Ellie Chowns MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  No, that is a complete mischaracterisation of my argument. We know, for example, that Jackdaw would generate 27 jobs—the number of people who fit on the top of a double-decker bus.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  Fossil fuels are traded globally. If we open up new production of fossil fuels, the reality is that that will do nothing for bills, do almost nothing for energy security and be a complete distraction from the investments we must make in the transition to the clean, green, renewable energy future that is our only hope of a sustainable economy not just in the long term, but in the short and medium terms. These are the industries of the future, and people who argue that we should continue to invest in typewriters during the era of the personal computer or continue to invest in horses and carriages during the era of the car are simply stuck in the past. We cannot continue to have our heads in the sand.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I have been contacted by students, parents and teachers in my constituency telling me that the cost of transport is a key barrier to accessing education and other opportunities. A 19-year-old told me recently that it costs her more than £9 for a return fare to the county town of Hereford, and Hereford sixth-form college has told me that 21 young people dropped out last year because of transport problems. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the cost of travel is a big barrier to accessing education, training and work? Will she work with Cabinet colleagues and the Treasury to implement free bus travel for all young people, in order to invest in them?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Prime Minister’s stated intention to tackle the social care crisis and to work cross-party to that end, but I was disappointed that the talks convened in July did not involve all the parties that had previously been involved in the existing cross-party social care talks. Will the Leader of the House update the House on the timetable for the next steps in those cross-party talks? Will he also assure the House that they will be genuinely cross-party, because we on the opposition Benches are keen to work with the Government to tackle this essential issue?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the end of July, the Prime Minister announced that he was holding cross-party talks on social care. He did not invite the Green party, despite our involvement in the Casey commission cross-party talks for the past 18 months. When I expressed my concern about that in business questions this morning, the Leader of the House suggested that smaller parties had not taken up an invitation. No doubt inadvertently, that is misleading because no such invitation was ever issued to the Green party. Will you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I might go about getting the record corrected?

• 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.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The rhetoric might have changed a bit under the new Prime Minister, but it seems that we have a continuity Chancellor on the policy front. The Minister talks about the failures of privatisation, but where is the action to bring water back into public hands? She talks about the need for an active state, but where is the action to tax wealth fairly, so that we can invest in the services we need? Fundamentally, we cannot get good growth unless it is both green and fair. We will not build sustainable prosperity by trashing nature and the climate.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Fields · Hansard source

  More

  We cannot discuss this issue without recognising that the climate breakdown is already costing us hugely: the hottest summer ever, the worst arable harvest ever, and the Met Office says that it was 130 times more likely that we faced this crisis this year. Just today, the World Meteorological Organisation has said that climate breakdown is super-charging natural phenomena such as El Niño. The shadow Secretary of State says that North sea communities need a new direction: yes, a just transition to clean energy for the future, not the dirty energy of the old. Will the Minister recognise that the climate damage created by Rosebank and Jackdaw will hugely outweigh any potential economic benefits and therefore rule them out? Fossil fuels must stay in the ground if we are to have a liveable future.

• 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.

• 1 Sept 2026 · West Bank: Illegal Settlements · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the new Foreign Secretary and his team to their places. He is the third Labour Foreign Secretary in just over two years. We have had so many hand-wringing statements. He has just said that the time to act is now, but he is asking us to wait weeks more for a statement about banning settlement trade, which it is absolutely clear is essential. What is he waiting for? Will he ban trade in goods, services and investment in both directions immediately, because the facts on the ground are changing now, at pace and faster than ever before? What are the UK Government still waiting for?

• 13 Jul 2026 · Embodied Carbon: Buildings · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. As we have discussed, we should reduce, reuse and recycle; let us make sure that every part of a building is reused in the best way possible. Demolition should be the absolute last resort, so it sounds like the hon. Gentleman’s planning authority is taking the right direction. Last year, I attended an embodied carbon industry summit, which was held just over the road from this House. At the summit, a simple question was asked of attendees: without Government intervention, will local embodied carbon rules become more consistent or more divergent? The response was absolutely resounding: the rules will continue to diverge without Government leadership. It is clear that national regulation on embodied carbon will reduce complexity for the construction industry, not increase it. It will replace fragmentation with consistency, create a national carbon dataset, and provide certainty for industry, while delivering meaningful carbon reductions. Surely that is exactly the kind of planning reform that this Government should want to achieve. As the Environmental Audit Committee highlighted in its 2022 report, “Building to net zero: costing carbon in construction”, regulating embodied carbon would be “the single most significant policy the Government could introduce” if they wish to tackle the reuse of buildings, the development of low-carbon materials and a reduction in these emissions. Why are we still waiting? The encouraging news is that the construction sector is not waiting for Government. For more than four years, more than 250 organisations from across the built environment sector have supported a campaign called “Part Z”, named after the various other parts of the building regulations. They have been calling for national embodied carbon regulation. Those companies are not asking the Government to invent something entirely new. Indeed, the same experts who developed “Part Z” have now produced the UK net zero carbon buildings standard, a ready-made framework that provides a practical route to compliance. It builds on the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ whole-life carbon assessment methodology, one of the most developed embodied carbon methodologies in the world. These documents could form the basis of future regulatory reporting requirements and, in time, a new approved document. The Government do not need to start from scratch; the construction industry has already done much of the hard work. Indeed, members of this Government used to be in support of such action. When a private Member’s Bill on embodied carbon was debated in 2022, Jonathan Reynolds, now the Government’s Chief Whip, and previously the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, said “We support it”—

• 13 Jul 2026 · Embodied Carbon: Buildings · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has outlined the complexities of regulating in this area as in any other area, and I am glad to hear her say that this does not mean the Government will do nothing. The Government would not say that fire safety is a complex area, and they therefore will not regulate. However, in this area, as I outlined in my speech, hundreds of industry experts have come together to create a framework that the Government could use as the basis for regulating. Does she recognise that so much of the preparatory work has already been done to address that complexity?

• 13 Jul 2026 · Embodied Carbon: Buildings · Hansard source

  More

  I am so sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand entirely corrected. The aforementioned right hon. Gentleman said: “We support it. I agree with his proposition that industry would welcome further regulation in this area”. —[ Official Report , 25 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 620.] He was right then, and that statement is right now, because this is not regulation that industry fears; it is regulation that the construction sector is asking for. Industry is calling for this, because it provides a level playing field, creates local green jobs and boosts investment in lower-carbon materials. Good regulation rewards innovation, provides certainty for investment and gives British businesses the confidence to lead. The rest of the world is moving ahead in this area. The Netherlands has regulated embodied carbon for more than a decade. The EU requires reporting from 2028 and will have limits from 2030. Türkiye is requiring reporting from 2027. Several US states mandate reporting today. Meanwhile, Britain, despite having world-leading engineers, researchers and designers, risks falling behind. This is not simply an environmental issue; this is an industrial strategy issue. It is a planning reform issue and a housing issue. It is about whether Britain intends to lead or follow. Today, I ask the Minister for one thing above all else: national leadership. I ask for a clear pathway towards national regulation to measure and reduce embodied carbon, aligned with the direction already being taken by many of our international partners and by many in the construction industry. I ask that embodied carbon is finally recognised within national planning policy, replacing today’s fragmented patchwork with one coherent national approach. I ask the Government to consider using the UK net zero carbon buildings standard as the route to fast-tracking the compliance requirements, finally giving industry the certainty it has been requesting for years. When will the Government finally release their long-delayed circular economy growth plan, which could deal with embodied carbon at its core? Climate change is not hanging around, as we can see around us all the time, and embodied carbon is only making things worse. We can and must change that. We have the expertise, the methodology and the support from industry. Local authorities are crying out for consistency, and the standards have already been written—the only thing missing is national leadership. I call on the Minister to provide it.

• 9 Jul 2026 · River Wye: Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency has been devastated by water pollution. We are now nearly seven years into a planning moratorium that has decimated the construction industry, because of pollution in the River Lugg, a tributary of the Wye. We are 10 years on from the first court case that said the Government should publish a plan to clean it up, but that plan, last year, set out that the current measures will not get close to fixing the problem. We urgently need a water protection zone. Will the Minister come to North Herefordshire to meet local campaigners, citizen scientists and farmers to understand why we need that water protection zone, and make a commitment to bring one in to finally resolve this problem?

• 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?

• 8 Jul 2026 · NHS Corridor Care · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for securing this incredibly important debate. I have heard from literally dozens of my constituents about why this issue is so important. They have told me their individual stories about elderly relatives stuck in corridors and the terrible effect that has had on their treatment, care and health outcomes. I have heard from staff in my local hospitals, who have shared exactly the same concerns about the conditions in which they are forced to work. Patients tell me universally how proud they are of the NHS and how much they value the incredible care they get at the hands of the people who keep it going, but they also tell me universally that corridor care is shameful and should not continue. I recently raised this matter directly with the chief executive of my local hospital, Hereford hospital, in our regular catch-up, and was delighted to hear that Hereford is not just aiming to meet the Government’s target of ending corridor care by 2029, but that locally, we have a target of ending corridor care by this autumn. I am really pleased that this is being prioritised so much locally, and I will be keeping a careful eye out to ensure that that happens. I want to raise a particular issue that has been touched on by many colleagues across the House this afternoon, which is the integral relationship between the NHS—what happens in our hospitals—and the social care system. We simply cannot fix the problem of corridor care unless we fix the problem of social care. For too many years—for decades, in fact—social care has been a political football kicked down the road by Governments of all stripes because it is difficult, but we have to grasp this nettle. We simply cannot fix the NHS unless we fix social care. Lord Darzi said exactly that himself. Sadly, however, we have not given the necessary attention to fixing social care. Yes, we have the Casey commission, which I value very much. I am very pleased with the work that has been done by Baroness Casey, but insufficient political effort is being put into this issue. It took nine months for us to have the first cross-party meeting that the previous Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said he was going to call, and we have only recently had the second. We must put our shoulders to the wheel collectively to fix the challenges of social care and to have the difficult conversations about how we will fund it, because it does need funding; we do need those political conversations, and we need to find consensus. Unless we address the issues at the back door, too many people will be stuck in hospital when they would be better cared for elsewhere—better for them and their health; better for the national budget, because it would be cheaper; and better for our overall outcomes. It is shocking to learn that the Royal College of Emergency Medicine calculates that there were 15,000 excess deaths last year because of corridor care. That should not happen in our country today. I urge the Minister and her colleagues as strongly as possible to give the same attention to fixing social care as to fixing the NHS. Let every Member put in that effort too. It is notable that at Health and Social Care questions there is usually one question on social care and 19 on health. We must redress the balance collectively, put in the focus to fix social care, and thereby fix corridor care.

• 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

  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.

• 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?