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 4 of 12.
“Will the Minister tackle the point that I made in my speech? There is a possibility of people being denied disability benefits, as the result of separate work for which he is responsible, and potentially falling into the cap by losing the exemptions. That worries me greatly with respect to my own constituents.”
“A Government in thrall to men and corporations drunk on power is the rot at the centre of the Mandelson scandal. When people operate in the shadows, they think they can act with impunity. Of all seven Nolan principles, openness can help to build back the most trust. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that we must drive out corporate influence and money, and as a start, will he cap political donations, and ask all MPs and peers to follow my example in releasing logs of all lobbying meetings, so that people can know that we work for them?”
“T4. Despite all that President Trump is doing to wreck global stability, our Government still spend billions a year on digital technology contracts, including with US tech giants. Will the Secretary of State immediately put together a UK digital sovereignty strategy to build our resilience and security, as France and Germany are doing?”
“I am disappointed that the Minister has not acknowledged the real harm and suffering that is going on, which is an obvious consequence of the escalation by Ministers of the number of crimes with which people taking protest action are being charged. Does he not agree that incarcerating people for long months and years without trial for offences that are in essence political has no in-principle place in a democracy such as ours?”
“Introduced by the Conservatives who used headlines and misrepresentations, they drove up stigma and demonisation—demonisation of children in poverty and their parents. The Conservatives failed to see that social security is security for everyone, and that this spending pays back in wider benefits that the Treasury and the country will see. We should not limit lives through prejudice,”
“It is beyond me how they could decide that this policy would leave out children without knowing exactly how many. DWP data shows that there are nearly 1,000 families subject to the benefit cap in my constituency, but I was not told—and I still do not know—how many of my families will be excluded from the provisions in the Bill. We do know how many children in total will be left out and not helped. The impact assessment for the Bill says that 50,000 families will see no gain at all, and that another 20,000 families in the first year will only partially gain before the household benefit cap kicks in for them too. In total, at least 200,000 children will not get the help they need from the Government. The benefit cap, like the two-child limit, was always unjust.”
“The Government have drawn this Bill too narrowly. It will, as Members have mentioned several times, leave at least 150,000 children in larger families with no extra help at all. For example, Maryam, highlighted by the Z2K charity, is a lone parent of three. She fled from domestic abuse and relies on us for her income while she restarts her life. Abolishing the two-child limit alone will not improve her life one bit, because she is affected by both the two-child limit and the overall benefit cap. In December, after this policy change was finally announced—about 18 months after the Government should have taken action—I asked Ministers how many families and children would be excluded from the extra help, and they told me that that information was not available.”
“I thank the hon. Member for pointing out yet again that some of us in this House voted to move on this issue many, many months ago, and it is about time that the Government caught up. I utterly reject the racist agenda of Reform’s objections. The fact is that the Bill is not wrong, but it fails to do right by far too many children, so what will the Government do to fix that? The scope of the Bill could be widened by the Government to remove the benefit cap. This could be done through a motion, if not by a simple amendment to the Bill—and I have been trying on that score as well. It is down to the Government to listen to Members who have spoken on this issue today. I quite simply ask them whether they will now act.”
“The Government narrowed the scope of the last benefits Bill, and it could widen this Bill to take in the wider benefit cap, too. The Chancellor who could find the money for that is right next to the Minister. Can the Minister explain why, despite the interest in lifting the overall benefit cap in the Chamber today, according to the impact assessment the only options assessed were doing nothing or this very narrow measure?”
“Will the Home Secretary give us some clarity on the bespoke legal framework on police AI, please? Will its scope be commendably narrow, getting police use of facial recognition under control while clearly outlawing other uses, which would match the EU’s AI Act, or will it be too narrow, leaving other public authorities, such as potentially the Border Force, local authorities and the private sector, in the ungoverned wild west of uses that we see now?”
“Member for Brent East said, we need bolder action, and it must focus on the high street, as the motion rightly sets out. We must give local councils the powers to properly regulate the spread of gambling premises, among other things. I have encouraged my local council to get together with other councils and to use the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 to produce proposals—”
“It is clear that the Government have worked to advance the 2023 White Paper proposals. I welcome the introduction of a statutory levy on gambling operators in place of the voluntary scheme, which will generate money for research, prevention and treatment. I also welcome next steps on financial vulnerability checks and enhanced risk assessments for the online services, and the withdrawal of gambling sponsorship from the front of premier league players’ shirts by the end of this season—although that will not address the significant volume of gambling adverts that are visible during top-flight matches. We are also ambling towards a gambling ombudsman, but it should have been up and running by the summer of 2024. As the hon.”
“We know that the national gambling helpline is receiving more calls and online chats than ever before. The NHS has also reported significant growth in referrals to its gambling harm services. Young people are increasingly at risk from this harm. In 2018, the GambleAware charity commissioned two reports to consider the extent and nature of the impact of gambling marketing and advertising on children, young people and vulnerable groups in the UK. It reported that, although children are not directly targeted by advertisers, almost all children and young people see gambling adverts. Only 4% of 11 to 20-year-olds who participated in the survey reported that they had not been exposed in the previous month. High street premises clearly contribute to that, alongside the advertising that bothers me so much.”
“With the physical adverts in our neighbourhoods alongside all the gaudy shopfronts, coupled with the ever-present marketing on social media and television every time we tune into sport, it is no wonder that we are seeing increased gambling harms. The Gambling Commission has estimated the problem gambler rate to be close to 2.5%. Based on the Office for National Statistics’ latest population estimates, that puts well over 1 million people in Great Britain into the category of problem gamblers. The commission also estimated a further 3.1 million people to be classified as at risk, with many more harmed indirectly. That is experimental data using new survey methodologies and it is regularly challenged by the industry, which does not surprise me, because it is so shocking. However, it is backed up by other evidence.”
“In comparison, we have 25 GP surgeries, 13 libraries, 44 dentists, around 20 youth services and seven leisure centres. Soon, we could have more gambling establishments than the city’s 340 pubs. For that reason, my submission to the council called for the introduction at the very least of a one in, one out principle for gambling establishments to represent and respect our licensing objectives of preventing harm to children and people with vulnerabilities, including problem gambling and addiction. To back up that policy, I also want to see the prohibition of advertising gambling on billboards, bus stops, buses and any other outdoor advertising sites in the city. Advertising bothers me in many ways, but on this topic it makes me really angry. I think the Government could do a lot more about it.”
“GambleAware research has shown that shopfronts on the high street are the source of a high number of advertising views. My recent work on that aspect has included proposing changes to Brighton and Hove city council’s gambling policy. My response to its review highlighted the proliferation of high street gambling establishments in my city. As evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee last year stressed, gambling companies concentrate their efforts in areas of greater deprivation. However, coastal constituencies such as mine also have a very high density of gambling facilities due to our history as seaside resorts, which I believe has a harmful impact on my constituents. According to the council, the total number of licensed gambling premises where residents and visitors can gamble in Brighton and Hove was 257 as of May 2024.”
“I want to thank some of the brilliant campaigners on gambling reform and harm who I meet regularly for their work, including Matt Zarb-Cousin of Gamban, Gambling with Lives, which is incredible, and the many other local charities in Brighton that are working on addiction, including to gambling, and recovery. The motion focuses on planning policy, and we have heard excellent further suggestions about licensing. I fully support the proposal in the motion to remove the “aim to permit” provision. Councils must be able to control the spread of gambling premises in every way possible. Currently, gambling debates often centre around online gambling, which is clearly a growing menace, and its excessive levels of advertising, but much of the harm still occurs in our neighbourhoods.”
“I give huge thanks to the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for proposing the motion. I was pleased to support the application for the debate. We have just heard an excellent case for action and some really clear examples of the harm that gambling causes. I am also a member of the APPG on gambling reform; I thank its chair, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), for his work. It is clear that Members across parties feel passionately that the Government are ignoring clear evidence and going far too easy on this industry. This debate is very timely: by chance, tomorrow I will be visiting the excellent Breakeven charity in Brighton, which provides free support for Brightonians dealing with gambling-related harm, including people’s partners, family members and friends.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am also grateful for the motion and for the opportunity to object, cross-party, to the restrictions on our important rights to a trial by jury. I was, however, hoping that the Conservatives would, in this debate, admit some real responsibility for the awful state of our criminal justice system. Will he correct that gap in any further way in his contribution?”
“We need more clarity on how mayoral, local and combined authorities will be able to control investment plans and services. During the passage of the previous rail Bill, I argued that there should be public ownership of rolling stock companies. I understand that decisions are being made for future rolling stock not to be purchased through the evil twin of the private finance initiative. However, the fact remains that the current rolling stock is a scandal. Rolling stock leasing companies—ROSCOs—paid £275 million in dividends to shareholders in 2024-25, and those payments are up by 59% in five years. That is outrageous profiteering and a drain on public finances, so I urge the Government to cut that waste, find ways to bring our rolling stock into public hands and look at a windfall tax on the current ROSCOs to address this injustice.”
“The Bill needs to say more about the need to plan for new capacity and services on the basis of creating maximum potential to reduce car dependency, to shift people away from the most polluting and socially unequal modes of transport, not just to respond to current demand or congestion on the railways. Public ownership is popular with the vast majority of people. Before the last election, it was even backed by 60% of those who intended to vote Conservative. It is a strong desire for people in Brighton Pavilion, for whom the legacy of privatisation is too often one of expensive and unreliable services, with big gaps in accessibility. I believe strongly that local voices, such as those in Brighton, must be more in control of our public services.”
“That will help to better include many people when they use the railways, such as disabled people, people with buggies, older people, people for whom toilet access is more than crucial and others for whom accessibility barriers are still too high on our railways. This and the public interest duty should help to create social benefits for people for whom the cost of rail travel is prohibitive, including young people, who need more connectivity and access to jobs and training. However, the Bill still lacks on its face a specific duty to grow passenger numbers. We have an integrated transport strategy on the way, but the Bill contains a mode shift target for freight without including one for passengers.”
“The Green party welcomes the Bill. It is right in principle to end the failed, long experiment in surrendering public services to the private market. We are pleased to see an extended role for the passenger watchdog set out in the Bill, and clear requirements for business plans and strategies to be published and consulted upon. I want the measures in the Bill to include deep scrutiny of those plans and strategies. Passengers, rail workers and locally elected representatives must use their voices to have more control over what Great British Railways offers, both in advance and during the development of these plans and strategies. I am pleased that the duties laid out for Great British Railways include consideration for “potential passengers”.”
“To the credit of those on the Conservative Front Bench, one line in the reasoned amendment mentions the need for a duty to grow passenger numbers. A number of hon. Members across the House have mentioned that today. Will the Minister come back to the House on the question of a duty to raise passenger numbers?”
“We have already seen issues of data sharing between police forces and immigration enforcement. Migrants have been scared to come forward and report basic crimes around their right to safety because of that kind of overreach. The eVisa scheme has caused awful failures—people stranded at airports; people losing job opportunities because of the failures of the basic IT—but this is far more serious than that. Right hon. and hon. Members owe it to our constituents to protect them from not just this Government, but what all future Governments might do. Combined with the recent clampdown on protest rights, the proposed removal of trial by jury and the capacity of the state to track and identify us through facial recognition, this adds up to a toolkit for authoritarians that we must not give away. It must be stopped. It is a house of dynamite.”
“This iteration of digital ID could, through a unique identification number, link our most sensitive biometric information to our names, ages, nationalities, addresses, medical information and housing and criminal histories, enabling a detailed profile worthy of the Chinese Government to be put together, which utterly undermines not only our right to privacy, but many other things. We ought to be protected from the state having access to and control over all that information. I hope that the Minister understands that private citizens are already starting to gain perspective on how unsafe our data is in the hands of private companies. The reaction to digital ID shows that we are now very concerned about the difference when a state has access to all that information and what a future state might do.”
“Thank you for your excellent chairing, Sir Edward. I hope the Government have been given serious pause by the 2.9 million signatures on this petition, over 5,000 of which were from constituents in Brighton Pavilion. So many people are right to be so concerned, because such a scheme carries extreme risks to our privacy. If this scheme is introduced, it seems impossible that we can be protected from any future Government who are determined to utterly disregard a lot more of our basic human rights.”
“The consequences of things going wrong—whether it is state intrusion, criminals taking away the data, errors or data theft, so that people lose their identities to somebody else—become much higher when something like this, where everything is linked together, is created. I said that it was a house of dynamite and a toolkit for authoritarians. It is hugely expensive, and I hope the Minister will clarify the final cost. According to the OBR, £1.8 billion is only the beginning of the cost.”
“People might have heard the Government claiming that other countries have had digital ID for many years and then heard about the security flaws in the Estonian system or the hackers in Estonia, India, Norway and Poland who have created enormous data breaches. I have dwelled a lot on state power, but let us not forget that creating such a database is an enormous risk. All the eggs are in one basket when it comes to criminally inclined people who would take our data and hurt us that way. I was wrapping up when I was intervened on, and I will try not to use too much more time. The risk management calculations here are so clear.”
“I cannot. This is the expensive leopards-eating-faces party of policies. It must be stopped. It is too risky to go ahead with. The Government need to answer so many questions to make anybody happy with it.”
“This week, it is the 14th birthday of Khaled, the son of the British-Egyptian former political prisoner Alaa Abd el-Fattah. Khaled will not see his father in person as Alaa was prevented from travelling to the UK by the Egyptian authorities in November. While I am sure the Leader of the House will wish Khaled a happy birthday, will he also assure me that the Government will help ensure that his father can travel here as soon as possible?”
“I appreciate the focus on victims, but has the Secretary of State considered the risks of removing juries when charges involve state or corporate victims if we are to preserve dissent, whistleblowing and protest? Given that big concerns have been raised about representation among judges, is he concerned about the potential for damaging attacks on, and politicisation of, individual judges and their decisions?”
“10. To ask the hon. Member for Battersea, representing the Church Commissioners, what steps the Church of England is taking to install solar power for churches.”
“Brighton and Hove has excellent energy co-ops and many church roofs, so what is the Church doing to bring together clergy, congregations and co-ops to make more solar projects viable? Can the commissioners reduce planning risks for listed churches by adding more weight, perhaps through guidance or strategies, to their visible leadership role in communities?”
“With the Government’s attitude to migrants now expanding the political space for the racist far right, is the Minister not concerned that building a toolkit for authoritarians out of digital ID, police facial recognition, and now cutting jury trials for all charges that might be associated with dissent, is incredibly dangerous and something that we would not expect of a Labour Government, which should be protecting our rights instead?”
“In single member elections, the alternative vote gives real choice: people simply choose their candidate and rank them, so there is no second guessing about who might be in the second round. It means a guaranteed consensus-driven majority for the winning candidate, so the Government should consider that. More broadly, as some Members have noted, I have talked many times about being a member of the London Assembly and holding the Mayor of London to account with a dedicated, funded scrutiny body. The Government should pay much more attention to scrutiny in this Bill at the next stage.”
“Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) in relation to community empowerment. It asks the Government to undertake a review and come up with a better plan of the Government’s own choosing, which is quite reasonable and I support it. I do not have time to go through the many other amendments that I support, but I feel like consensus around many issues is breaking out in the Chamber, as it sometimes did in Committee. However, I want to single out new clause 10, in the name of the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), which proposes a community ownership fund, and new clause 19, which asks for the alternative vote system to be used for mayoral elections, not the supplementary vote.”
“I want to talk first about public engagement. Fellow members of the Bill Committee know that I am not convinced that the Bill delivers the public involvement and community empowerment stated in its title, as that is not properly facilitated by the proposed measures set out in the Bill. In Committee, I gave the Government many options to consider, including citizens assemblies, community wealth building strategies and a national public engagement commission. France has had its “Commission nationale du débat public” for 30 years, which makes real its citizens’ rights to be involved in decisions that affect their environment. It links together the environment and human rights, as set out in the excellent Aarhus convention. At this stage, I am happy to support the new option put forward by the hon.”
“I thank my former colleague for his “Hear, hear!” Let me talk about governance systems and the committee system. My No. 1 goal in all this has been to try to keep the committee systems, as the Conservatives’ amendment 4 would do. My amendments 94 to 102 mirror amendments that I tabled in Committee and seek to protect existing committee systems, particularly those chosen by people in a petition and referendum process, as happened in Sheffield. That was driven by people power.”
“The Minister failed to tell us how the tourist tax would be brought forward in legislation. With the announcement coming yesterday, and after all the opportunities they had in Committee and in debates on the Floor of the House, does the hon. Gentleman think that this was merely a case of failing to get the Chancellor’s attention?”
“I have worked with the Music Venue Trust on the amendments, and its annual report each year makes awful reading, as our grassroots music venues suffer and close due to business pressures, unfair business rates valuations and planning and licensing issues. Those issues could be tackled effectively using the new strategies and powers of combined authorities and mayors. The amendments cover not just music but cultural and community spaces of all kinds, including theatres and other performance venues. I believe that all areas of the country will benefit from the amendments being added at a future stage of the Bill.”
“This would have brought the goals of Zane’s law into the work done by new mayors to document and plan strategically to avoid horrific problems with contaminated land of the kind that led to the sudden death of Zane Gbangbola, when floods brought poisoned gas from contaminated landfill into his home in Chertsey in Surrey. I would like to hear explicitly from the Minister today that the phrase “environmental factors” in the new Government amendments includes that kind of contamination, and that the amendments therefore bring parts of Zane’s law into the Bill. Finally, I want the Minister—and the Lords in the other place—to look seriously at the need for amendments 159 and 160, which aim to ensure that the local growth plans from new mayors will help protect culture in a strategic way.”
“The Government left out of the Bill any environmental impacts on health. I argued strongly for that in Committee and have again tabled amendments 87 to 90 to fix that. I am pleased and grateful to see that Ministers have listened to the evidence and added their own Government amendments 116 to 118 naming environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water as the health determinants they are. However, my original amendments have not been withdrawn, as they spelled out that environmental factors should also specifically include water pollution and land pollution.”
“An open letter has been signed by over 450 local councillors from all parties and by council leaders. Hundreds of businesses have written in more than once to Ministers and many of our constituents have been contacting MPs, too. I am very grateful to every hon. Member, cross party, who has signed it. The case is clear. I intend to press new clause 29 to a Division, so that we can, on all sides of the House, vote for the climate, nature and clean air duties that are so vital. I hope that the Government will pledge clearly today to introduce them all as full duties at the next stage in the other place. In Committee, I also worked with campaigners to fill a big gap in health determinants set out in the Bill, to which new mayors would have to plan action under clause 43, the health improvement and health inequalities duty.”
“My new clause would also help every new mayor to support the principles in the Environment Act 2021 for nature protection and restoration, and action on pollution, wildlife and the ecosystem that is our only home. It would also help every new mayor to support the principles in Ella’s law, the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill. The Bill awaits Second Reading and comes from cross-party work with campaigners from the Healthy Air Coalition and Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, the mother of Ella, whose death from asthma was the first to be recorded as due to air pollution. New clause 29 is supported by the UK100 group of local authorities, the Climate Emergency campaign, the Better Planning Coalition, Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Healthy Air Coalition, Friends of the Earth and a host of others.”
“I hope that either this will be taken up in the other place and debated again or the section will be enacted for England imminently, such that it has to be done through Government amendments there. I would like to hear that promised by Ministers today. I mainly want to focus on and propose my new clause 29. This would help every new mayor support the principles in the Climate Change Act 2008 in a fair way. The Climate Change Committee has noted the yawning gap between national ambition and local action, and the Local Government Association has called for that gap to be closed through the Bill. We need every mayor agreeing on the action they will take—their fair contribution to national targets—and being empowered to deliver for our crucial carbon budgets and lifesaving climate resilience.”
“I, too, was pleased to sit on the Public Bill Committee, but sadly I cannot spare the time to review everyone’s performance, so I will get straight to the point. My amendments for new combined authorities in parts 1 and 2 of the Bill include amendments 91 to 93, which add action on poverty and socioeconomic inequality to the areas of competence of new mayors in clause 2. The Government have promised again and again to enact part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in respect of a socioeconomic duty for England. If that were done, these duties would need to be created in the Bill. To leave them out for brand new authorities is such a gap, and I find it hard to understand why the Government are resisting.”
“Ella’s law—the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill—will now not get its Second Reading on 21 November, despite wide cross-party support. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Government make time on Fridays or at other times for more of the most vital private Members’ Bills, such as Ella’s law, or could they adopt the measures into their own Bills—for example the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill?”
“The Government are creating new boards from council leaders, but abolishing, not restocking, the police and crime scrutiny panels. Does the Minister recognise that this risks creating a chasm of scrutiny right when police reform is most urgent on issues like racism, misogyny, police conduct and the ill-governed use of AI? Does she not see a role in better scrutiny for elected local opposition leaders?”
“The BBC employs thousands of tremendous journalists who are diligent, truth-seeking and impartial. It is not perfect, but we must defend this national asset. We cannot be left to the wolves of the kind of channels that Trump prefers, which have values of propaganda, not of ethics and integrity. Will the Secretary of State protect our BBC from all further political interference, listen to the cross-party voices here, put an end to all political appointments and remove those already in place, like Robbie Gibb—if not immediately, then in that process?”