Ellie Chowns MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 10 Jun 2025 · Rooftop Solar Power · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted that the Government have seen the light on solar photovoltaics and recognised what an important step they are on the path to the sunlit uplands of homes that are genuinely fit for the future. Does the Secretary of State recognise that energy efficiency is a crucial part of energy security, and will he meet me to discuss how the future homes standard might ensure that every home is truly fit for the future, including by being zero carbon?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the announcement of sanctions on two extremist Ministers. It is long overdue and it is a bare minimum. On its own, it is likely to do little to stop extremist, illegal settlements and violence against Palestinian civilians. When will the Government implement a ban on settlement goods to stop the economy that fuels illegal settlements? Will the Minister today, clearly and unequivocally, call for illegal settlements to be dismantled, as the International Court of Justice has directed?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Construction Sector Specialist Apprentices · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s commitment to supporting skills training in the construction sector. Does he agree that skills training needs to be particularly focused on the sustainable skills, and will he join me in congratulating the low-carbon technology training centre in my constituency, as well as the new university in Hereford—its first cohort of engineers graduated just last month? Does he welcome such initiatives, and will the Government put more funding into supporting the construction and engineering skills that our building sector will need?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister warmly for giving way. He dismissed “spurious” criticism of part 3 of the Bill, but would he use that phrase to dismiss the very expert criticism of the Office for Environmental Protection? In complete contrast to the Secretary of the State’s claim that the Bill does not reduce environmental protections, in its independent expert advice, the OEP says that it does and that the Bill constitutes “a regression” in environmental protection?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry, I will not give way because there are so many colleagues who still want to speak and we are short of time. Green MPs gave the Bill a chance on Second Reading, because a secure home is out of reach for too many people. Rents are spiralling, over 165,000 children are living in temporary accommodation and over 1 million people are stuck on housing waiting lists. It is scandalous that just 3% of the housing built in the last decade was for social rent, and there is now a wait of more than 100 years for a family-sized social home. I served on the Bill Committee for the past six-plus weeks and I worked hard to persuade the Government to fix the serious flaws in the Bill, but unfortunately those calls have so far been ignored. I am profoundly concerned that, in the glaring absence of a social rent housing target, this Government are writing a charter for developers’ greed. That is why Green party MPs have tabled new clause 78, to push for safe, warm homes in the communities we love at a truly affordable price. It would require housing plans to set targets for building zero-carbon social rent housing based on local needs, because without an explicit social housing commitment, big developers will be able to line their pockets even further while ordinary people are still locked out of affording a decent home. I am hugely concerned, as are so many people and the nature organisations that we all trust. By the way, the Bill rolls back nature protections. That is why I have proposed amendments 24 to 63, which would delete part 3 of the Bill entirely, because the Government repeatedly blocked cross-party efforts in Committee to amend part 3 to reduce its harmful impact on nature. Part 3 is harmful for three key reasons. First, it weakens and undermines the requirement for nature protection to be achieved to a high level of scientific certainty. Secondly, it creates a “pay to pollute” system, allowing developers to skip straight to offsetting, trashing the long-established principle of the mitigation hierarchy—that is, that development should first seek to avoid harm. Thirdly, it upends the requirement for compensation to be delivered up front and creates wiggle room for developers to avoid paying the true cost of the harm they do. The Government know the nature crisis in our country is severe, yet they repeatedly voted in Committee to reject a raft of constructive amendments to improve part 3 and ensure a win-win for housing and nature. I remind the House that the Labour party’s 2024 manifesto pointed out that “the Conservatives have left Britain one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world,” but part 3 will make that terrible situation worse. It is not just the nature organisations that tell us that; it is the independent expert advice of the Office for Environmental Protection, which says that the Bill constitutes a “regression” in environmental law, directly contradicting the assertion of the Secretary of State. If Ministers insist on bulldozing ahead on part 3, I urge them at the very least to accept my new clause 26. With cross-party support and wide backing, it seeks to match the current degree of certainty for environmental protection. I also strongly support amendment 69, in the name of the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which would ensure that improvements are delivered before the damage they are compensating for. We can and must both protect nature and build warm, affordable, zero-carbon social rent homes. The Government said it is what they want. Sadly, it is not what the Bill delivers. Without urgent change—

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will get straight to the point: there are two big problems with this Bill. First, there is no social housing target, which means that it does not do anything to secure delivery of the fit-for-the-future social rent housing that we so desperately need, as colleagues across the House have said tonight. Secondly, it rolls back vital nature protections, effectively giving developers carte blanche to bulldoze nature to build luxury homes that are accessible only to the richest. Green MPs gave the Bill a chance on Second Reading—

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that specific point, will the Minister give way?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the fact that the Government are finally listening to the public and doing a U-turn on winter fuel payments, which is long overdue. However, in a truly strategic approach to tackling fuel poverty, we would make sure that every home could be heated affordably and was well insulated. Will the Government commit to investing in the national asset that is our housing stock, and to properly funding the warm homes programme, so that no pensioner, no child—nobody—is condemned to fuel poverty in a cold home?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Free School Meals · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome today’s announcement. It is a small step in the right direction, but what we need is a giant leap to end child poverty. If the Minister were serious about that, he knows what he needs to do: scrap the two-child benefit cap. That would lift 400,000 children out of poverty. The Green party has long campaigned for universal free school meals. We know that the health, education and productivity benefits would more than pay for that policy. The benefits would be £1.71 for every pound invested, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. Will the Minister consider the moral and economic case for free school meals to be made universal? And, while he is at it, will he scrap the cruel two-child benefit cap?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Governing the Marine Environment · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his statement. It is a privilege to serve on the Environmental Audit Committee. While the UK Government have committed to not allowing any new oil and gas licences—I would like to see them go further—the marine spatial plan still says that we should maximise production of oil and gas. Is that not outrageously out of date, and is it not urgent that the Government update the strategy so that we have joined-up policy to tackle the climate crisis?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  The UK Government have an obligation under international law to do everything possible to prevent genocide, yet we see genocide occurring in Gaza. The Minister assured the House a month ago that he was conducting a risk assessment on genocide in Gaza. Will he give me a clear, unambiguous, straight answer today? Will he publish his most recent genocide risk assessment without delay?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  The Green party has campaigned for the public ownership of water since the year dot, unlike certain cynical opportunists behind me on the Reform Benches. We know allowing privatised monopolies to control water leaves infrastructure crumbling, waterways running with sewage, sky-high bills, and shareholders laughing all the way to the bank. Given this obscene and fundamental failure, why will the Government not even consider bringing water back into public hands, where it belongs?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the House will know, Laila Soueif stopped eating 247 days ago to try to save her son, the imprisoned British-Egyptian national, Alaa Abd el-Fattah. He is an Amnesty International prisoner of conscience who has been in jail for more than a decade because of his writings on democracy. Laila is now at risk of death. Have you had any indication of whether the Foreign Secretary will come to the House to inform us about what action the Government are taking to secure Alaa’s urgent release?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Arms and Military Cargo Export Controls: Israel · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his very powerful speech, and I echo his call for the Government to publish their most recent assessment of the risk of genocide. Does he agree that it makes a mockery of our obligation under international law to prevent genocide if our Government say that they can only judge it after genocide has been conclusively proven in court to have happened? Does our obligation to act to prevent genocide not mean that we should stop all arms exports to the Israeli Government now, in the face of the clear evidence of war crimes and, indeed, genocide occurring in Gaza?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Secretary of State recognise that rural constituencies such as mine have particular needs, and that the funding needs to reflect the extra costs associated with rurality, as well as the demographic demands? Young people, older people and people on low incomes rely on buses more than others. Will those factors be taken into account in the funding mechanisms for bus services?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 2 Jun 2025 · Strategic Defence Review · Hansard source

  More

  This Government seem to have confused security with spending more on weapons, but warheads do not buy a safer world—they make it more dangerous. Instead of wasting £15 billion on nuclear warheads—weapons that must never be used and that should be as unacceptable as biological and chemical weapons—at a taxpayer subsidy of more than £1 million per job created, why not instead spend that money on real security that must involve defence and diplomacy and development? Real security means decent housing and public services, tackling the challenges of the climate crisis and pandemic-preparedness because—

• 22 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 22 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once more, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise to speak in strong support of a group of new clauses that address a clear and growing risk to public health, quality of life and economic productivity: domestic overheating. It may surprise some—hopefully no one in this room—to know that the risk of overheating in homes is now one of the most severe climate-related threats in the UK. The Climate Change Committee’s independent climate risk assessment identifies overheating in homes as one of the most severe climate risks, requiring urgent action. Over half of UK homes are already at risk of overheating, and that is projected to increase to 90% homes under a 2°C global warming scenario, which unfortunately is a possibility. This is not some distant hypothetical; the Met Office recorded the UK’s first ever 40°C day in 2022. Already around 2,000 deaths per year in England are attributed to heat waves, a number that is projected to more than triple by the 2050s under even a medium-emissions scenario. This is not just a health issue but an economic one. Evidence shows that overheating in buildings could cost the UK economy £60 billion a year—the equivalent of 1.5% to 2% of GDP—through lost productivity. That is on top of the economic costs of heat-related mortality, estimated to already be £6.4 billion per year in England, which is likely to increase to £14.7 billion per year by the 2050s. These are huge figures. As highlighted by the Climate Change Committee, “early adaptation investments deliver high value for money”, with every £1 invested in adaptation delivering £10 in net economic benefits. That is a huge rate of return and a huge benefit-cost ratio. As heard by the Environmental Audit Committee, passive measures supported through planning, such as installing external shutters, can reduce incidence of heat mortality by around 40%. Given the urgency, I draw the Committee’s attention to a regrettable decision made more than a decade ago. In 2012, the coalition Government removed references to “overheating” from the national planning policy framework. This left a significant gap in our planning system’s ability to deal with overheating risks—one that has not been adequately addressed since. That is precisely why we need the new clauses. There are five in the group, each of which deals with a particular element that needs addressing, and I will go through them now. New clause 77 would empower local authorities to impose conditions on planning permissions where there is demonstrable overheating risk, such as single-aspect flatted developments with no cross-ventilation. It is a targeted, proportionate provision that would allow planning authorities to respond to local climatic data with appropriate preventive conditions, and it would undo the short-sighted change introduced by the previous Government. New clause 78 would introduce statutory guidance on the cooling hierarchy, an approach that is already familiar in London planning policy. The hierarchy prioritises passive design strategies, such as shading and ventilation, before resorting to energy-intensive cooling. This aligns with our net zero goals and ensures resilience, without placing undue burden on developers and the grid. Why would we not ensure that our buildings can effectively cool themselves before going to measures such as installing air conditioning? New clause 79 would address a significant gap by requiring all full planning applications for residential developments to include an overheating risk assessment, using the established TM59 standard, or its successor, from the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers. At present, many new homes are being designed with large, south-facing windows, poor ventilation and inadequate shading. Building regulations alone do not capture this risk at the early design stage, so the planning system must intervene. Overheating is a planning issue, not just a building regulations issue. Building regulations govern how buildings are constructed; planning dictates what gets built and where.

• 22 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clause 91 would require the submission of embodied carbon assessments for larger developments as part of the planning process. It is a practical, forward-looking measure that I think will make a significant difference. It has been called for widely by industry, and indeed by parliamentarians, for some years, and it relates to a critical and currently unregulated area of the UK’s built environment emissions. The new clause would require planning applications for development only over a certain size to include an embodied carbon assessment, and it would provide for the Secretary of State to approve a methodology, issue guidance on how the assessments should be carried out, and establish a centralised reporting platform. Crucially, it would require that local planning authorities consider these assessments as a material factor when reviewing an application. Embodied carbon refers to the emissions associated with materials and construction processes throughout the whole life cycle of a building or of infrastructure. This is typically from any processes, materials or products used to construct, maintain, repair, refurbish or repurpose a building. The UK Green Building Council estimates that the UK releases around 60 million tonnes of embodied carbon per year. That is more than aviation and shipping combined, and it accounts for over 10% of UK emissions. This is really significant. As I mentioned on a previous day, as we become more efficient in the operational carbon in our buildings, the embodied carbon in them becomes an increasingly significant part of the carbon reduction challenge in the building sector. Embodied carbon has not substantially reduced over the last 30 years, unlike operational carbon, despite initiatives to decarbonise material manufacturing. Unlike operational carbon, which can be regulated through building performance standards, embodied carbon remains unaddressed by policy. As a result, decisions with very significant long-term climate implications are being made every day without a consistent framework for assessing their carbon impact. It is a huge unregulated problem. The new clause seeks to close that gap in a measured and industry-ready way. It would not impose a burden on small-scale development—only major schemes, where carbon savings from early design choices are both most impactful and most achievable. It would buils on existing tools and industry momentum, and industry actually really wants this. There are already widely used standards and guidance available, including the whole life carbon assessment guidance from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the UK net zero carbon buildings standard and the embodied carbon primer from the London Energy Transformation Initiative. Many local authorities, such as the Greater London Authority, Bristol and Manchester, have begun requiring whole life carbon assessment as part of planning. Embedding this requirement in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would provide clarity and consistency, saving time and minimising potential legal challenge by ensuring that planning authorities are demonstrably committing to the fulfilment of statutory climate duties. It would empower local planning authorities to make more informed, balanced decisions that take account of our legally binding net zero commitments and provide a consistent policy environment in which developers can operate. This next bit is really important: there is strong consensus from industry that there is a need for this requirement to be widespread. Over 140 organisations have signed up to Part Z, a proposal developed by industry that calls for embodied carbon regulation. The industry is ahead of the politicians on this, and they are calling for it. This new clause requires a central database and consistent measurement framework to streamline and simplify the current diversity of approaches. Standardisation of embodied carbon measurement is a major priority, with leading industry organisations—such as UKGBC, the Royal Institute of British Architects, CIBSE, the Institution of Structural Engineers and RICS—calling for a national framework to ensure consistency between planning authorities. Importantly—this is my final paragraph—this new clause aligns with the Bill’s aim to accelerate the delivery of housing and infrastructure while ensuring that the system is fit for future needs. The decisions that we make today about what we build and how we build it will lock in emissions for decades. This new clause is not a barrier to development: it is a tool to build better, more responsibly, more efficiently and more sustainably. It enables early intervention, supports innovation and ensures that the carbon cost of our buildings is not ignored in the rush to meet targets. It is pragmatic, proportionate and backed by industry. If the Minister is not inclined to accept the new clause, I would very much welcome a meeting with him to discuss how we can ensure that embodied carbon is taken forward and we use Government policy to address this important issue.

• 22 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am somewhat reassured that the Minister recognises the severity of the problem. None the less, I maintain that there is need and scope to go further in ensuring that the planning system specifically enables us to address this issue. In the interests of gently encouraging the Minister further in the direction of tackling overheating, I will press this new clause to a vote. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.