Ellie Chowns MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I plead with the hon. Member not to press the amendment to a vote, in the interests of time and also because I cannot vote for his amendment proactively, because I think it is even more poorly written than the text it is trying to replace, so can we— [ Laughter .]

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to say something further, but not specifically as an intervention.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Although I take the Minister’s point that there is nothing to prevent strategic planning authorities from making provision for protecting chalk streams, there is not anything to ensure that all the strategic planning authorities in which chalk streams exist will definitely take those measures. I am going to be tabling further amendments later about irreplaceable habitats. I am not in the habit of proposing amendments about every single specific ecosystem, but chalk streams specifically have global significance and are cross-border in nature, and the spatial planning strategies offer a huge opportunity to tackle the issue head-on. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister and other hon. Members for their comments; I would like to push the amendment to a vote. I agree with the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on the importance of including the word “significant”, but as the Minister says, we will come on to that later. I recognise the importance of chalk streams and blanket bogs, but they are not the only habitats that should be protected, which is why I think my amendment is clearer and more comprehensive. It incorporates the issues that were raised by the hon. Member. The Minister argued that my amendment is not required because there are existing protections for irreplaceable habitats, but he indicated that there could be some grey areas, for example where certain features of irreplaceable habitats, such as particular creatures or aspects, are considered as part of EDPs. That creates an unhelpful greyness and is concerning. The Minister mentioned the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection. That advice has caused me considerable concern. The OEP is worried by several aspects of the Bill and states: “In our considered view, the bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law”, so it would undermine protections that are currently in place. The OEP states: “As drafted, the provisions are a regression. This is particularly so for England’s most important wildlife—those habitats and species protected under the Habitats Regulations.” That says very clearly that changes are urgently needed to part 3 of the Bill. If we cannot amend part 3 to protect irreplaceable habitats, what hope do we have of tackling other issues? This is very important, and I would like to push the amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Sorry, but did we just vote on amendments 72, 75 and 82?

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Marvellous! These amendments have been tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), and I speak to them as probing amendments. Amendment 17 “requires strategic planning authorities to include a specific housing density in their plans which ensures land is used effectively where it is considered strategically important.” In our previous debate, we discussed questions of housing density. This amendment would help ensure land is used as effectively and efficiently as possible and prevent urban sprawl by encouraging strategic planning strategies to specify the optimal level of housing densities. It is not about specifying particular levels of housing densities but making sure that, in the preparation of strategic plans, adequate attention is given to the question of housing density. That has a couple of benefits. First, it prevents unnecessary encroachment on green spaces, which, as I think we all agree, are so important—not just for nature protection but human wellbeing. It is also about ensuring that developments themselves have the life they need to succeed. The hon. Member for Barking made the point about the facilities, size and density of communities being at the critical mass to generate liveable communities. That means enough people to provide transport infrastructure and services, for example. That is particularly relevant, as obviously our vital targets for decarbonisation require a modal shift away from short car journeys and towards active travel and public transport. Those forms of transport are especially supported by increasing housing density, so I would very much welcome the Minister’s comments on that. Amendment 94 is concerned with the definition of affordable housing in clause 47, and suggests that, for the purposes of the clause, “affordable housing” should be considered to mean “social rent housing.” In our debate yesterday, it was pointed out that so-called affordable housing should be done only with air quotes around it, because so often it is not anywhere close to being affordable. We have, however, already set out in existing legislation and guidance what social rent housing means. The reality is that in our housing market, social rented housing is the most affordable form of housing by far. In the context of a housing crisis and an increasingly and incredibly unequal housing market, it is crucial that when we set strategic plans to create affordable housing, that housing must be genuinely affordable. That has to mean social rent. I very much look forward to the Minister’s comments.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Are we not having three more votes?

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I rise to speak to amendments 17 and 94. Can you clarify this is the correct time to do so?

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment made: 49, in clause 45, page 58, line 15, at end insert— “(7A) This section applies in relation to a relevant planning function conferred on a mineral planning authority as if references to a local planning authority were to a mineral planning authority in England.”— (Matthew Pennycook.) This amendment has the effect that (if regulations under inserted section 319ZZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are made) members of a mineral planning authority in England who have not completed any training required by the regulations will be prohibited from exercising certain mineral planning functions on behalf of the authority. Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 46 Delegation of planning decisions in England

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I did not prepare anything in advance—apologies—but I do think it is important for the Committee to consider amendment 152, tabled by an hon. Member from another party. The amendment asks the Government to consider using the opportunity offered by the Bill to ensure that the training provided—which is essential for those involved in planning decisions, whether elected members or officers—includes a specific focus on accessibility. This is a really important issue. If we are to be an inclusive and equitable society, it is vital that planning decisions are made in a way that takes into account the importance of accessibility. It is also an increasing issue. We are an ageing society: in 2022, 19% of our population was over the age of 65, but in 50 years’ time that will be 27%—half as many people again. We know that disability is associated with age; we know that 45% of people over the age of 65 report a disability, and half of those disabilities are mobility-related. So, accessibility of buildings—accessibility of all the areas that come within the remit of planning decisions—is a crucial aspect. I ask the Minister to comment on the suggestion made in amendment 152. Does he recognise the importance of these issues? Would he consider taking this away and exploring whether the clause could be amended to make this minor but important additional change, to ensure that all planning decisions going forward recognise the importance of accessibility?

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely recognise that we have a housing crisis in this country, but does the hon. Lady recognise, in turn, that it is not just a question of building our way out of the housing crisis? Does she recognise that we have nearly 1 million empty homes in this country, that we have an incredibly unequal housing system, and that financial mechanisms such as the introduction of buy-to-let mortgages had a huge effect in making our housing system even more unequal and unaffordable for many people? Does she recognise that a key part of resolving the housing crisis has to be for Government to take a more direct role in funding the development of more genuinely affordable social rented housing?

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 152, in clause 45, page 58, line 3, at end insert— “(c) require that any training accredited under this section includes content on— (i) inclusive design principles in the built environment; (ii) the requirements and intent of Approved Document M, Volume 1: Dwellings of the Building Regulations 2010, with particular emphasis on the M4(2) accessible and adaptable standard and the M4(3) wheelchair user standard; (iii) the requirements and intent of Approved Document B of the Building Regulations 2010; (d) require that all members, elected members, and officers of a relevant local planning authority who carry out any function relevant to planning undertake mandatory training comprising the content set out in paragraph (c).”

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Logically, we could divide by the number of miles of transmission infrastructure in each community.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister, and I absolutely recognise the importance of the principle of community benefit. However, would he not agree with me that it becomes problematic if we put in specific numbers, such as £250 or £1,000 a year? Inflation will change what that means, so is it not more relevant and logical to place a requirement more like the amendment advocated by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, which talks about a community dividend that is in proportion to the revenues generated by the project rather than an absolute number?

• 8 May 2025 · Nature-friendly Farming · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of the Green party, on this special day of commemoration, I join colleagues from across the House in paying tribute to all those who sacrificed so much to resist and defeat fascism 80 years ago. I thank the Minister for his response. We have indeed discussed these issues before and will continue to do so, I am sure. At the weekend, I spent time on two farms in my constituency—at both I met groups of farmers, including members of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, who told me of their huge frustration at being let down by the Government’s policy on farming and the lack of support. They recognise how vital farming is, including the transition to nature-friendly farming, for this country’s food security, nature protection and climate action. Does he agree with the farmers in my constituency about how vital the transition to nature-friendly farming is for those issues, and will he give us a date for when he will introduce such policies—

• 8 May 2025 · Nature-friendly Farming · Hansard source

  More

  9. Whether he plans to improve support for nature-friendly farming.

• 7 May 2025 · India-Pakistan: Escalation · Hansard source

  More

  Given the significance and frightening ramifications of further tensions and instability between these two nuclear-armed neighbours, I agree with the Minister that de-escalation and diplomacy are the absolute priority. Can he tell the House whether he has sought assurances that UK-manufactured weapons and military equipment have not been used in attacks against civilians? Can I ask him now to explicitly rule out supplying any UK-made weaponry to either side, in a bid to increase the pressure on all parties to engage in much-needed dialogue?

• 6 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday’s report from the Health and Social Care Committee is explicit that we cannot build an NHS fit for the future without effectively reforming social care. Back in January, the Secretary of State promised cross-party talks as well as Baroness Casey’s commission. He cannot outsource political leadership to Baroness Casey. Political will is the sticking point with the reform of social care. Will he show that leadership and bring the parties together to find the solutions to unblock this crisis?

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to speak in this debate commemorating VE Day, which is of great significance to many in my constituency, where a significant proportion of the population are veterans or from military families. The Royal British Legion has encouraged us to ensure that the stories of veterans are at the centre of our commemoration events this week, so I would like to share the story of my grandfather, James Paterson, who was a navigator on a Stirling bomber. On 16 August 1943, his plane was shot down in south-east France. Only two of the crew of seven survived—my grandfather was one of them. He was rescued by the Resistance in the area of Ambérieu and was saved by three families, who hid him at great personal risk—in the town, and in the forest and the hills nearby. Eventually, four months later, he was smuggled out, over the Pyrenees, to safety. Without the bravery of those families, my mother would never have been born and I would not be here today. I pay a special tribute to Marius and Jeanne Lapierre, who hid my grandfather in their bakery. In 2014, my father’s research reconnected my family with the Lapierres and we have since remained in contact. Last year, I was honoured to visit Monique Lapierre—one of the daughters of the family, after whom my aunt is named—who has since sadly died. As we remember this week the bravery of all those, like my grandfather, who fought in the armed forces for freedom in Europe, let us also remember the bravery—often unsung—of those, like the Lapierres, who fought and resisted in so many different ways at great personal risk to themselves and their children, to save the lives of strangers. Let us all hope that we would do the same. As we challenge the forces of the far right, and as we recognise and remember the resistance 80 years ago of those who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend Europe against Nazism, let the memory of all those who showed such bravery never be forgotten.

• 1 May 2025 · Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries · Hansard source

  More

  Given the huge economic and environmental effects of burning fossil fuels, it is clear that the future of energy has to be clean, green, cheap renewables, plus energy efficiency. All of us who care about fact-based, truth-based politics should call out the outrageous misinformation from those who suggest that net zero is the reason for high energy prices, when it clearly is not. Gas prices have gone through the roof in recent years, and we all know why: because of Putin’s outrageous invasion of Ukraine. That is why companies and businesses are struggling. There are two specific things that the Government can and should do to help precisely those businesses: first, decouple the price of electricity from gas so that the true costs of generating electricity are reflected in the price that consumers pay; and secondly, implement a carbon tax in order to be able to use those revenues to assist industries to make the just transition from fossil fuels to the clean, green, cheap energies of the future.

• 1 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  This week, an important report was published on the topic of climate change—not the one by the formerly high-profile politician whose consultancy has done work for major fossil fuel producers such as Saudi Arabia, but the one published by the Committee on Climate Change yesterday on adaptation. That report pointed out that this country’s approach to adaptation is not working and needs urgent strengthening, and that we are woefully unprepared for the reality of the impacts of climate change, which are already with us and will get worse, especially if the flat-earthers who seek to deny it and to change policy direction get their way. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make a statement recognising the urgency of adaptation and committing in the spending review to the funding needed to make the country resilient to the heat stress and flooding that will inevitably follow if we do not tackle the reality of the climate crisis?

• 1 May 2025 · Trade Agreements · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps his Department is taking to negotiate trade agreements with the UK’s main trading partners.

• 1 May 2025 · Trade Agreements · Hansard source

  More

  Given the utter unreliability and, frankly, economic illiteracy of President Trump, and given that the EU is by far our largest trading partner, it is clear that the best interests of the UK are served by our having a deal that allows the closest possible co-ordination with the EU. Does the Minister agree with me that that should cover youth mobility, and improved energy and climate co-operation? Specifically, will he work with his colleagues to ensure that we ease burdens for British business by linking the UK and EU emissions trading schemes, and by aligning on chemicals regulation, to boost British productivity and prosperity?