the genuine concern, why are we happy to accept that for sentencing and admissibility? Why is it that in all the law we are making to guide admissibility of evidence, we trust a judge to separate between myth and stereotypes and facts, but not a jury? If we are genuine about it, we have to go a lot further around oversight and accountability in the judiciary. It would be odd to just worry about it on that specific issue. I would also like the Committee to consider the evidence around juries. This is not to cast shade on juries but to pause and look at the research, which shows that juries, too, have biases, and there are worries about myths and misconceptions. The research on juries shows that these problems exist there, too. These issues exist with judges and juries.”
“Q But the victims’ groups who have written in because they are concerned about the criminalisation of women are talking about triable either-way offences, which are directly affected by this Bill. Are their concerns there valid? Professor Hohl : One thing to remember here is that over 90% of domestic abuse cases are already heard in the magistrates court. VAWG comprises not just sexual violence; it includes domestic abuse, sexual violence and sexual offences. There are some that will be in the either-way category. We have had a really emotive conversation this morning. One of the issues is judge-alone versus jury trials, and there is a lot of emotion on either side. When we look back at the actual research, there is mention that judges may have biases, and a judge-alone trial may disadvantage people.”
“What does the judge say if they do not believe a complainant victim? They have to say so, and that could lead to huge disruption and upset, whereas with a jury, those people are largely anonymous and protected by reason of their anonymity. It is far rarer for us to get jurors who are targeted and attacked than it will be, in our view. As the Lady Chief Justice pointed out recently, it is far more likely that judges will be targeted as a result of their decision making.”
“Q Riel, in my submission from the Criminal Bar Association, there is concern about risks to judges in public criticism. The example given is on sexual offences, but I want to ask about protest-related offences and more political crimes, where the victim is the state or a powerful actor. Would the risks to judges also apply in those cases? Riel Karmy-Jones: Yes. We are already seeing that in immigration cases. We are seeing judges being targeted and threatened as a result of decisions made in immigration cases. The problem is that the judge will set out his decision making in writing; it will be on a transcript; and, under these proposals, it will go to a victim. It is wrong, not for those decisions to go to a complainant in a case, but for them then to be pored over and disagreed with.”
“We go through the abuse, we take the courage to leave—that is not easy—and we enter a court system where we think, “This is going to be fair; this is going to be just.” We go into these arenas, and there are no guarantees that we can protect our children. We are ripped apart, and our personalities—we go through trauma. We tell people the same thing again and again, but we are not seen, heard, believed or supported.”
“Q Thank you so much, Claire; it has been really powerful to hear from you. I have heard from a constituent who has a close family member going through all of this, and she has been advised by solicitors to avoid the family court at all costs, describing the potential outcomes as a “lottery” and talking about very patchy training and understanding. Would you back my constituent up on those conclusions? Claire Throssell: Yes, I do back that up. Judges do need training. They are hiding behind the fact that they are independent. They should be independent—they are the law of the land—but they should not be above the laws that they serve, and they do need training. They do need understanding. Like I say, the court is another arena; it is a secondary abuser.”
“14. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the introduction of the visa brake on Chevening scholars.”
“Including prestigious Chevening scholarships in the Government’s clampdown on certain study visas is devastating for those who have been shortlisted, including students who are set to join our world-leading programmes at Sussex University. It raises questions about the value that the Government put on nurturing talent, particularly for women from Afghanistan, from whom I have seen heartbreaking accounts of terminated applications. Will the Minister and the Home Secretary urgently revisit that decision?”
“I published the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, also known as Ella’s law, this month alongside the Ella Roberta Foundation, Mums for Lungs, Clean Air in London, Asthma and Lung UK and Global Action Plan. Together, we affirmed that the right to breathe clean air is a fundamental human right. Does the Minister agree that the Government should include this vital, life-saving legislation in the upcoming King’s Speech, to give clean air the statutory momentum it requires?”
“The Conservatives should consider considering the consequences before offering their support for any more of President Trump’s appallingly badly thought-out decisions.”
“Our current and persistent reliance on oil for transport, rising costs as a result of instability in the middle east, and the ongoing fuel duty freeze, all have consequences for people who use any form of transport in their daily lives. I agree with the Government—and with the many Back Benchers who have joined in supporting them—that it is far too soon to consider the Conservative motion’s demand for further multiple and ongoing freezes. The fact remains that ending the conflict in the Gulf and the wider middle east is the best way to ease fuel market price rises. The risk of profiteering by fuel providers is a far greater threat to household budgets than fuel duty collected for the public purse.”
“The fact remains that the poorest people, who can afford no holidays whether or not the Government agree to this motion, are not driving or owning cars. Yet through all this time the cost of bus and rail travel, upon which those who cannot afford to own a car rely, has continued to rise.”
“My speech will continue to put the case for alternative interventions that will help everybody in every family in the constituencies mentioned. Campaign for Better Transport has pointed out to the Chancellor that the total cost of cancelling all the planned increases to fuel duty in line with the retail prices index since 2011 has brought real-term cuts for motorists for 14 years, and cost the Treasury a cumulative £133 billion between 2011-12 and 2024-25. The additional 5p cut, meant as a temporary measure when introduced five years ago, has alone cost £13 billion since then. The fuel duty freeze has been regressive. It has helped the richest tenth of households save nearly three times as much as the poorest tenth.”
“They are dependent on transport services to access their jobs, daily lives and essential services when the car is in use by the main driver. Members should not forget that.”
“I have not yet outlined my plans; I have merely complained about the rising cost of bus and rail fares that has accompanied continued freezes in fuel duty. I will move on to my next point. I am very aware of the manospherical gender ratio there has been in the Chamber throughout the debate, and that is pertinent to this point. Hon. Members must remember that, in any given family with a car who are just about managing, the poorest and most disadvantaged members of that family will most likely be the spouse and children of the main driver. Those people, in any part of the country, including in rural areas, often have little or no access to the basic mobility that a car can provide. They are dependent on good public transport services—often absent. They are dependent on safe streets—often absent.”
“My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I confess that I am not used to being intervened on in this fashion as I am such a minority in the Chamber, but someone has to make these points and I will continue to do so. The point about buses is well made. We need bus services and we need controls on bus fares, which we did not have until recent years. These are ongoing injustices that have compounded over the years, while people buying fuel from the pumps have been somewhat protected. But I am not saying there are easy answers.”
“We need more robust interventions on fares as well, and we need much more help for bus companies to be able to switch to electric vehicles and to electrify their fleets. I raised many of those points on the Bus Services Bill Committee. I shall now give way to the hon. Lady.”
“Transport & Environment has suggested salary sacrifice public transport travel cards, reinstating £2 bus fare caps, and, in the current context, targeted payments for vulnerable people and direct support for small businesses, sole traders and low-income households. That would ensure that help reaches those most exposed to the energy price rises, rather than repeating the regressive tax cuts that have taken place.”
“I have incredible sympathy for the people whose cases have been outlined in this debate. I am setting out a case for action that is going to make a difference, including de-escalating the conflict in the middle east—a conflict that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) briefly supported. I will move on to the alternative plans. Transport & Environment recently reminded us in its briefing, ahead of the spring statement, of the investments and initiatives that are really needed to help people in transport poverty. The Social Market Foundation has pointed out that despite over £100 billion being spent on cuts and freezes to fuel duty, it has made little impact on transport poverty. We have to find ways that are better value for money.”
“That is the cost of one oil shock like the one we are experiencing now, but it would deliver huge benefits, including resilience, the next time this happens, and we can predict that it might.”
“I agree that those are good initiatives. I also celebrate the initiative of the Scottish Government, led by the Green party, to make bus fares free for people under 22. Young people desperately need that support because they rarely have access to the family car, as I mentioned. All these interventions represent good value for money. This month, analysis by the Climate Change Committee has reminded us that we can significantly reduce the UK’s exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets if we just think a little further into the future and get things done. The Committee estimates that the transition will cost around £4 billion a year to make our climate targets.”
“Green MPs will not be supporting the Conservative motion and I am grateful for the time that the House has given me to explain why.”
“It has said that Government policy to keep freezing fuel duty has “inadvertently” hurt drivers, “with policies that end up encouraging car use,” argues that “the bigger issue is a lack of investment in alternatives to driving, keeping people reliant on costly cars.” The Conservatives should consider that if they wanted to carry out the measures that they ask for without corresponding consequences for public services, health and wellbeing, they might have considered that air travellers pay no fuel duty at all in this country. Air travel demand is driven by the most wealthy passengers, with the broadest shoulders, including those in the private jets owned by Conservative party donors and other owners of private jets. The Conservative motion could have gone further, and been more practical and less short term in its thinking altogether.”
“I would very much like to continue with my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker. I agree with the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). We will never truly protect the families who are struggling with daily living costs, driven by fossil fuel dependence, if we do not get our economy and our transport system completely off the addiction to oil and gas that they suffer from. I remind the House that every £1 invested in achieving climate targets is estimated by the Climate Change Committee to generate between £2 and £4 in wider economic benefits. These include major public health improvements and NHS savings that could reach another £130 billion by 2050. These are all excellent investments that have been resisted for years and years by people who should know better. Finally, I would like to quote the Social Market Foundation.”
“It should be about real investment in our courts to ensure that justice is not delayed for the victims, who we all care about.”
“Actions made into more serious offences have included interference with infrastructure, blocking roads or demonstrating in airports, specific tunnelling offences, conspiracy to lock on to each other during protests, or symbolically using statues in actions, as well as some kinds of noisy protests—for being annoying. Along with the wider principle here, I am so concerned, in connection with rights and liberties around dissent and resistance to state power, that juries could no longer be able to judge the public interest or proportionality of the actions of defendants of these kinds of charges. Such people have achieved so much progress throughout our history—that, nobody can deny. The Bill should not affect our citizens’ rights in this way.”
“Can the Minister truly deny that the growing acceptance by juries of defences of proportionality or necessity in some protest cases was not a factor in the inclusion of the unnecessary and dangerous curtailment of jury trials in the Bill? The category of triable either-way cases where jury trials will be restricted includes several of the specific offences created or made more serious by successive Governments in the wake of successful non-violent protest action. By successful, I mean non-violent actions that have—yes—caused inconvenience but which did what non-violent direct action is for: directly aiming to prevent harm to people or the environment, or to create a stir that raises public awareness of serious injustice.”
“We need alternatives to the restrictions on jury trials in the Bill, including intensive listings, more sitting days, legal aid investment, better buildings and better services to deliver defendants to court. The Green amendment also raises the question of whether these measures are yet another part of the Government’s wider attack on civil liberties. They are building a toolkit for tyrants also out of digital ID, facial recognition surveillance on our streets and the erosion of fundamental asylum rights—all things contrary to our British values and which should not be packaged up for this or any future Government to use against minorities, protesters and dissidents. This is all so dangerous.”
“It was a privilege to be here for the powerful and effective speech from the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). When literally thousands of venerable members of the legal profession are saying so clearly that jury trial restrictions will not be effective or practical and may be counterproductive, and that they threaten our rights, surely the Government must listen. The Green party’s reasoned amendment sets out clear reasons for the awful court backlog that is letting down so many victims—it talks about Conservative underfunding over many years—and sets out the missing resources that will help to properly solve it. It is rare for us to agree with some colleagues on anything, but the fact is that we are all right on this point.”
“The result in Gorton and Denton shows that voters want bolder action from politicians against sky-high privatised bills and rents and want no families to be left struggling in poverty. Will the Chancellor listen and scrap her dysfunctional fiscal rules, starting with scrapping the overall family benefit cap, which still means that over 200,000 children are not getting the help they need to live if not a nice life, at least one without needless grinding hardship?”
“His relationship with the child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein has turned the nation’s stomach. We also need to know who in the royal household knew what and when, as well as what he did when he was trade envoy. As part of that, I hope that the Minister will make it clear today that royal freedom of information exemptions—which have for too long allowed royal power to act in the shadows, and to conceal important truths from MPs and the public—also need to go.”
“It is reasonable to raise those questions and find out what advice was given from the palace—including from the King—for or against the appointment. The royal family’s reactive co-operation with any investigation cannot be enough, because it suggests that they are waiting to be asked by the police, rather than proactively checking their records and visitor logs, speaking with palace and Royal Lodge staff to encourage them to share information with the authorities, and ensuring that there is an effective whistleblowing policy within the palace. We also need to be able to scrutinise the exact provenance of the £12 million payout from Andrew to the brave, late Virginia Giuffre. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should never have been a trade envoy for this country, but that is not the only matter that requires urgent transparency.”
“That is why the Humble Address is so important: it would uncover whether those restrictions in the FOI Act were part of the equation in making the appointment. My early-day motion 2769, which has the support of MPs from six political parties, calls on the King to release all communications between members of the royal family and the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. Obviously, that is just the start of what is needed, which is why I am very grateful for this motion. If the reports that the royal family were aware of concerns about Andrew’s financial dealings ahead of his appointment are correct, there are serious questions about whether and how that knowledge matches the King’s statement following Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest, in which he suggested he had only recently learned about his brother’s misconduct.”
“It really is one rule for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us, a situation which the Minister condemned earlier. I believe that that serious transparency loophole for royals must be closed. It could mean, for example, that if trade envoy positions are filled by members of the royal family, it would—predictably—be significantly harder for the press, public and MPs to ensure that things are above board, and to get details when things go badly wrong. One example of the effect on transparency is demonstrated in The Guardian today. In a profile piece, the author Andrew Lownie, who wrote the biography “Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York”, talks about stacks of his freedom of information requests being rejected by different Departments.”
“That was during the debate held in this House by the late Paul Flynn, the formidable former MP for Newport West, to whom other Members have referred. The royal family is sheltered from scrutiny in too many ways, and it is now very clear what a risk that poses. We have heard many examples of MPs facing restrictions on what we can ask about royal activity, but it is reasonable and right that we should scrutinise fully any work that they do on the country’s behalf, and consider how those restrictions might be removed. As I understand it, section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 exempts communications between relevant authorities and members of the broader royal family—not just the King—from being released under freedom of information requests.”
“I pay tribute to all the young women who have risked so much to stand up and push for justice in relation to the vile and corrupt web around the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and to the crimes and abuse that they suffered as children. Let me turn to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Transparency about the workings of an organisation is a key way to prevent corruption—sunlight is the best disinfectant—although I appreciate that a police investigation is ongoing and must not be jeopardised. Green MPs support the Liberal Democrat motion. We note that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) apologised and gave his reasons for saying—when he was in office in 2011—that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was doing an excellent job.”
“It would mandate a full assessment within six months of the families left in poverty by the failure of the Government to tackle the overall benefit cap, showing its impact on each of our constituencies and the families we represent. We need to know who is left out from the help provided in this Bill, including those who are left in poverty. We also need to know the wider impacts as the change takes hold. That includes the removal of exemptions, because this Government are seeking at the same time to remove people from the few qualifying benefits that exempt people from the cap, including disability benefits. This wider attack on benefit claimants threatens to make the gap in the Bill even worse.”
“The Government should have brought this Bill forward as soon as they were elected 19 months ago, but they failed to do so. They could have listened to the families and children—with more than 200,000 children affected—enduring the overall benefit cap before making their final plans, but they failed to do so. Ministers still could have listened to the many hon. Members, including myself, who said on Second Reading that the policy was too narrow. They could have widened the scope of the Bill, but they failed to do so. The Bill is not wrong, but it fails to do right by far too many children. I speak in support of new clause 1, which has wide cross-party support.”
“Sky-high rents are responsible for most of the higher living costs putting people on benefits, with the money they receive, often on top of hard-won low wages, going straight out and into the pockets of landlords. This cap punishes the wrong people. Today I want a clear commitment from the Minister to set out how the Government will collect data, analyse it, and report back to this House very swiftly on the families that they are not helping with this Bill. Then I want a clear commitment for the Government to fill this huge gap in their child poverty strategy, which is something that many charities agree with. Some might call this a U-turn, but through another lens it can be seen as a very welcome last-minute equaliser. Real help and more support, not spin and delay, is what these children’s lives deserve.”
“The debate on Second Reading and today, and the amendments, reflect a near consensus across many parties —excluding the Conservative party—that the Government are not going as far as they should. The fact is that the overall benefit cap is just as cruel and just as driven by prejudice and stereotype as the two-child limit, and the Conservatives should never have introduced it. Those affected include nearly 1,000 families in my constituency—a high proportion due to our excessive housing costs. That is the point: whatever extreme examples those on the right wing of politics wave around, these families do not get to keep and enjoy the funding they get from social security; instead, it goes straight out again on the absolute basics.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman sincerely for that intervention. When I raised this matter on Second Reading, Ministers gave answers that echoed, rather horribly, the prejudicial, stereotypical arguments that we heard moments ago from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), implying that leaving the cap in place would incentivise people to work, when we know that it really only drives people into poverty. We also have excellent proposals in new clauses 3 and 4, which have the same goal. I appreciate fully the request for consultation and the provision of cost estimates in new clause 4. New clause 3 is very helpful in looking at the impact of the Bill on families with disabled people and on mental health, which are all important considerations.”