Ellie Chowns MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Small rural businesses in villages such as Pembridge in my constituency tell me that the combination of high business and VAT rates and rising national insurance contributions means they are facing a struggle for survival. Small rural businesses face greater pressure than their urban counterparts, with lower footfall and seasonal fluctuations in trade, so they operate with very tight margins. Does the Minister recognise the additional pressures faced by such businesses and that existing support schemes simply are not enough, and what more will he do to support businesses in constituencies such as mine?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Israel: E1 Zone Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  You’re not doing everything!

• 1 Jul 2026 · Israel: E1 Zone Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  Frankly, I despair. I have lost count of the number of times that I and others across this entire House have come here to press the Minister to put in place a full ban on settlement trade and the number of times he has prevaricated. I have lost count of the number of times that he has wrung his hands, made statements of concern, expressed worry and condemnation and yet refused to do what he claims he will do, because he has talked about acting with alacrity and using all the leverage we have, and yet he does not. If E1 goes ahead, that will be the death knell for the prospect of the Palestinian state that he, all Labour MPs and so many of us are so proud of this Government for recognising last year. It is, however, worth nothing if he does not follow up with action and use every lever in this Government’s power to follow through, to put pressure on the Israeli Government and to ensure that the rights of Palestinians are upheld.

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this very important debate. Serving as a Member of Parliament is a huge honour and a privilege. It is more than a full-time job—and it should be, because it is a job that is about public service. That should be the only reason that anybody puts themselves forward for election to this place, and it should be the only reason that anybody has the privilege of serving in this place. One hundred per cent of our available time, energy and skill should be focused on serving our constituents—that and absolutely nothing else. It is really very simple: there should be no time available in an MP’s day for doing a second job, still less 16 second jobs. Our constituents’ needs for us to serve and represent them absolutely can fill every moment available, and more. It is utterly shocking to me that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—and yes, I notified him that I would be naming him in this debate—has apparently raked in £2 million over his past two years of “service” as a Member of Parliament. Just yesterday we heard that he was paid £270,000 for 12 hours of work. It is frankly obscene—

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  And, indeed, immoral that somebody is earning more in a couple of hours than the average person—well, more than the average person; nurses, teachers and others who dedicate their lives to public service—will in a year. It is extraordinary that in this day and age, this is still allowed. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) that it is a hangover from centuries past. It is totally inappropriate for a modern Parliament. One hundred per cent of our time and energy should be focused on serving our constituents. Why is it that this total anachronism endures and that those who do not have the interests of public service at heart are able to waft about doing all sorts of other things that do not contribute to the public interest whatsoever, but are motivated solely by what is simply personal greed? Let us call a spade a spade. If somebody is doing this sort of “work”, for these sorts of sums, there can be only one motivation: personal enrichment and greed. That has no place in a public servant, still less a public servant who has the honour of serving as one of just 650 MPs in this House, the mother of Parliaments. We must stop it. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Leeds East: we need a full ban on second jobs. Yes, we hope that Members will bring outside experience into Parliament, but let us achieve that by electing a far more diverse range of people, from all walks of life, to have the honour of serving here, and let us take steps in our parties to ensure that we do so. But once we are here, 100% of our time, energy and effort should be focused on serving our constituents. Otherwise, there is a total conflict of interest: are we serving ourselves or serving the public? We must be here to serve the public. I call on the Minister and the next Prime Minister to finally end this outrageous, obscene anachronism. We must not count on the individual conscience of every Member, given that we can clearly see, unfortunately, that a tiny handful do not share a commitment to public service. Let us ensure that the baseline and benchmark is that nobody has a second job, and that everybody who has the honour of being here is 100% focused on serving our constituents.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  What matters is not just how much we spend on defence, but what we spend it on and whether the Government’s choices offer good value for money. I am therefore deeply concerned that more than half the capital budget is for the nuclear programme. More will be spent on a handful of submarines and unusable warheads than on every single other bit of kit and technology for all the armed forces. Does the Secretary of State not recognise the glaring inconsistency between his rhetoric about a flexible, agile, future-focused armed forces and the reality of pouring billions of good money after bad into the black hole of cold war technology, instead of investing in true security?

• 30 Jun 2026 · National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome Baroness Amos’s investigation, which has shone a light on the fact that these failings in maternity services are not isolated to one hospital or another, but exist across the piece. The Secretary of State rightly identifies that culture is at the centre of this issue, and that we must listen to the voices of women and of whistleblowers. That applies not just to maternity services, but across the NHS and, indeed, in public life more widely. The Secretary of State has spoken about accountability starting from the top, but I noticed that he swerved the question about whether he would come back to the House to report on progress against the goals he has set himself. It is shocking and shameful that black women are three times more likely than white women to die in maternity. Will he commit to coming back to the Chamber, reporting and holding himself to account on changing those racial disparities and ensuring true equity in healthcare?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Diethylstilbestrol: Intergenerational Impact · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for securing this really important debate. One of my constituents, who is a DES daughter, came to see me, and she reported that her mother’s health records were lost when her GP moved back in the 1970s. Does the hon. Member share my concern that a key issue here is that the lack of effective recordkeeping and the loss or destruction of records over time make it harder and harder to trace causal effects? Does she agree that we want to hear from the Minister what allowances will be made for this record-keeping issue in addressing the long-term impacts of DES on those daughters and grandchildren?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  I honestly do not recognise the caricature that the right hon. Gentleman paints. Technology exists to provide both heating and cooling in ecologically friendly ways, and that is absolutely what we need going forward. We need far better building standards so that we build buildings that adapt and are suitable, and we need homes that are fit for the future. That is essential. The Committee on Climate Change—the Government’s independent adviser—has set out repeatedly that these solutions are available and has set out the things that we need to put forward. The Committee has also set out repeatedly, as have any number of people over any number of years, the fact that the costs of inaction far exceed those of action. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) made that point previously in relation to other security challenges, and it applies with knobs on to tackling the challenge of climate breakdown. Twenty years ago, Professor Nick Stern set out clearly that the costs of inaction far outweigh—many times over—the costs of action to address these risks. After 20 years of our heads collectively being in the sand as a country, we are reaping the whirlwind of that inaction. I call on the Government and the Cabinet Office to recognise the reality that tackling climate resilience must be a central plank of any strategy to protect national security and resilience. We need a Minister in the Cabinet Office whose responsibility it is to put in place that work and to take a cross-Government approach. This is not a siloed issue and cannot be dealt with in one single Department; it needs a cross-Government approach. We need a comprehensive strategy to prepare the NHS for new public health challenges. We need to invest in flood protection, because we face not just extreme heat but flooding incidents of increasing frequency and severity. We have all seen what a disastrous effect that has on the economy as well as on lives and livelihoods. We need to develop a comprehensive extreme heat strategy, a national drought plan and a farmer-led transition to climate-resilient food production. Our farmers are crying out for that support, and they too are on the frontline of the security and resilience challenges that the reality of climate breakdown places on us. We need to strengthen our transport infrastructure, energy infrastructure and water infrastructure. Last week, we heard about nuclear power stations going offline in France. Train companies were saying that nobody should travel unless it was a matter of life and death. Water shortages are becoming more and more frequent. The collective, long-term and strategic approach to tackling climate resilience must be a core plank of national security. Tackling climate breakdown is not just an environmental issue but a central plank of security and national resilience. The costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of taking action now. Will the Minister commit to putting in place a national strategy? Will there be an individual identified in the Cabinet Office who leads on it? Does she recognise that we must invest now or pay far worse costs later?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  One of the key points that I tried to get across in my speech is that this has to be a whole-of-Government effort. DEFRA cannot put in place a strategy to adapt the health service to the reality of climate change. It cannot put in place a strategy to adapt our schools, our transport infrastructure or our energy infrastructure to the reality of climate change. Does the Minister not recognise that this has to be a whole-of-Government effort, and that it is not something that DEFRA can hold? That is precisely why we need a Cabinet Office Minister to lead on climate resilience.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for introducing the debate so well. He makes many excellent points, including that we face a wide range of threats to our security and resilience. Clearly, we face threats from hostile actors and not just through conventional means: he talked about cyber-warfare and the threat of disinformation. He briefly touched on the effects of the pandemic on our country. The covid pandemic, which killed nearly a quarter of a million people, was the greatest threat to human health for many decades. Recognising pandemic preparedness as hugely important within the security and resilience framework is key. Another key threat to our country’s security and resilience, which does not receive nearly enough attention, is climate breakdown. It is not just the environmentalists but the ambulance workers who say that, and the Joint Intelligence and Security Committee’s national security assessment itself says that ecosystem breakdown poses a clear threat to national security. The Committee on Climate Change has pointed out that we are woefully ill-prepared as a country for the effects of climate breakdown. We urgently need to take more action to avoid causing climate change. Equally, we urgently need to take far more action to recognise the threat to our national security and resilience posed by the effects of climate breakdown. That was brought home to us in hugely clear terms last week, as we faced the second major heatwave of the last month or so. That heatwave led to record call-outs for the ambulance service—even more than under covid. A couple of weeks ago, I spent time with the London ambulance service, which told me that the May heatwave saw its highest number of ambulance call-outs, even including covid, and that terrible record was exceeded last week. We have to recognise the reality of the effects on human life and livelihoods and the effects on our national security and resilience caused by these issues. This is not just about the health effects. I spoke to numerous constituents over the weekend about the effects that the appalling temperatures faced by our students are having on schools. Clearly, we need urgently to put in place maximum temperatures for schools and workplaces and take action to ensure that that is followed through.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has not mentioned climate change. Climate change is not a natural hazard; it is a human-made major risk.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  And Brexit!

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise the reality that the main factor that has driven up energy costs in the last few years has been Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine? Policy costs are a small proportion of energy prices and gas determines the electricity price, which is the—

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member not recognise: first, that correlation is not causation; and secondly, that there was a financial crisis caused by outrageous speculation and a lack of control of the financial markets, and that is at the core of the problems we face today?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Elections: First Past the Post · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important debate and the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) for setting out so clearly that this is not an issue that sits on party lines. It is about the fundamental quality of our democracy and the fundamental question: are voters being adequately represented by our system? It is clear that the first-past-the-post system is broken. We have a problem with political trust in this country, and the voting system is part of that. Why is first past the post broken? It is clearly fundamentally unfair. In general elections, it has generated a two-thirds majority on just one third of the vote; in some local elections, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park set out, it can generate a 100% majority on just half of the vote. That clearly leaves far too many voters unrepresented, in the sense that their voices are not heard by the people who are elected to hold power and who have influence. That is something we can and must fix, because what principle could be more basic in a democracy than the principle that everybody’s vote counts equally? If we believe in that fundamental principle, we have to recognise the urgency of moving to proportional representation. First past the post is not just unfair because it leads to completely skewed results; it is also unpopular. According to the latest British social attitudes survey, only just over a third of voters now want to retain the system. Why is that? It is because they perceive how the system is poisoning our politics—how this binary, polarised, winner-takes-all politics means that we do not have the politics that people want. Time after time voters say to me on the doorstep that they do not want the bear-pit politics they see at Prime Minister’s questions. They want a politics in which people with differing ideas sit around a table, have a decent, grown-up conversation, put all the good ideas into the pot and work out what is best for the country—a politics in which policies are motivated by the public interest, not by party political interests, and certainly not by the choices that so many seem to be forced into in our current system, in which policies are put forward on the basis that they will appeal to a certain small proportion of voters in a certain small proportion of seats at the next general election. Such short-termism poisons and undermines our politics, which is why voters themselves recognise that it is time for change. A majority of people who support every single one of the five main parties in the UK now say that it is time to shift to proportional representation. A majority across all five parties is a degree of political consensus that we as politicians should listen to. The next reason why first past the post does not work is that it does not work on its own terms. Back in the day, decades ago, it was argued that first past the post leads to stable government and stability in policy making, but that is completely belied by the experience of our politics, which we have seen year after year, week after week, day after day—indeed, this week. We must recognise that first past the post does not work in a multi-party political system. And we are in a multi-party political system: we are no longer in the old two-party system, and there is no going back to that. We need to recognise that, respond to what voters and the public want, and move forward. All that is why proportional representation offers the solution. It is the antithesis to first past the post. Where first past the post is unfair, proportional representation is fair, because every vote counts equally. Where first past the post is unpopular, proportional representation is popular, because people recognise that it will ensure that their voices are heard. And it is effective, which is why it has been adopted across the vast majority of OECD countries. This country is an outlier in sticking with tired, old and broken first past the post. Proportional representation yields politics, a political culture and governance that require people to talk to and listen to each other, and that require us to seek the common ground. Just last week, the House was celebrating the memory of Jo Cox. Her words—that there is more that unites us than divides us—should be a lodestar for all of us in politics, reminding us that we need to work to seek the common ground, emphasise where we can work together, and not be constantly putting ourselves in binary opposition to one another, creating polarisation and deepening our difficulties. We can change our political culture by adopting proportional representation. It is not a silver bullet to transform every part of our politics, but it will certainly make a key difference.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Elections: First Past the Post · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that changing the voting system will not in itself transform our political culture. We need to do many other things, including get big money and disinformation out of politics, but changing our voting system is a key plank of that. I recognise that, as the hon. Member for Falkirk mentioned, the Labour party does not feel that it currently has a manifesto mandate to implement proportional representation—I am deeply saddened by that—but it has a manifesto mandate to take strong action to tackle the breakdown of trust in our politics. As a Green, I would like there to be no more elections under first past the post in the UK, but it would be hugely dangerous to go into the next general election under that system, because we face the very real prospect of a Government being elected with a huge majority of MPs and a small minority of votes. That should concentrate the minds of everyone in this Chamber.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Elections: First Past the Post · Hansard source

  More

  All the arguments I have made in the last five minutes have been about the systemic, principled reasons for change; they are not views about one particular party. I will be absolutely clear that I hugely fear the prospect of a Reform Government, and I will do everything I can to stop that. It would be hugely dangerous for this country. But the argument for proportional representation is about the representation of everybody, including people with whose views I completely disagree. If they have a degree of support in the country, they should be represented in proportion to that. The point is that under a proportional system, those of us who want to work together for the common good of the country would be able to do so. The principle of proportional representation is core to the Green party’s DNA. I have campaigned for it for many years, and I welcome the fact that so many in Labour and other parties campaign for it, too. But there are specific things that this Government can do right now. There is a cross-party call for a national commission on electoral reform, which the Government could take forward today. That would enable us to have a national conversation about how to make our democracy genuinely work for everybody, involving citizens’ voices and the voices of those with expertise, who can bring ideas from international counterparts. We must have that conversation. We cannot stay asleep at the wheel, drifting into ever-more polarised politics, ever-less representation and ever-poorer electoral systems that do not serve the fundamental principle of democracy that we should all hold dear: every vote should count equally.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I will be brief. It is wonderful that we are having this debate, and indeed that we had today’s statement, although sadly I was not able to be in the Chamber to hear it. We need to recognise that farmers are central to our health, wellbeing and security as a nation, for three reasons. The first is good food: we need to produce as much of our food as possible as locally as possible. The second is good land: we need to care for our land; after all, it is the soil on which everything that farmers produce depends. The third is good livelihoods: rural farming communities, such as mine in North Herefordshire, are entirely interlinked with health, wellbeing, and financial and ecological sustainability. It is disappointing that the Government sadly got off on the wrong foot with farmers, but I hope today marks something of a turning point. We need two things from the Government. First, we need regulation that works for farmers, with a level playing field. That means consistently applied regulation across the country and internationally. We cannot have our farmers undercut by imports produced to lower standards. Secondly, we need investment in farming, to enable farmers to transition to more nature-friendly and river-friendly methods, and to support the security and sustainability of farming in the UK.

• 22 Jun 2026 · G7 Summit · Hansard source

  More

  The G7 summit took place in a country in the grip of an extreme heatwave—a heatwave that is now hitting the UK this week—yet climate change was not on the agenda, despite the fact that the climate crisis has huge impacts on human health and economic security. Why are the G7 asleep at the wheel with their heads buried in the sand? Could it possibly be that they were appeasing one Donald J. Trump, and have we not already learned that appeasing Trump never works? Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure me that, whoever the next Prime Minister is, the UK will show the leadership needed here in the UK and on the global stage to tackle the climate crisis?

• 18 Jun 2026 · Human Rights: Supply Chains · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I am sure I speak for us all in extending warm thanks to you for stepping into the breach at the last minute to enable us to have this timely and important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing it. It is clear that UK business has global environmental and human rights impacts. UK business has impacts on climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, waste management, deforestation, and of course on human rights and labour rights, as we have already discussed. The Government have acknowledged those concerns. This debate comes at a particularly timely moment because, as the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green pointed out, we await with bated breath the Government release of announcements. I note that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) tabled a question to the Secretary of State in January asking when the responsible business conduct review would be published. The Minister for Trade responded with one word: “Soon.” It is now five months later, so perhaps today’s Minister could assure us in her wind-up that soon really will mean soon. We would very much appreciate seeing that review. Although we have some parts of an existing legal framework—for example, the Modern Slavery Act and the Environment Act 2021—they are too narrow to meet internationally accepted standards. Single-issue measures such as robust legislation to prevent and address modern slavery, including through import and export restrictions of goods and services that involve forced labour, are useful but not in themselves sufficient to address the full range of human rights and environmental risks and harms. In particular, if they require companies only to report, rather than to take action, they do not have the force that we need. The UK risks falling behind its international partners. The UK was once a frontrunner on environmental and human rights legislation, but progress has stalled. The EU’s corporate sustainability due diligence directive will apply, of course, to UK companies that generate significant turnover in EU markets, meaning that UK businesses will face mandatory due diligence obligations abroad without equivalent domestic standards at home. That does not make sense. The UK would be better able to produce and sell goods and services in the EU single market, as well as continue to position itself strongly as a global leader on human rights, if we had our own mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence legislation. It is not just campaigners who are calling for that; business is calling for a new law. A clear majority of businesses surveyed by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law believe that current UK laws do not provide clarity or sufficient legal certainty on human rights obligations. Nearly three quarters of UK businesses believe that additional regulation would provide benefits, including greater legal certainty and a level playing field. Indeed, I met with people from a large business in my own constituency just a couple of weeks ago who made exactly that point. A level playing field is needed. Business is calling for it. As has already been reflected, major businesses including the British Retail Consortium, John Lewis Partnership, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Twinings are all calling for new mandatory due diligence laws on human rights and the environment. As we have also heard, over 160 businesses and investors representing trillions of pounds of investment are calling for the failure to prevent liability model. That failure to prevent model is what underpins the Bribery Act 2010. We already have the legal model in UK legislation that we can adopt in the same way. We do not have to reinvent the wheel; it is simply about applying the wheel more consistently. Three parliamentary Committees have already recommended this. Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights has specifically recommended legislation modelled on the failure to prevent framework of the Bribery Act 2010. We have business calling for that legislation. We have parliamentary Committees and parliamentarians calling for it. The Good Business Matters pledge has secured cross-party support from over 80 MPs and peers from eight different political parties. We also have public support: 145,000 citizens have signed a petition calling for such legislation, and a YouGov survey indicates that three quarters of the British population support stronger legislation in this area. In summary, introducing mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation is not only the right thing to do to protect the environment and human rights around the world and to be consistent; it is good for our economy. We miss out on opportunities by not adopting such legislation. It is called for urgently by major businesses that want the Government to support them in showing leadership in this area. It is strongly called for by British citizens, who care—people in this country really care about the standards under which our goods and services are produced. We see that in the strong outcry about the continued import of goods and services from stolen land in Israeli settlements in the west bank; in the outcry over the import of goods that are produced under slave labour conditions by Uyghurs in China; and in the outcry over the import of goods and services that result in deforestation, environmental devastation and climate damage. It is time for the Government to act, and I very much hope that the Minister will assure us that they will do so soon.

• 16 Jun 2026 · West Bank: Settler Activity · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to start by joining you, Mr Speaker, and colleagues across the House in paying tribute to the memory of Jo Cox. Her words about seeking what we have in common, and working to counter the politics of division, are today more relevant than ever—for all of us. The Secretary of State set out piecemeal and entirely inadequate measures last week in relation to west bank settlement activity. It was raised with her then that the UK would be hosting the Great Israeli Real Estate Event at the weekend, and she undertook to look into it. That event took place, with properties in illegal settlements being marketed on British territory—the Government have been sent the evidence. How is it that this Government fail even to prevent the marketing of illegal property in this country? How is it that they still fail to take action? The Secretary of State continues to tell us about the meetings that she has had, but what we want is leadership. The UK has a particular responsibility, so will she step up and ban trade with illegal settlements?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  As the Secretary of State pointed out, Thames Water has 16 million customers. It does not serve them; it fails them. That is nearly a quarter of the entire UK population and they do not get any choice—this is a natural monopoly. We are all stuck with the water company that supposedly serves the area we live in, but what do customers get? They get bills going up through the roof, pollution in our rivers and seas, and crumbling infrastructure. In her statement, the Secretary of State nodded towards special administration, which would be an improvement on the status quo, but is it not time to come clean with the British people and admit that the privatisation experiment has totally failed, and to take this struggling, failing company back into public ownership, where it belongs?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Summit on Illicit Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I am disappointed that the hon. Member is taking the opportunity to score a cheap political point when we have been working cross-party on these issues. On that specific issue, the leader of the Green party has apologised and made clear efforts to pay any tax that he may be found to owe. As has become clear, this a complex issue that affects potentially tens of thousands of people in the UK, and we would welcome clarification on it. But that is a cheap political point to attempt to score in a debate about abuses of the tax system that are resulting in hundreds of billions of pounds of lost revenue to countries around the world. I would like to pick up on a specific issue that I know the Government intend to address in the three priorities they have set out for the summit: the illicit gold trade. I have previously spoken in the main Chamber about the deeply concerning role of the illicit gold trade in funding and facilitating the horrors that we see in the conflict in Sudan, so it seems crucial that the UK Government do everything possible to clean up that particular mechanism for funding abuses globally. The huge, significant role played by the UK in supporting and enabling illicit financial flows not only harms us in the UK, with the presence of illicit businesses in our high streets and villages, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk spoke about, or, as the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine highlighted, affect us through dirty Russian money embedded in our economy; it also has huge ramifications around the world. The UK’s role in facilitating flows of illicit finance actively supports the impoverishment of already impoverished countries and Governments. We have a responsibility to clean up our act in this country both because it will benefit us and improve revenues to the public Exchequer for reinvestment in public services and because we have a fundamental moral duty to ensure that we do not facilitate flows of dirty money globally.