Ellie Chowns MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I had come to the end, but I give way.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am aware that Cavendish is a consultancy company. It is perfectly reasonable to make that observation. Most people—I mean, pretty much anyone—who will ever give evidence or produce a report will have some sort of interest. We are not saying that anyone who works in the planning system in any way cannot have a viewpoint that is objective, evidence-based and so forth. There are clear examples of processes that have got stuck. I am concerned not only about unsticking the planning process, but about the proposal to let the pendulum swing too far away from the opportunity to have meaningful pre-application consultation that could be more effective than waiting until things bang up against each other further on in the process.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I would observe that generally speaking the way oral evidence sessions work is that the Government decide who they want to come and give evidence to support the arguments that they wish to put forward in Committee, so I am not all that surprised that we might have heard that evidence. I am not discounting what the witness said, but I am suggesting that there are other ways to look at it. A blanket removal of the pre-app consultation process with stakeholders who have a huge stake in applications, such as local authorities, is an excessively blanket position to take.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, as I should have said earlier. There are three reasons why I, too, have concerns about new clauses 44 and 45 and the removal of the requirement for pre-application consultation. First, pre-application consultation is often a very useful process, as a way of highlighting and addressing issues between developers and other stakeholders before we get to the formal, structured, legalistic processes. There was a case in Suffolk in which engagement between the Wildlife Trust and National Grid resulted in the trust’s concerns being addressed in such a way that they did not have to be raised in a more legalistic way later in the process. Pre-application consultation is useful and productive for all parties. It is not for developers to decide whether pre-application consultation will be useful in a particular case, but there should be a statutory requirement for key stakeholders, such as local authorities, to be consulted in that way. My second concern is that the replacement guidance requirements set out in new clause 45 do not provide sufficient clarity for developers, communities and other stakeholders, or for the Planning Inspectorate, on what pre-application engagement is required specifically, because the wording is too vague to provide sufficient clarity. “Have regard to” is a relatively weak duty, while “what the Secretary of State considers to be best practice in terms of the steps they might take” is very vague language. It would be open to interpretation and potentially to contestation, which could be unhelpful to speeding up the process in the way we seek. My third concern, notwithstanding individual examples of processes that might have been held up, is that generally speaking pre-application consultation and public engagement is not the main constraint on the rapid processing of such applications. I understand that research conducted by Cavendish in 2024 looked at DCO consent times from 2011 to 2023. It found that for the first 70 projects going through the DCO process up until 2017, the response time was pretty reasonable. What changed in 2017? It was not the pre-application consultation requirements, which remained the same throughout the process. Political chaos is what caused the change. Cavendish’s report identifies that it was political turmoil and manoeuvring that caused delays to happen once projects reached the Secretary of State’s desk—I see my Conservative colleague, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, nodding. Who was in government at that time? We had the turnover of Prime Ministers, Ministers and so forth. Bearing all that in mind—the fact that pre-application consultation is a very useful way of deconflicting issues of contestation, the fact that the replacement guidance is so vague as to be unhelpful and itself probably subject to test, and the fact that this is the wrong solution to the problem of delays—I am concerned.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to take as many interventions as hon. Members want to make, but I am concerned about the timing, Mrs Hobhouse.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  If Members feel that they have additional things to raise, they should feel free to speak.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed, and I noted the hon. Gentleman’s comments about bringing forward a proposal about meaningful consultation. I would very much welcome looking at that. I think that would help to address the concerns being raised here.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for reminding us that we are talking about a specific amendment to a specific clause about a specific thing. But the issue that is at stake here was communicated by his complaint that parliamentary process might slow things down. Surely, the whole point of Parliament is to make our laws. I am worried by the implication that Government see Parliament as a hindrance to getting things done, rather than as a crucial part of scrutiny and checks and balances. If the Minister has concerns about timescales, it is perfectly achievable to address those by setting timeframes. But the removal of the clause that requires the Government to pay attention to the views of cross-party Committees scrutinising particular statements is concerning.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I addressed those points in my comments. I am not disputing the fact that there are individual cases in which huge amounts of time have been spent. In response to the comments from the hon. Member for Glasgow East, I am not dismissing the evidence from the witness he referred to, but I have offered evidence from a report that looked at the whole spectrum of applications from 2011 onwards, which says that the representation of nature and community in pre-application requirements is not the underlying causal problem. These issues are really complex. There is always a tendency to pick a particular example where the situation has clearly been problematic. I am not disputing the fact that some change may be needed. My argument is that it seems excessive to bring in a blanket policy and shift the pendulum too far away from the opportunity to use the pre-application consultation process to resolve issues that might clog up the process later on, because the requirement for meaningful consultation has been removed. Planning applications will always be contested, but these measures take it too far and sweep aside the rights of communities and organisations representing nature to have their voices heard, as well as the opportunity to resolve conflicts before they reach a legalistic stage.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think that anybody wants “years and years” of contest, but is it impossible to retain the requirement for a degree of pre-application consultation—perhaps within a shorter timescale or with a more tightly drawn set of consultees—so that issues can be dealt with informally and in advance, to prevent more problems arising further down the line? To sweep everything away seems excessive.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q It says on the front of the Bill that the Secretary of State has determined that “the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law.” You have spoken about how you think that there will be improvements. Are you absolutely confident that that holds, and that there is no way in which the Bill could result in a reduction in environmental protection—for example, in relation to irreplaceable habitats? Marian Spain: I am trying awfully hard not to say that that is something for Parliament to be keeping a close eye on as the Bill goes through. There are risks. This is a very different system, and it will be embedded in legislation—theoretically, in perpetuity. Again with our colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, we are watching issues that are being raised by others, including by parliamentarians and the third sector. We are conscious that the Bill needs to have those robust safeguards, and there may be drafting amendments that make those even more robust. The basic premise of the Bill is clear, as I have said already—that basic idea that the plans can be approved by the Secretary of State only if he or she is satisfied. The bit that we want to keep an open mind on, however, is the fact that we need to have a system that is robust enough and has those safeguards, but that also allows flexibility in how we operate it for years to come. Nature is changing in the way it responds to climate change. Society is recognising that it needs different things from nature, with nature-based solutions to climate change and more nature for health and wellbeing, as well as just the protection of rare species. There is something about getting that balance right to have a system that is workable in a place, and that is adaptable to what a community needs and to a particular development, but that maintains that overall aim to make nature better.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you feel that the Bill will deliver a sufficiently strategic approach to national infrastructure? Are there elements still missing that you feel would enable that? Sir John Armitt: It is worth saying first that the Government have announced that they intend to publish a 10-year infrastructure strategy later this year. That will be the first since 2020. We are working with Government Departments on that at the moment, but it is vital that there is a clear, long-term infrastructure strategy. As Robbie said, the other key ingredients to implement that strategy are the national policy statements related to the different sectors, and the regular updating of them. We recently went almost 10 years without an update on the energy strategy. In rewriting that strategy, the challenge is that you start with a large strategic ambition that can be contained in half a page and, if you are not careful, you finish with 25 pages that follow on and set out all the ways in which that ambition must be satisfied while dealing with environmental, community or any other concerns. The challenge will remain that we are trying to do two or three things at once here: we are trying to deliver major economic growth and infrastructure that will enable us to be resilient, to deal with climate change, to reduce the impacts of carbon and so on, while also recognising that local people will always have concerns about the impact of that infrastructure on their lives, and the—in a sense—compensation that they may face from that. We have a live debate at the moment about whether we should all pay a different rate for our electricity according to whether we are close to the generating infrastructure or not. There are many ways these issues could be addressed, and they will not be simple. We should not kid ourselves that we are going to wave a magic wand and all of a sudden everything will change. We are a very democratic society; we are not like others who can steamroller these things through. That is the major challenge, and I argue that that challenge sits, in the first place, with the promoter. The promoter has to get out there and be willing to be open and frank about what they see as the opportunities, broad advantages and local challenges, and demonstrate a willingness to enter into relevant consultation with local people. At the end of the day, there will be people who do not change their minds. Noting some of the remarks that Robbie made, you will always need the Minister to have the ability to step in when appropriate and make the appropriate decision, given the scale of the challenge.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q To Minister Pennycook, I welcome your confirmation that you recognise that environmental, social and economic goals can be achieved together, and are not automatically or even frequently in contradiction with each other. Likewise, I welcome your confirmation that, as it says in the Bill, the purpose of the Government in bringing forward the Bill is to retain the existing level of environmental protections. Given that commitment from the Government, given Richard Benwell’s observation that there are risks that could be addressed through amendments and given Marian Spain’s comments—that the Bill needs robust safeguards and that drafting amendments may make it more robust—I return to the question that Mr Murphy asked. Can you confirm that you retain an open mind and that you may consider tabling further Government amendments in response to the concerns raised, so that the Bill does what you are saying it does on the tin? Matthew Pennycook: I appreciate the question. To reiterate—and this is where I slightly disagree with Mr Benwell and others—we are very clear that the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protections, in terms of existing environmental law. We are very clear about that, and confident in the safeguards that exist in the Bill. I am happy to look at any amendment, and we will in the normal course of the Bill Committee; we will debate each of them in turn and I will keep an open mind about any that we think is feasible, workable, aligns with the objectives of the Bill and delivers what we want to see—absolutely. We will debate all of those in due course. As you rightly made clear, we tabled a package of Government amendments yesterday. To bring it back to the specific point, some of those amendments on removing the statutory requirement for pre-applications consultation in relation to national significant infrastructure projects were tabled partly because we were getting feedback through the working paper, and also because there were a number of calls on Second Reading for us to specifically look at that area of reform. As you would expect in the normal course of the Bill, we will respond to challenge, criticism, scrutiny and any amendments, which we will debate in due course.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Indeed, that is one of the Government’s fundamental principles, isn’t it? For consistency, that would need to be the case, if the Bill is to do what it says on the tin, which is not reduce environmental protections. Richard Benwell: We have a “polluters possibly pay” principle here, a “maybe prevent” principle with the mitigation hierarchy, and the overall improvement test is a “possibly improve” test. All the way around, those fundamental principles are brought into doubt by the ways in which the Bill is drafted, particularly for species protection, where these are least appropriate.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q On the first part of my question, what do you think the purpose of planning should be? Faraz Baber: Planning is there to help, for want of a better phrase, with the placemaking and the delivery, and to ensure that there are guidelines for how plan making should take place. It is there to ensure that the various levers associated with the plan-making process and the development process are understood. Planning is the guardian that ensures that sustainable development can come forward. Victoria Hills: One of the most important questions that anybody—elected leaders or executive leaders—can ask is “Why?” Why are we doing it? What is it all about? What is the purpose of this Bill? What is the purpose of planning? That is why we think it is essential, within the realms of this Bill, that a public purpose of planning is stated up front. You do not have to take our word for it. Our research published yesterday shows that the vast majority of the public do not have a clue what planning is. They do not know what it is for, and if you are going to drive through a major reform programme for planning, the likes of which we have not seen for 15 years, it might be a good idea if we are very clear on what the purpose of planning is. For us, the purpose is really clear; at a strategic level, it is about the long-term public interest, the common good and the future wellbeing of communities. You need to be open and honest with the public up front that all this change that is coming in planning and infrastructure is actually for the long-term common good. Some of it people may not like in the short term, but we are talking about the long-term common good— delivering on climate, delivering on sustainable development goals and delivering for communities. We think it is really important that the opportunity is not missed, not only to help inform the public and everybody else who needs to know what the purpose of planning is but to provide that north star, that guiding star, as to the why. Why are we doing this? What purpose does it have? Thank you for your question. We are absolutely clear that having a public purpose of planning is really important for this legislation, and we will continue to make that case.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Two of my questions have already been asked, so I will ask one more to Richard Benwell—apologies to the other witnesses. In addition to bringing back the mitigation hierarchy, you talk about the need to make sure that polluters really pay. Can you elaborate on that? Richard Benwell: Let me see whether I can winkle out my clause numbers. Clause 62 requires the EDP levies to be set at a level that takes into account the viability test, and we all know how often viability gives wriggle room for developers. Our view is that the level of levy payments should be enough to secure the compensatory measures needed to go further than remediating the damage caused to nature. Again, when you look further, you will find the provisions say that the levy needs to cover “wholly or partly” the amount needed to remediate that damage. That could lead to dangerous situations where you are cross-subsidising developers for harm to nature from other pots of money, such as farming funds. It would make far more sense to have a straight-up “polluter pays” principle, where developers pay for the cost of remediating the harm they cause to nature.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q But you are saying that these are easily fixable through amendment. They are not devastating to the Bill, in principle. Richard Benwell: They can be fixed, but we know it will take bravery and leadership from the Government. We hope that Ministers will go for it and the House will unite behind those changes.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q To follow on from that, Mr Ellis, what do you think the purpose of planning should be, and do you think it should be written into the Bill? Hugh Ellis: Since 1947, the greatest absence in all planning reform measures has been that we do not know what the system is for. The current round of reforms raises that question profoundly. The purpose should be sustainable development. We are signatories to the UN charter, and key concepts around sustainable development do not feature in the national planning policy framework. Those are really crucial ones about social justice, inclusion, environmental limits and precautionary principles. Those are all key to giving the planning system a purpose. That purpose is crucial pragmatically, because across the sector we need to know what the system is for, so that we can have confidence in it. It is also crucial to understand that the system has long-term goals, future generations being one of them, and addressing the climate crisis being another. Within three to five years, the repeated impacts from climate change will be the dominant political issue we confront, and we need a system that works for that, as well as for housing growth. Faraz Baber: Whether it should be in the Bill or in an NPPF-style document is more about whether people are able to know what planning is and how that is communicated. I do not necessarily believe that that has to be enshrined in the Bill, but it certainly should be clear, whether it is in the national planning policy framework, a local plan or a spatial development strategy, so that people—by which I mean all those who interact with the planning system—can know what planning is about and what it means for them. I feel that a Bill, and ultimately an Act, is the wrong place for it to be enshrined.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. That is precisely the thrust of my argument. Over the last three decades, shareholders have extracted £83 billion in dividends. They have invested effectively less than nothing, because the share capital and retained earnings in those companies are now lower than they were at the time of privatisation. The capital investment has been taken out of customer bills, yet customers are still paying through the nose. A professor at the University of Greenwich—I have his report here—has shown that the cost of the investment needed in the water industry would be much lower under public ownership than under private ownership. It is clear that, ultimately, public ownership is the only way to gain the control needed to ensure that this essential public utility works for the public benefit, yet the Labour party is unfortunately not willing to consider it. The Government have the power to bring failing companies into special administration via the High Court, but during the passage of the Water (Special Measures) Act, the Minister said: “Special administration must be a last resort, as it has significant consequences for a company’s investors.” –– [ Official Report, Water (Special Measures) Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2025; c. 96.] That speaks volumes about who the Government think our water industry is for. It is not for those so-called investors—actually extractors—who have taken out so many dividends paid for by debt while neglecting our infrastructure and killing our waterways with sewage. There should be significant consequences for them. The people of this country—the British people—do not want their water to be investable: they want it to be clean, reliable, affordable and in public hands. Public ownership is the key element of the solution to the sewage scandal.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for bringing this important debate to the House. As the Secretary of State said, we are all in furious agreement that the condition of our rivers, lakes and seas is an absolute scandal. It would be remiss of me not to point out that the problem is not just due to sewage, as the Minister knows. As colleagues have mentioned, agricultural pollution is a key factor in the condition of our rivers, lakes and seas, and we cannot fix the problem without addressing both sewage and agricultural pollution together. However, today’s subject is sewage, so I will focus on that. Turning to the motion before us, I am not against introducing a blue flag system for rivers and streams, but that is just tinkering around the edges of a broken system. A shortage of flags and targets is not the problem. Last year, the Environment Agency gave the water companies a collective target of a 40% reduction in sewage incidents, but what did we have? A 30% increase. Monitoring and targets are not enough if there is no meaningful action or sanction. I understand that the water companies have well over 1,000 criminal convictions between them—some companies have over 100 convictions—but they are still getting away with it. At the same time, bills are going through the roof by an average of over 20% in a single year, and by even more for rural constituents, including mine. It is the bill payers, not the shareholders, who are paying the price. Customer bills provide an average of 35% of company revenue to pay the financial costs—the dividends to shareholders and the interest on loans—of the privatised water and sewerage companies in England and Wales. In the case of Scottish Water, a publicly owned company that may have other problems, those costs amounted to just 8% of revenue from consumer bills.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Domestic Violence: Bail Conditions · Hansard source

  More

  7. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of policies applying to bail conditions in domestic violence cases.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Domestic Violence: Bail Conditions · Hansard source

  More

  I raise this issue following a meeting with a constituent whose case raises deep concerns that are more widely relevant. First, bail conditions—sometimes weak, sometimes poorly enforced—do not always protect victims of domestic violence from further harassment by their abuser. Secondly, despite the increase in the time limit to two years under the 2022 regulations, the six-month limit for prosecutions means that some cases time out. Will the Minister meet me and my constituent to discuss what more can be done to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are fully protected from their abusers?

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Steel is strategically vital for the UK and the foundation of our industry. We could and should be producing much more of it domestically. Steel is also integral to the green industrial transformation that is essential for our future. Wind turbines, trains, rail tracks and electric vehicles are key elements of the sustainable future for our economy. The Green party believes that public ownership is the best solution in this case, because only public ownership would give us the control that we need to ensure a proper strategic, long-term plan for the renewal of the steel industry not just in Scunthorpe but nationally. None the less, we will be supporting the Bill. We do, however, need to think long term. We have an opportunity to reprocess far more of our waste steel to feed our industry, instead of exporting it. We have an opportunity to use the skills of the communities in places such as Scunthorpe to drive that green industrial transformation. Moreover, the Government have an opportunity, a need and a duty to use not just this Bill but the other levers that are available to them to support this crucial strategic industry. As the Secretary of State has just acknowledged, electricity prices, because they are locked to gas prices, are kept too high. We need to decouple electricity from gas. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) mentioned, we should be introducing the carbon border adjustment mechanism at the same time as the EU—a year earlier than currently planned—to protect our steel industry. We should be making use of anti-dumping mechanisms to prevent the dumping of steel that is sold on the global market at below cost price. We should be using industrial and innovation policies to support the development of innovations—which were referred to by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), who clearly knows a great deal about the industry—that will be the future of the steel industry. We cannot just patch up our old technology. We should be looking to the future and considering what innovations we need to produce clean, green steel as the foundation for that green industrial transformation?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians · Hansard source

  More

  In solidarity, Green party MPs share in the condemnation—which should be fully cross-party—of the Israeli Government’s shameful detention and deportation of our two Labour MP colleagues. In the context of the widespread evidence of war crimes, does the Minister agree that this demonstrates that international scrutiny of what is happening in Israel and Palestine is ever more important? Noting that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister have condemned the actions of the Israeli Government, may I ask him which of the many actions that I have previously challenged him to take, will he now take, to show that actions speak louder than words? How will he make our disapproval really clear?