Ellie Chowns MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 30 Oct 2024 · COP29 and International Climate Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister put a number on what she is talking about?

• 30 Oct 2024 · COP29 and International Climate Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered COP29 and international climate finance. Thank you very much for calling me to speak—do I refer to you as Mr Speaker?

• 30 Oct 2024 · COP29 and International Climate Finance · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member raises an important point. There is a history of multilateral and bilateral efforts by Governments to tackle debt crises, and there is a role for government to play in regulating the private finance sector to prevent vulture finance, effectively, from preying on countries in that way. There is a key need for international co-operation to address that issue, because the lenders are from all over the world. If a country has debt relief through one process, it is crucial that it does not then find itself stuck in a debt crisis in relation to another lender. I would be glad to hear the Minister’s proposals on debt relief. My third point is that it is essential that international climate finance comes largely in the form of grants, not loans. The UK Government generally have a good record: roughly 85% of the climate finance we have committed has been through the form of grants, and I believe that commitment is in place until 2026. Will the Minister commit to that figure remaining a floor? Will she seek to increase it, so that the vast majority of climate finance is provided in such a way that it does not build up debt repayment problems for the future?

• 30 Oct 2024 · COP29 and International Climate Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. The hon. Member makes a very important point, which relates to the one I made at the beginning: we cannot avoid the fact that we in the UK have an historical responsibility to take action on climate finance. We need to ensure that we are not storing up further problems for the future by providing climate finance in the form of loans, which make things harder for the poorest people in the poorest countries. Frankly, it is a scandal that, as he says, so many people in the poorest countries find that their Governments are spending more on debt repayments than they are on investment in crucial health and education, which build what we sometimes call the human capital that is so essential to sustainable development in such countries. I very much hope that the Government will lead on this issue and ensure that climate finance is in the form of grants—all of it, if possible, but at least the very largest proportion of it.

• 30 Oct 2024 · COP29 and International Climate Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for making that point. This debate is on international climate finance, but I am happy to address his question about the interaction between domestic policy and the climate crisis that we face. I was disappointed not to hear in the Budget statement any commitment on climate or nature. Indeed, reading the detail on page 37 of the Budget, we will have a real-terms 2% decrease in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs budget over the next two years. Investment, however, is vital. Nature-friendly farming in the UK is one of the crucial ways to reduce our own emissions and get a little closer to doing our fair share of mitigating climate change. Another issue close to my heart is the role of DEFRA in tackling water pollution, and again we are not seeing that. I agree that investment domestically in nature-friendly farming and environmental policies is crucial. We have to put our money where our mouth is, and we have to ensure that we ourselves are on track to meet our climate goals. At COP28 last year, the stocktake found that the world is off track to meet the 1.5° target. In itself, that commits us to serious effects already. In real life, we see increasing drought and wildfires, and the increasing frequency and severity of flooding in our own country. We know that climate change is happening. We have to do everything possible domestically to tackle it. My fourth point is that international climate finance must be additional to aid. In recent years, we have seen not only a shameful, in my view, reduction in the overseas development assistance budget—I strongly urge the Government to bring that back up to 0.7% as soon as possible—but the wrapping of all sorts of other costs into the ODA budget. A real risk, if we put international climate finance into the ODA budget, is less money to spend on health, education and all those policies that are so essential to tackling international poverty and inequality. International climate finance must be treated separately from ODA. My fifth point is about where the money should come from. Again, that is an important topic on Budget day, and indeed I will digress slightly to comment on the Budget. One policy we have seen today is a retention of the fuel duty freeze, which is effectively a subsidy for fossil fuels. That is clearly incompatible with the Government’s rhetoric on climate change. We should lead the way as a country in pushing for “polluter pays” taxes to generate the finance necessary to meet what I hope will be strong and ambitious international climate finance goals, because—to recap—this is urgent. 2024 is on track to be the hottest year ever on record. This change is going only one way. I do not know how many economists and scientists we need to tell us that the investment must come early—as soon as possible—because the transition will get more and more expensive. The longer we leave it, the costlier it will be, not just financially, but in terms of the effect on human lives. COP29 is a crucial moment in the international climate negotiations. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister how she will ensure that the UK plays a leading role, putting our money where our mouth is and doing everything possible to influence international partners to ensure that climate finance is sufficient to address the challenge that we face.

• 30 Oct 2024 · COP29 and International Climate Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Might the Minister be able to put a number on what she would consider UK leadership to be financially?

• 30 Oct 2024 · COP29 and International Climate Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Sir Roger—I am still learning the ropes. I thank the Minister for coming to respond to the debate. It is my pleasure to introduce this debate on international climate finance, and I particularly appreciate the presence of so many colleagues, given that it is an extraordinarily busy day when, with the Budget, we are discussing domestic finance. I may have one or two words to say on that in a moment. This debate is particularly important, because we are in the run-up to COP29—the conference of the parties—in Baku. It is supposed to be the finance COP, because it is crucial that we mobilise the necessary finance to tackle the global climate crisis. My purpose in securing this debate is to encourage the Government to put a bit more flesh on the warm words that we have heard so far. I recognise those warm words: for example, the Foreign Secretary saying that he wanted to put climate change “at the centre” of foreign policy—that is welcome—and the commitments from the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on domestic investment. However, there is still much more to do. I will give the Minister advance notice of the topics on which I would love her response. At COP29, we are looking for the international community to agree a new collective quantified goal for climate finance in the trillions of dollars, not the billions. That is the scale of the challenge that we face. Do the Government recognise that, and are they prepared to play their part in leading from the front to ensure that there is collective commitment to the goal? International climate finance needs to tackle mitigation, as well as the urgent need to invest to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. It needs to tackle adaptation, because an enormous amount of global warming is already built into the climate system through historical emissions. It also needs to tackle loss and damage: the costs that are already being borne particularly by the most vulnerable in the poorest countries, and are due to the historical debt that early industrialising countries built up through our burning of fossil fuels.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  The brutality of violence in Sudan, and the disruption of agricultural systems and trade routes, have led to the extreme food insecurity that we have seen. Does the Minister share my admiration for the local emergency room organisations that are doing what they can to support local people? What will she do to ensure that international aid can get through to those actors on the ground? In the absence of international agencies or international forces, they are all that is there. What will she do to ensure that aid can continue to get across the border from Chad?

• 24 Oct 2024 · Special Educational Needs and Disabilities · Hansard source

  More

  Parents and teachers in North Herefordshire tell me how concerned they are that special educational needs funding has stagnated for the last 10 years, while needs have increased. I visited Westfield school in my constituency, which is in desperate need of capital investment. It was allocated funding under the school rebuilding programme, but the implementation of that programme has been very slow. Can the Minister assure me that she remains committed to the programme, that it is on track, and that she will amend the way that the funding system works to incentivise mainstream inclusion?

• 23 Oct 2024 · Independent Water Commission · Hansard source

  More

  If I heard correctly, at the start of his statement the Secretary of State referred to the River Lugg, which runs through the centre of my constituency. Its catchment has been subject to a planning moratorium for more than five years, because of excess levels of phosphates in the river. The Secretary of State will be well aware that the reason for that is not primarily sewage pollution, but agricultural run-off; more than two thirds of the pollution is from agricultural run-off and only a quarter from sewage. However, the terms of reference for the Government’s water commission essentially make no mention of agriculture, with only a passing reference and nothing specific about addressing that problem; likewise the Water (Special Measures) Bill. With such a narrow approach to addressing water pollution, the Secretary of State will not be able to achieve his aim of cleaning up our rivers and seas. Does he agree that the terms of reference need to be changed to incorporate full attention on agricultural pollution as well as sewage?

• 22 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. I welcome this Government’s ambition in seeking a new climate finance goal at COP29 in Baku shortly. Will the Minister assure me that she understands the scale of need? The UN Environment Programme says that 10 to 18 times more funding is needed for adaptation than is currently on the table. Will she make sure that it includes loss and damage and is additional to aid?

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by welcoming this Bill on behalf of my Green colleagues. I would like to gently comment on the tone of some of this debate. I find myself on the Opposition Benches, but that is not to say that I share the sentiments expressed by Conservative Members. In particular, it is a shame that we have seen some very polarised debate today. I want to challenge the rhetoric of, “It’s workers versus employers and unions versus small businesses.” That is both ahistorical and economically illiterate, frankly. It is ahistorical because if we did not have workers organising together to improve their conditions, we would still have children up chimneys and women being paid a small fraction of what men are paid for doing the same work. Such rhetoric is economically illiterate because inequality is bad for growth. It is not just me and Labour Members who say that; the International Monetary Fund has specified that inequality is bad for growth. Let us try to look for the common ground together, and to welcome measures that will improve work and the security of people who work. Let us recognise that, frankly, this Bill is long overdue, because we have seen the erosion of workers’ rights over decades. We are now in a position where work does not pay well enough for far too many people in our country, which is why we have so many people on in-work benefits. I really welcome the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who pointed out that there are much better labour relations in countries where there is a positive recognition that workers’ rights go along with improved economic growth. As a country, let us try to move towards that point. I want to briefly mention a few areas where I would like the Government to go further. The Bill’s failure to fully ban fire and rehire practices is inexplicable. It leaves a loophole or get-out clause that effectively condones this practice, and I do not think there can be any grounds for treating workers in purely transactional terms. Zero-hours contracts are a complex area. I know that some people welcome the opportunity to have zero-hours contracts, but this flies in the face of what the majority of the public wants. The current model leaves far too much power in the hands of employers. I want to briefly mention other aspects of equality. It is disappointing that this Bill does not uphold previous Labour pledges on mandatory disability and ethnicity pay gap reporting. It will lead to increased inequality between migrant workers and others, because it does not address the risks that migrant workers face when their visas are dependent on employers, and they may exit the country before they have had a chance to pursue their employment claims. I would like to see kinship care treated in the same way as adoption leave. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) talked about foster carers, too. In summary, I welcome this bill, but there are areas where I would like to see the Government go further to protect workers’ rights.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  This week is Flood Action Week, an important opportunity to raise awareness of this crucial issue. This week, sadly, North Herefordshire has been subject to flooding: roads are closed, schools are closed and soil is washing off the fields into the roads and rivers. Unfortunately, climate change is making these events more frequent and more extreme. Does the Leader of the House agree that farmers are crucial partners in tackling flooding through natural flood management? Will she make time for a debate in Government time on the crucial issue of flood prevention and action?

• 16 Oct 2024 · Access to Primary Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  The Darzi report made it very clear that our NHS is under- funded, overstretched and too hospital focused. That has also been a focus of today’s debate so far. I welcome what I heard from the Secretary of State, in last week’s debate on the Darzi report, about investment and reform, and a shift from hospital to community and from sickness to prevention. We all want those things, but they will not happen without more investment, and without a crucial reform in the way the NHS is funded. We have seen a drift towards an increasing focus on acute services and on hospital services at the expense of investment in preventive healthcare and the primary services that we all recognise are so needed, and that my constituents in North Herefordshire so desperately want. They want to be able to see a GP, and they want to see the community frontline services that will save their health, and will save the NHS money, in the long run. Can the Minister assure me that she and her colleagues have been doing everything possible to urge the Chancellor to make available the billions of pounds of investment in the NHS that are necessary to bring us back up to scratch in comparison with our peers? Darzi said that we are underfunded in comparison with similar health services. Will she assure me that the Government are considering putting in place some sort of mechanism to protect funding for primary and community care, and indeed to ratchet it up over the years? The way things happen at the moment is that hospitals constantly overspend and those overspends are constantly plugged, which is why the money is going more and more into hospitals and less and less into primary care. Will we get the billions of pounds of investment in the Budget that we need, and will we get that protection and ratchet mechanism for primary care funding that is the only way to ensure that the extra doctors, extra appointments and so forth are delivered?

• 16 Oct 2024 · Access to Primary Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the shadow Minister give way?

• 15 Oct 2024 · Gaza and Lebanon · Hansard source

  More

  The far-right Netanyahu Government continue to assert that they are complying with international law, when in fact they are acting without restraint. That is clear from the atrocities in northern Gaza, the Israeli settlement in the west bank, and completely inadequate evacuation orders issued to densely populated suburbs in Beirut. Will the Minister recognise that the UK is complicit in these war crimes due to the UK Government’s continued refusal to stop all arms sales to Israel?

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I believe in taking a positive approach to politics. Not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is a good principle, and in that spirit, I welcome the Bill. However, I must confess that it is a pretty lukewarm welcome, because this Bill is not a really significant or radical step. Effectively, it is a tweak. We could call it a bit of glorified admin, because it tidies up a thread that has been hanging since 1999. It does not tackle several of the other inequalities and inconsistencies in the composition of the House of Lords. Members across this House have highlighted some of those today, such as the presence of the bishops and the appointment of life peers, so while I welcome the Bill, there is huge room for improvement. House of Lords reform is absolutely long overdue. Three hours or so ago, somebody referenced Asquith in 1911; we have been waiting a really long time. When the Minister introduced the Bill several hours ago, he referenced the next steps in the reform process, and I very much hope we do not have to wait 25 years—or, indeed, 113 years —to find out what those next steps are. Reform is also widely supported, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) just said, and it is essential to improve the functioning of our democracy. By the way, there are many other ways in which we could improve the functioning of our democracy, but let us focus on House of Lords reform today. When the Paymaster General introduced the Bill, he spoke about a matter of principle for a Government committed to fairness and equality. He described going step by step in the direction of reform. I challenge him to tell us what the next steps are, to show us his workings and his road map, and to assure us that we will not have to wait 25 or 113 years.

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way, and I will explain why. Like many other Members, I have been waiting and bobbing for hours to have a chance to speak—apart from the moment when I left for a prearranged meeting with the Speaker. Several Members on both sides of the House have intervened frequently, thus putting others further down the speaking list. I know that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) would like to speak. We need to know the next steps in House of Lords reform. I agree that these are questions of principle. The issue is not the individuals who currently serve in the House of Lords, many of whom are hard-working and experienced, and bring a lot of expertise and effort. That is not the point. The point is that unelected lawmakers should not be a thing. People who make laws should be elected. That is what democracy is about. It is a fundamental principle, and I find it extraordinary that the Bill does not adopt it. The Government are sometimes a little selective in applying the principles for which they nail their colours to the mast. On the principle of unelected people not making laws, why do we still have bishops and life peers? There is no other walk of life in which someone would be appointed to a role for life. We should not have that in our Parliament. I challenge the Paymaster General to use the Government’s huge and disproportionate majority —disproportionate given that it is based on a minority of votes—to take forward the principles of fairness and equality, and to get rid of not just the unfair and unequal hereditary principle, but the unfair and unequal principle of representing certain religions and not others, or of representing any religion. I challenge the Government to get rid of the unfair and unequal principle of giving political appointees life peerages. Will the Paymaster General do that? Will he also set out steps for replacing the House of Lords with an elected house of citizens? Will he take steps to introduce a fair electoral system for this Parliament, so that every vote cast in this country has equal weight?

• 8 Oct 2024 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I very much hope the Secretary of State and his Ministers agree that if we are serious about energy security and net zero, we must be serious about energy efficiency. What steps are they taking, in addition to working on insulating existing homes, to ensure that the promised 1.5 million new homes are built to net zero standards, have solar panels on the roof, and are fully insulated so that every new home is a warm home?

• 7 Oct 2024 · Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of the Green party, I associate myself with the remarks made by the Prime Minister and others in the House in remembrance of all those who lost their lives and were taken hostage in the horrific terrorist attacks on 7 October last year. One of those was Hayim Katsman, who was murdered by Hamas in Kibbutz Holit. His brother Noy had his words included in a collection of speeches and eulogies published today by Standing Together. Noy said this of Hayim: “I have no doubt that even in the face of Hamas’ people that murdered him, in the face of their extreme right wing beliefs, he would still call out against killing and violence of innocent people. Here, too, he would be empathetic to pain and oppression.” Those are powerful words. In that spirit, I express my continued and deep concern at the disproportionate response of Israel to the attacks on 7 October and the extent to which that has perpetuated pain, oppression and the killing of innocent people. In recent days, that response has resulted in an escalation of deadly violence. I welcome the Prime Minister’s words about commitment to de-escalation. Does he agree that an urgent ceasefire both between Israel and Hezbollah and in Gaza is essential to resolving the conflict?

• 12 Sept 2024 · Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Since 4 July, more than 40 people have been jailed in the UK for peaceful acts of conscience: some for protesting climate breakdown, some for taking measures to stop violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza. The UN special rapporteur, Michel Forst, has made public statements to the effect that these sentences violate international law and are not acceptable in a democracy. With our prisons in crisis and radical measures necessary, as we have seen with the release of prisoners this week, will the Attorney General issue guidance to judges to ensure that sentencing for peaceful protest is realigned with common sense, democratic principles and international law?

• 12 Sept 2024 · Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  1. If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of extending the unduly lenient sentence scheme to include unduly severe sentences.

• 12 Sept 2024 · New Housing: Environmental Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered environmental standards for new housing. I thank the Minister and all colleagues here for attending. This is the first time I have led a Westminster Hall debate, so please bear with me if I get the procedures wrong. We have lots of time today, so I welcome interventions and hope we can have a useful debate and conversation on this vital topic. I want to begin by saying that I recognise that there have been some warm words from the Government on this topic. I look forward to hearing more detail from the Minister today. I called for this debate because, although I have heard one or two warm words in the last two and a bit months, I have not heard any detail. In fact, I have been concerned about hearing nothing specific whatsoever in the Secretary of State’s speeches that I have listened to. The Government have made major commitments on building new housing and it is crucial to consider what type of housing, so I wish to start by outlining three reasons why I think this is a really important debate to have. First, it is absolutely topical. The Government, as we have heard on numerous occasions—indeed, just five minutes ago in the previous debate—have committed to building 1.5 million new houses over the next five years, but what sort of homes will they be? In the Green party we specify that we need to think about the right homes in the right place at the right price. Today I want to talk about what “right homes” means, because it is not just about quantity; it is also about quality and the need to think long term when new homes are built. The Climate Change Committee did a report on the UK’s housing stock in 2019. It estimated that in 2050 80% of houses in this country will be houses that are already built, so we clearly have a massive job to do when we think about environmental standards and retrofitting the buildings that we already have. However, I am concerned to discuss the 20% of houses that will be new, because the worst possible outcome could be that we build lots and lots of new houses but to poor standards, thus requiring the retrofitting of those houses, too, so let us focus on new build homes. The second reason why the debate is important is the scale of the issue relating to houses. Our built environment controls or influences roughly half of UK environmental impacts. Domestic housing accounted for more than a quarter of energy use in the UK in the last year for which we have statistics. Heating accounts for the largest single share of emissions from buildings. The fabric of buildings is crucial in controlling the impact of the housing and broader building sector on the natural environment and climate. Thirdly, this topic is crucial because we have a massive win-win-win opportunity here. This is not just about reducing carbon emissions from housing, which is certainly very important and I will come on to that later. It is also about ensuring that new homes are warm, affordable to heat and not mouldy but great for people to live in. Just this week in the Chamber there was a debate about how people can stay warm in winter. We need to make sure that all new homes are built to the highest possible standards so that we do not have people shivering in their homes and choosing between heating and eating. Of course, this is a fantastic opportunity to give the economy a great big boost, creating thousands of high-skilled jobs. If we get this right, it will be a fantastic opportunity for economic renewal. We know that investing up front is much cheaper than having to retrofit later, so let us do this right from the start. I wrote to the Minister for Housing and Planning before the recess about the timing of the release of the future homes standard, which has been in the works for quite some time now—we were consulting on it back in 2019-20, and again in 2023-24. In his response to me, the Minister said that the Government will release it in due course. If he is able to do so, I would love the Minister to provide some clarification on the timetable for publication of the standard; it is supposed to start implementation next year, which is only three and a half months away, so time is of the essence. Of course, it is vital that the policy is right, and not just fast, but, as we have had so many years to develop it, I would hope that it could be published ASAP. This is not a new topic. One of the helpful briefings I read in preparation for this debate, from the House of Commons Library, which I recommend to everyone—it produces fantastic materials—reminded me that in 2006, the then Labour Government said that they would amend the building regulations to require all new homes to have net zero carbon emissions by 2016. Of course, that policy was scrapped by the Conservatives in 2015, but we are now eight years on from the point at which Labour previously thought that all new homes should be net zero carbon. This is the moment for the new Labour Government to fulfil that promise and put in place regulations to ensure that ambition will actually come to pass—better late than never. I will speak today about five key aspects of environmental standards for new housing: maximising energy efficiency; minimising embodied carbon; maximising on-site energy generation, particularly rooftop solar; maximising biodiversity in the construction of new homes; and maximising resilience against things like flooding and overheating, which will become more and more important as time goes by and climate change becomes a reality that hits us ever harder. The first aspect is maximising energy efficiency. To meet the Government’s own carbon targets, almost all buildings will need to fully decarbonise. It is not just me who says that—it was in the Government’s heat and buildings strategy back in 2021. That is what the future homes standard was supposed to ensure. However, the version of the future homes standard that is being consulted on is looking at a 75% improvement on 2013 levels by 2030, which is neither good enough nor strong enough. We need to get to all homes being net zero carbon as soon as possible. I do not expect the Government to introduce measures whereby every single building has to be built to that standard in 2025, but the industry needs a glide path. We need the Government to set that strategy to provide a framework within which the industry can sort out supply chain issues, both in terms of materials and, crucially, through upskilling, so that we are building zero carbon houses, not ones that are just a bit more efficient than the previous ones. The previous Conservative Government were very pleased to talk at length—I wanted to say “to bang on”—about the fact that more houses are reaching EPC C standard than 15 years ago, and that is indeed true. However, virtually no houses are reaching EPC A or B; that figure has increased from 1% to 3% of houses over the past 15 years. Almost no new houses are being built to those really high standards, which is what we need. Of course, there are major problems with energy performance certificates and the standards assessment procedure that underpins them—I am not pretending that that does not need review, and I commend the moves that are being made in that direction. However, we need to recognise that, flawed as it might be as a metric, it is telling us something really quite serious and worrying, which is that housing quality is not increasing at anywhere close to the rate that it needs to. Key to reducing energy demand is fabric-first design. That needs to be absolutely integral to the future homes standard. It is deeply concerning that the previous Government claimed that the 2021 changes to building regulations were sufficient, and refused to tighten them any further. It is utterly wrong-headed. In making buildings more energy-efficient, fabric-first must be central. I would welcome a commitment from the Minister that fabric-first will be core to the future homes standard. I also ask the Minister to lift the restriction placed by the previous Government on local authorities setting higher standards for house building in their areas. I do not think that local authorities setting piecemeal higher standards is the way we will get to a decarbonised housing sector, but we should not hold them back from going further and faster while we wait for Government to show the necessary leadership on a national level. We have too much piecemeal policy on this, both between local authorities and between the four nations of the UK. We need to ensure that we are united in a race to the top for standards, not a race to the bottom.

• 12 Sept 2024 · New Housing: Environmental Standards · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Stringer, and I will compensate by being very brief in my response to the intervention by saying that I agree absolutely. I have talked about the need to maximise energy efficiency. Let me move on to my second point: the need to minimise embodied carbon. In the future homes standard, we have some discussion of minimising operational carbon emissions. There is concern here not just from me. Back in 2022, in its report on the sustainability of the built environment, the Environmental Audit Committee expressed real concern that “policy has focused entirely on operational emissions”, and that it does not require the embodied carbon cost of construction to be assessed or controlled in any way. The Royal Institute of British Architects is deeply concerned about this, as are others. In their response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report, the previous Government recognised that embodied carbon can account for a very significant proportion of a building’s whole-life carbon emissions. They agreed that a standardised method was needed, and said that they would consult on embodied carbon. In a consultation from November 2023 to March 2024 on the future homes standard, the Government said that embodied carbon was outside the scope of consultation on the future homes standard, but that they would consult on it separately. Does the Minister agree that embodied carbon needs to be part of the future homes standard? We cannot talk only about operational and not embodied carbon. It has been left behind—effectively the poor relation—in the need to assess the carbon impact of new house building. This urgently needs to be rectified. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments and, I hope, assurance that as much attention will be paid to embodied carbon as to operational carbon, because it is so significant in the whole-life carbon costs of any new housing. I move on to my third point: maximising on-site energy generation. I have brought up this topic—the need to ensure that all new homes have solar panels—once or twice in the House already since I have been here. I would be delighted to be known as Mrs Solar Panel by the end of this Parliament. I would be even more delighted if, by the end of this year, we had the regulations necessary to ensure that every roof of a new home had solar panels on it because, frankly, that is what is colloquially known as a no-brainer. Solar panels are one of the things that residents brought up with me time and again on the doorstep. Constituents of all sorts of political background and none said to me things like, “Why are we still building houses and not putting solar panels on the roofs?” It is something with which people have a real, visceral connection. They see new houses going up around them that do not have solar panels on the roofs, and they know that we need to sort out energy generation. Let’s ensure that we maximise use of these wonderful surfaces that are already there. This is a classic example of where it would be much cheaper to put that technology in place at the point of construction, rather than retrofitting it afterwards. I cannot help but conclude that it has not been done so far only because developers are resisting anything that might increase their costs. Developers are concerned only with the construction costs; we as lawmakers and as a Government should be concerned with the long-term social, public and environmental costs. Of course, this sort of investment pays for itself many times over during the lifetime of the technology. I warmly invite the Minister to confirm that his Government will bring forward measures to put solar panels on roofs as default, either within the future homes standard, the planning and infrastructure Bill or another appropriate legislative mechanism. My fourth point is about maximising biodiversity. In the words of the 2021 Dasgupta review, “Our economies, livelihoods and well-being all depend on our most precious asset: Nature.” This Government have talked a great deal about growth. Unfortunately, the way we currently measure growth does not take account of the costs of the destruction of the natural assets we have. There have been some welcome moves towards recognition of the need to take account of impacts on biodiversity during construction, with the introduction of biodiversity net gain and so on, but so much more could be done. We could specify having bird and bat boxes for the 1.5 million new houses—wouldn’t it be wonderful to have 1.5 million new bird and bat boxes for the creatures with whom we share this beautiful natural environment? Ponds are good for drainage and for wildlife. Let us take into account lighting design and how light pollution impacts nature if we are building these 1.5 million new houses. We could specify hedgehog highways—little holes cut in fences so that hedgehogs can get from one garden to the next—as well as bee-friendly plants, green roofs and walls, trees, hedges and so on. We have a real opportunity. People are rightly concerned about the effects on the natural environment of the construction of lots of new homes. We certainly need new homes constructed—they should be affordable and accessible to the people who really need them—but let’s not make it an either/or. Let’s not plaster the country with tarmac in some places while keeping less and less space free for nature. Let’s ensure that whatever new housing we are building recognises that we can also create space for nature to live alongside us and to thrive in those areas, too. A classic example, and a personal favourite, is swift bricks. For just £30, we could put in place a swift brick in every new house to ensure that these beautiful creatures, whose populations have sadly declined by 60% over the past 30 years, can thrive again. I am not just saying this because both my sons grew up playing for Ledbury Swifts football club, meaning that these birds have a special place in my heart; they should have a special place in all our hearts. Let’s make sure that every new house has a swift brick. My fifth point is on maximising resilience. We must face up to the fact that the climate crisis means that some extremes of weather will be baked in. We must recognise that adaptation has to be part of what we do, as well as mitigation of the climate impact. I have seen that very personally. I represent North Herefordshire, and in early 2020 Herefordshire was affected by the worst floods that we have had in 400 years of records. Last winter, we had the wettest 18 months on record in the UK. Such events have major impacts on people’s homes, and we have to take them into account when we build new homes. So, please, may we ensure that the future homes standard and the regulations that go alongside it recognise the reality of the need to be more resilient with issues such as flooding and overheating? Overheating does not occur much in my constituency, but it is certainly an issue in urban constituencies. Former office blocks are converted into housing through permitted development, but often that entails terrible conditions for the people who end up living in those places. Personally, I think that that should not be allowed to happen. Overheating is a significant issue in such buildings. Let us ensure that overheating and flooding are recognised in resilience planning in new housing. Finally, water scarcity and efficiency—it is not just energy that we need to use efficiently, but water. That was the topic of my doctorate, although not in this country. Let us ensure that we use these pure resources as carefully and efficiently as possible. Again, that needs to be built in, baked in, right at the start of building new houses. I have a present for the Minister to take away. A few years ago, in Herefordshire, we developed a thing called “Herefordshire Future Homes”, in which we assessed a whole range of building standards, because of the bewildering array of initiatives in place. The industry is now coalescing around the net zero housing standard, which is good news, but we also looked at things such as water efficiency, biodiversity and so on. I will give this document to the Minister after the debate to feed into his work. Let me remind the Minister what the Government could and should do. They could ensure that all new homes had ultra-high levels of energy efficiency and were built to an EPC A standard right now, with a glide path through to net zero housing standards as soon as possible. Let us resist the pressure from developers to water down the standards, and let us give local authorities the freedom they need to put in place higher standards initially. Let us incorporate embodied carbon in the future homes standard, and set regulations for whole-life carbon limits aligned with the industry’s building standard of net zero carbon. I have not mentioned this much, but waste and recycling in construction is a core and enormous part of our waste economy. There are significant opportunities for a more circular economy approach. Let us also specify that all new homes should have solar panels on top and swift bricks everywhere. Let us ensure that all new homes are climate change-resilient. Now is such an important opportunity for the Government to show leadership. As I said at the beginning of the debate, I confess to being somewhat frustrated that they have not taken the opportunity of their major, high-attention speeches on planning and infrastructure—nothing whatever about building quality. There is an opportunity to rectify that, and I would love to hear not only the Minister’s response, but even more, the Secretary of State integrating building quality into everything that she says about building new houses going forward. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

• 12 Sept 2024 · New Housing: Environmental Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his response and all colleagues for their very constructive contributions. I heard a lot of common ground from Liberal Democrat colleagues, and I welcome that. Indeed, there was an offer from my Conservative colleague, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), to work constructively wherever common ground can be found, so let us look for that, shall we? The Minister made a point on goal orientation versus activity orientation. I reassure him firmly that I am focused on outcomes and performance, not on performativity. That is compatible with a view that all new houses should have solar panels on the roof as a default. There may indeed be one or two cases where it is not appropriate, but it is not an either/or. He seemed to suggest that if we put solar panels on, we might miss out on insulation—I am paraphrasing slightly—but we ought to be doing both/and. It is about doing everything that we can to ensure that homes are as energy efficient as possible and, indeed, that they generate as much of their own energy as possible. Let us get all those i’s dotted and t’s crossed in the forthcoming future homes standards. On being goal-oriented, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned—though he did not use these exact words—post-occupancy evaluation. That is crucial. There is no use setting standards if we do not enforce them and evaluate whether a building has achieved them. I know that many in the sector are quite frustrated that developers may say they are building something to a certain standard, but unless it is evaluated according to how it operates in real life, we will not know. There is an urgent need for an independent inspectorate to make sure that buildings are performing as designed. I will finish by reiterating a point that came out in my initial speech and in other contributions: this is about thinking for the long term, and it is about the triple win that I talked about. This is not just about environmental protection, vital though that is to tackle the climate and nature crises. It is about making sure that every new home built is a warm home, so that every person who moves into those homes can keep warm and healthy at an affordable cost—at the least cost possible. This is a social goal. It is also about recognising the opportunity that this sort of economic renewal policy offers the Government in order to achieve their goals of generating good jobs and so forth, and to strengthen the UK’s position in these crucial sectors. With the green new deal and the economic transformation that we need to see globally, let us take the opportunity and be at the forefront of this, using the Government’s excellent ambitions to build new homes as a chance to kick-start the industries of the future, including construction. There are fantastic entities, such as the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering in Herefordshire with its centre for innovation in timber technology, which the Minister just referenced. There are lots of opportunities for innovation, so let us grab them with both hands. Let us build the homes that people deserve in this country and fix the problem of environmental standards for new housing having been too low for too long. This is the opportunity to change that. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered environmental standards for new housing.