Ellie Chowns MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  I will use my contribution to do two things: first, to reiterate that international law and human rights are absolutely critical, and secondly, to reflect on the responsibilities that they impose on the UK and on our wider responsibilities as parliamentarians and citizens. International law and human rights frameworks are vital guiding principles. The terrorist atrocities of 7 October were a clear and obscene violation of those principles. Every single person responsible for those horrors must be held to account, and every life taken or damaged must never be forgotten. Equally, the collective punishment of the people of Gaza is also a clear and obscene violation of international law and breaches basic human rights. We see mass atrocities, displacement, deliberate starvation, the indiscriminate bombing of hospitals, withholding access to water and medical supplies, and the targeting of journalists and aid convoys. We must call what has been happening in Gaza what it is: genocide. In the occupied west bank, we have seen the violent expansion of illegal settlements, ethnic cleansing, the execution of children, detention without trial, people forced to live under apartheid and settler terrorism. All of that has been happening for decades, but it is worse since 7 October, with Prime Minister Netanyahu emboldened by the current US President. Political leaders have largely fallen short when it comes to holding the Israeli Government to account for their human rights crimes and their flagrant disregard for international law, but policial leaders come and go. Meanwhile the international courts get on with their work upholding the standards and the UN resolutions that the world has collectively agreed. We need political leadership and we need it to be guided by international law and human rights frameworks, so it was hugely welcome to hear the Secretary of State last week recognise the 2024 ICJ conclusion that the occupation of Palestine is illegal, reiterate the illegality of expansionist settlements and take the vital first step of banning trade with and advertising of those illegal settlements. Their illegality is absolutely clear under international law. The UK has done the right thing in recognising the role of international law and human rights standards, and it is starting to act accordingly, but genuine respect for international law and human rights means we cannot pick and choose. Suspending the licences of some arms used by the IDF in Gaza and the licensing of other arms and exports that materially contribute to the occupation makes a difference, but the double lock that the Government have announced does not include components for the F-35 combat aircraft that, according to Campaign Against The Arms Trade, is the most substantive part of the UK’s arms trade with Israel. It cannot be beyond the wit of officialdom to find a way of tracing these parts, so that they are not used. The UK remains complicit in Israel’s genocidal war crimes until it ends its role in supporting Israeli forces. I urge the UK Government to be consistent in their commitment to the legal and human rights frameworks that underpin their recent decisions. I welcome the steps they have taken, but it is too little, too late and there is much more to be done. Secondly, I want to reflect on the wider responsibilities that we all have, especially as parliamentarians, in the context of rising hate crime and growing divisions in our communities. We each have a responsibility to show leadership, to stand against antisemitism, to stand against Islamophobia, not to conflate criticism of the Israeli Government with antisemitism and to call it out when we see others doing that, not to hold the Jewish people responsible for the actions of the Israeli authorities or the ideologies that drive them, and not to hold Palestinians responsible for the actions of Hamas. We have a responsibility to recognise the many ways in which those who advocate for Palestine are defamed, often as antisemitic, as a way of shutting down or silencing their advocacy, and to recognise the damage that that does by distracting from critical work identifying and confronting antisemitism, which is so crucial at a time when attacks on Jewish communities and Jewish spaces in this country and around the world are increasing. We have a responsibility to recognise anti-Palestinian racism and the multiple ways it manifests itself in our politics and society: a responsibility to stop putting people in boxes, to stop defining them as either allies or enemies with nothing in between, and a responsibility to resist the whipping up of hatred and the way in which nuance, understanding and compassion are being bludgeoned to extinction in public discourse. All of us need to show leadership in our dialogue, in our constituencies, communities and our own parties, and to demonstrate in our words and our deeds that there is no competition or contradiction between supporting and defending Palestinian human rights, and supporting and defending thriving Jewish communities here in our country. I am making these points in this debate because the response to what is happening in Palestine and Israel is being used by some political actors here in the UK to whip up antisemitism; by some to advance anti-migrant and anti-Muslim agendas; by some to justify chilling restrictions on civil liberties and our right to free speech and to peacefully protest; and by some to stoke division between minoritised communities. Leadership requires being alive to those realities and risks and recognising how they might prevent the emergence of shared visions of justice, democracy, human rights and religious and political pluralism. That underscores the importance of defending and upholding the international legal and human rights frameworks that we already have fully and wholeheartedly. Twenty-five years ago, I took up a job co-ordinating the UK arm of the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel. I was an atheist working for a Christian organisation with Jewish, Muslim and Christian communities in the lands of Israel and Palestine to build peace. The spirit of working across boundaries is the only thing that will get us to peace and justice.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Numerous constituents of mine have had the same problems with the civil service pension scheme run by Capita. One example is Ruth, whose husband worked for the Ministry of Defence and died in service nearly a year ago. She has been waiting 11 months for a death-in-service payment and pension. Capita promised to have this resolved, with all bereavement cases done by the end of August. It broke that promise. This week, she is still waiting. This is utterly unacceptable. I welcome the Minister saying that there will be penalties for Capita, but does she not recognise that this is such a clear example that outsourcing does not work? Will she ensure that Capita is not given contracts like this ever again?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome the statement and thank the Foreign Secretary for taking this step. Yes, it has been far too long coming, and, yes, there is much more to do, but this is a significant statement, both in terms of recognition—the reality of the unlawfulness of the occupation—and in following through, with a promise to take action to ban trade with settlements. However, does the Foreign Secretary not recognise that, in the context of now years of genocide in Gaza—ever-accelerating ethnic cleansing in the west bank, as he has pointed out himself—waiting another six to nine months to implement these sanctions is still too long? We must speed up.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, Ms Butler, to serve under your chairship. Clearly, Brexit has been a disaster for Britain—the sooner we acknowledge that, the better our conversations will be, because we will then be able to move forward. It has been economically disastrous. As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) said, it has been a slow puncture; in fact, it has been a huge slow puncture, taking 4%, 6% or 8% off our GDP, which costs every household in the country enormously in real terms. It makes us all much worse off. In North Herefordshire, business owners have spoken about the additional barriers they face when trading with Europe and the admin created by the supposed reduction in bureaucracy. Brexit has been an economic disaster, but it is not just economic: environmentally, we are diverging from Europe, and in 28 areas of law, we now have weaker protection for our natural environment. Socially, politically and culturally, Brexit has been poisonous. It has catalysed and reinforced a toxic political debate, leading to polarisation, the proliferation of disinformation, political short-termism, and a discounting of the rights, opportunities and needs of young people in particular. The UK is now poorer, weaker and more isolated in a context in which we have a completely unreliable and unstable partner in the US President, and we have war on the eastern border of Europe with Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Iran Conflict: Ceasefire · Hansard source

  More

  Iran’s attack on commercial shipping in the strait of Hormuz is clearly a flagrant breach of international law, and incredibly dangerous and irresponsible. The escalating US response is also extremely dangerous, and it is not just tit for tat—it is a disproportionate escalation. Let us not forget that this war was started by the US and Israel choosing to launch attacks on Iran on 28 February. Can the Minister say what the UK Government are doing to maximise pressure on both parties to come back to the negotiating table—through sanctions and so forth, on Iran and on the US—to pull them back from the brink of this incredibly dangerous moment of escalation?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this much-needed debate. It is much-needed, because despite the fact that we have discussed the need for a ban on settlement trade on numerous occasions in this Chamber, and despite the fact that colleagues from all parts of the House have repeatedly called on the Government to ban settlement trade, for the past two years we have heard nothing from this Government except excuses. That is simply unacceptable, because we in this country are complicit in what is happening. Failing to ban settlement trade means that money from Britain is actively supporting the perpetuation of the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, and the clock is ticking. We debated just last week the E1 settlement expansion, which will put to death any prospect of a two-state solution and any prospect of lasting peace in Israel and Palestine if it is not stopped. The Government have an obligation to do everything in their power to pressure the Israeli Government to stop the illegal expansion of illegal settlements and the violence that goes along with it. There is a moral obligation. There is an international legal obligation, too. Two years ago, the International Court of Justice issued an opinion stating that very clearly. One of the excuses we repeatedly hear from the Government is that the opinion is only advisory, but we have UN resolutions and UN commissions of inquiry that state that there is a clear legal obligation on the UK Government to do everything possible to not provide material support to illegal occupation. There is a clear moral obligation, too. We hear two excuses repeated by this Government. One is that we cannot do this alone, and have to work in concert. We heard that yet again last week from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer). We heard it in June last year, when I raised this precise issue with him in a debate that I led on tackling Israeli genocide in Gaza. He said: “at the moment no European power bans settlement trade in the way that she describes. It is something that we talk to our partners and allies about.” —[ Official Report, 17 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 66WH.] Since then, as we have heard, Spain has implemented a ban, as have the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland, and it is possible that the entire EU will. Our neighbours and partners are moving far faster than us, yet the UK bears a specific historical responsibility for this situation. How is it that our Government are abdicating that responsibility and enabling the perpetuation of a situation that will actively counteract their declaration last year of their recognition of the state of Palestine? One excuse from the Government is that we need to work together, yet others are way ahead of us. Is it not time for the UK at least to catch up, even if we cannot bring ourselves to show leadership? The other excuse we hear is that a ban is too difficult, but as colleagues across the Chamber have already pointed out, it was not too difficult when it came to Russia or Crimea. We have the legislation in place, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. We could put the provisions in place now.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. One of the other excuses we hear from the Government is that settlement goods do not benefit from the preferential trade agreement that we have with Israel. That implies that it is already possible to distinguish between settlement goods and non-settlement goods, under existing provisions that we should be enforcing. Fundamentally, as has been pointed out, the shoe should be on the other foot. If Israeli exporters cannot prove that their exports do not come from illegal settlements, they should not be able to export to us. We should be absolutely certain. We must make it clear that it is unacceptable for British money to be at any risk of supporting the continuation of these illegal settlements. There is no excuse. We do not have the excuse that we have to wait for other countries to move, because they have moved ahead of us; and we do not have the excuse that this is too technically difficult, because the legal framework already exists, so what are the Government waiting for? Why will they not take this step? Will the Minister recognise the absolute imperative on the UK to take this step now, or will we hear yet more excuses from him when he sums up?

• 7 Jul 2026 · UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends · Hansard source

  More

  The argument that aid is only a small part of the solution to global poverty and inequality is not a controversial one, but lower-middle income countries have not been calling for the change that the hon. Member’s Government have delivered: the biggest slash in the aid budget altogether. If he believes that aid expenditure and development investment need to be done slightly differently, let us make the argument for that, but cutting it should play no part in the sorts of changes he talks about.

• 7 Jul 2026 · UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends · Hansard source

  More

  Very, very briefly, as I have almost no time.

• 7 Jul 2026 · UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford, and an honour to follow the contributions by the right hon. Members for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell). I thank the former for securing this very important debate. It is shocking that we are in this position—that a Labour Government, who are supposed to share the principles of concern for the vulnerable, for equality and for solidarity, are the Government who have presided over the biggest ever single cut to the UK aid budget. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned, aid, our investment as a country in international development, has historically been a matter of cross-party consensus. That is crucial. This is not a party political issue; it is about our fundamental humanity as politicians and as a nation. Disappointing is not the word; it is shocking and shameful that we are in this position and that this Government have slashed aid to such an extent. It is short-sighted, because aid is an investment in building a better and a more secure world, and it is immoral, because aid does work. As the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), with all her experience in public health, communicated so clearly, aid saves lives. The effect of the cuts that we have seen in the UK and globally will be millions more deaths—millions. Every single one of them is an individual human being whose life could have continued. This is utterly extraordinary. It is immoral.

• 7 Jul 2026 · UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member. We know that aid works; I have seen it myself. I worked in international development for several decades before coming to this place. I have seen, in Malawi, how the provision of clean water literally saves lives. I have seen, in Burundi, how work on HIV and AIDS literally saves lives. I have seen in northern Uganda how investment in conflict resolution, conflict prevention and rehabilitation of child soldiers works to rebuild lives and livelihoods. I have seen, in the Philippines, how international aid has helped a community devastated by a tornado to rebuild lives and livelihoods. Aid works. No, it is not perfect—of course it is not. Yes, we do need to do better. Yes, we know how to do that. We know how to build longer-term programmes, how to work better with local partners, and how to channel money in ways that are focused on outcomes rather than just on bean counting. We know all that, and we have been doing it for decades—yet what has happened? The rug has been pulled out from under aid, and for what purpose? To put the money into defence spending, which, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, has itself too often been a black hole, with cancelled programme after cancelled programme costing billions. In the aid sector, we have focused on results and on outcomes. No other sector is so closely focused on results. Why was that done? Let us remember that this aid cut was put in place on 25 February 2025. That was one month after Donald Trump returned to the White House and two days before the Prime Minister went to the White House, touting this aid cut and redirection of funding into defence, as part of his strategy for sucking up to Donald Trump. Look how well that worked. It did not—it was never going to. This country has betrayed its proud record of supporting international solidarity, and for what? It is crucial that we move back towards investing in aid, because it is lifesaving, because it is the long-term investment that we need to make the world a safer and more secure place, and because international solidarity has to be part of our identity as a country. That is not just about aid; it is about engagement with the debt crisis and with our trading relationships, and it means that we need to look at new sources of funding, such as “polluter pays” taxes, to generate new streams of revenue to invest in these lifesaving and life-changing programmes. But one thing must be clear: we cannot cut aid and expect to build a more secure world. This aid cut—this shameful Labour aid cut—makes the world a less secure place for us and for the millions of people directly affected. I very much hope that the new Labour Government will reverse course.

• 7 Jul 2026 · UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  A high proportion of my constituents proudly serve in our armed forces or are veterans. They want to know that the investment in the DIP is being spent cost-effectively. Given that more than half the capital budget is to be spent on the Defence Nuclear Enterprise—more than on every other bit of technology, equipment and kit for the entire armed forces put together—can the Secretary of State assure me that value for money analysis has been undertaken in line with the Treasury Green Book, and will he improve parliamentary scrutiny?