Green Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Green Party

142 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

  1. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary

    It is an honour to speak in this debate commemorating VE Day, which is of great significance to many in my constituency, where a significant proportion of the population are veterans or from military families. The Royal British Legion has encouraged us to ensure that the stories of veterans are at the centre of our commemoration events this week, so I would like to share the story of my grandfather, James Paterson, who was a navigator on a Stirling bomber. On 16 August 1943, his plane was shot down in south-east France. Only two of the crew of seven survived—my grandfather was one of them. He was rescued by the Resistance in the area of Ambérieu and was saved by three families, who hid him at great personal risk—in the town, and in the forest and the hills nearby. Eventually, four months later, he was smuggled out, over the Pyrenees, to safety. Without the bravery of those families, my mother would never have been born and I would not be here today. I pay a special tribute to Marius and Jeanne Lapierre, who hid my grandfather in their bakery. In 2014, my father’s research reconnected my family with the Lapierres and we have since remained in contact. Last year, I was honoured to visit Monique Lapierre—one of the daughters of the family, after whom my aunt is named—who has since sadly died. As we remember this week the bravery of all those, like my grandfather, who fought in the armed forces for freedom in Europe, let us also remember the bravery—often unsung—of those, like the Lapierres, who fought and resisted in so many different ways at great personal risk to themselves and their children, to save the lives of <span id="632" class="column-number" data-column-number="632"></span>strangers. Let us all hope that we would do the same. As we challenge the forces of the far right, and as we recognise and remember the resistance 80 years ago of those who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend Europe against Nazism, let the memory of all those who showed such bravery never be forgotten.

    Hansard source
  2. ParliamentAdrian Ramsay

    Middle East Update

    As we have heard, the Netanyahu Cabinet has approved an illegal plan to expand its military offensive to capture and occupy all of Gaza. That will put 1 million children at acute risk of starvation, epidemic disease and death, with the deliberate blockade of food and essential supplies. Does the Minister deny that that constitutes genocide in real time? When did he last assess the real risk that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza?

    Hansard source
  3. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Trade Agreements

    <Question HRSContentId="{E9D4E109-A3BF-4EC2-9B60-4CEDEF9B6AED}">2. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{726DACE9-D21E-4AEB-828B-36AC75A33EA9}">What steps his Department is taking to negotiate trade agreements with the UK’s main trading partners.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
  4. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Trade Agreements

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

    Hansard source
  5. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries

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

    Hansard source
  6. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Business of the House

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

    Hansard source
  7. ParliamentSiân Berry

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    I associate myself with every single thing that the Mother of the House has just said, because I could not possibly live up to it. I genuinely believe that this Bill will undermine efforts to ensure that equality before the law is a reality for everyone. It flies in the face of expertise and of the painstaking, authoritative work of the Sentencing Council —a rightly independent body run by, and for, the judiciary. This is a strange and populist Bill that is undermining and delaying good, well-evidenced independent guidelines for effective sentencing that would have made our justice system more fair, rather than less. I will start my objections to clauses 1 and 2 standing part of the Bill—I am essentially opposing the Bill as a whole—by commenting on the process. We have before us a single-page Bill that in its specificity and intent <span id="377" class="column-number" data-column-number="377"></span>cannot but bring to my mind how the current President of the United States is using executive orders to interfere intrusively and intricately in the rightly independent decision making of other bodies. This is a micro Bill that micromanages. I worry what else we might see from this Government if such an example is set today. On Second Reading, the shadow Justice Secretary was not shy of telling us about his next targets, which include the long-standing “Equal Treatment Bench Book”. The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) has outlined other guidelines that might be immediately affected if we pass this Bill today. My second objection is about the substance of the Bill, which is primarily contained in clause 1. I cannot believe that Ministers and shadow Ministers are unaware that achieving fair and equal outcomes does not mean treating everyone exactly the same. That principle is so fundamental that I think I learned it through the round window. I cannot believe they are unaware that systemic racism and unconscious bias are real things that still affect people at every stage of the criminal justice system in the United Kingdom in 2025. They must be aware that the good practice that we put together must mitigate those things, or else it will compound them. I do not believe that the Government as a whole think that the findings of the independent Lammy review of 2017 are untrue, or that they and a wealth of other evidence did not demonstrate the need for guidelines of this sort to provide information to help mitigate the impact of systemic racism and prejudice. Yet here we are, being asked to vote for legislation that essentially bans this evidence and these principles from being part of independent judicial guidelines.

    Hansard source
  8. ParliamentSiân Berry

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    To return to the intervention from the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), it is difficult for some to realise that with these guidelines, the definition of “normal” has flipped away from the <span id="378" class="column-number" data-column-number="378"></span>male, the white, the Christian and the majority to shine more of a light on people who are parts of minorities and might have experienced systemic problems leading up to the sentencing decision. That is the point of the guidelines. That is how we act in an anti-racist way. It is how we put together policy that mitigates the great problems that the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), has outlined and we know well. In contrast to this rushed Bill, the process that led to the now suspended new Sentencing Council guidelines was excellent: the document was consulted on widely; the Justice Committee looked at it; and it was given the green light by a Conservative Government, of which the shadow Justice Secretary was a member. Before I am intervened on, I am aware that a small change was made, but in essence the same document has come forward and the same principles were enshrined in the document that was proposed and approved. There was basically consensus that more use of pre-sentence reports should be made for people suffering from systemic injustices, that particular groups might be in greater need of them, and that judges should be permitted and encouraged to ask for such reports for those groups in more circumstances. I want to talk about another group who will suffer from the delay caused by the Bill suspending the guidelines. I do not know when we will get new guidelines, but there will be more harm to women, families and children, who were all given more specific focus in the new—now suspended—guidelines. I have worked for some years on the problems and injustices facing women in the criminal justice system. I am concerned about the serious consequences that will come from any delay to these long overdue changes to further widen the use of pre-sentence reports and to make those reports easier for these groups. There will be serious consequences not only for too many people with these characteristics or circumstances—however we define it—but for wider society too. Will Ministers tell us about the impact of this delay on women, families, pregnant people and other groups named? When will we get new guidelines that include them? How many people will be harmed in the meantime? This delay has already taken some weeks. Some Members will be familiar with the seminal 2007 Corston report about women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system. Incidentally, that document reminds us in its introduction: “Equality does not mean treating everyone the same.” The Sentencing Council guidelines were about to help plug a gap that still remained in terms of addressing the recommendations and themes of the Corston report. Indeed, in its commentary, the Sentencing Council rightly points to deeply concerning evidence of this problem. I am aware of difficulties judges have had in justifying delays and adjournments to go and get pre-sentence reports. The old guidance pushed for often impossible same-day reporting back from the Probation Service and cautioned against adjournments. With this delay to the new guidelines, will it be 2027—20 years after Corston—before the old guidelines are fully removed? How many women might be harmed in the meantime? As far as I can see, the shadow Justice Secretary has scored a major win today, seizing this issue to stage another culture war ambush against another minority. Instead of standing by judges and by important principles <span id="379" class="column-number" data-column-number="379"></span>we have all known for a long time—instead of simply allowing these guidelines to be trialled while the concerns being raised were addressed calmly—this Government have essentially put an executive order-style Bill before us now for its remaining stages. There was not even time on Second Reading for opponents like me to point that out. I am sorry, but I believe that this Bill represents nothing less than a rushed and extraordinary capitulation by this Government to hard-right propaganda. People will suffer injustice as a result. It is profoundly worrying to see the Government legislating in this manner, micromanaging justice in ways that are led by—let’s face it—dog whistles, rhyming slogans and disingenuous propaganda. I will support new clause 1, but I sincerely hope that other Members will join me in voting against this Trumpian Bill and showing our respect for the independence of judges and magistrates on these matters. It is vital that we do something today to stand up for evidence-led policy, judicial independence and genuine equality before the law.

    Hansard source
  9. ParliamentSiân Berry

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    I hope the hon. Member was listening to my speech when I talked about the harm that might be caused by the delay in bringing in the really excellent parts of the new guidelines that might help women and families. Are the Liberal Democrats asking for a delay, or would they like to support bringing in the parts of the guidance that are agreed as soon as possible?

    Hansard source
  10. ParliamentSiân Berry

    Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

    The independent person is required to produce an annual report on the use of the new powers, which, as the Minister has just laid out, are quite extensive. However, there is no requirement for the DWP to adopt the report’s recommendations. In cases where it does not accept the recommendations, will the Government consider committing to at least explaining why they have reached that conclusion?

    Hansard source
  11. ParliamentSiân Berry

    Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

    There is a lot I could say, but I will mainly just commend to Members my new clause 7, which would remove official error from the most punitive measures in the second part of the Bill. I spoke against the whole suite of intrusive legislation in the second part of the Bill on Second Reading, and Green MPs still oppose it now. I was pleased to serve on the Public Bill Committee, and I will be supporting a number of other amendments that I also backed there, alongside the hon. Members from both sides of the House who proposed them. On Second Reading and in Committee I described how the Bill treats already stigmatised benefit claimants as suspects, not citizens, through blanket intrusion and surveillance. It is absolutely wrong that this legislation should go through in this form. I think the first part works, but the second part is absolutely out of order.<span id="263" class="column-number" data-column-number="263"></span> New clause 7, tabled in my name, is about fair play. It would bring a test for the recovery of universal credit overpayments caused by official error into line with regulation 100(2) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, so that they could be recovered only where the claimant could have reasonably been expected to realise that there was an overpayment. Let us be in no doubt, mistakes by the DWP can have huge financial and psychological impacts on people who are receiving benefits, and the risk of harm is particularly acute with official error overpayments, which individuals have no way of anticipating. I point out that new clause 7 is equivalent to an amendment proposed by Labour Front Benchers during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act back in 2012, when the Government first started to recover universal credit overpayments. Turning to a few of the other important amendments before the House today, I restate my support for amendments 2 and 5, in the name of the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). These seek simply to remove the totally indefensible bank spying powers. I express my support for amendments 10 and 12, in the name of the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), which rightly seek to do away with the driving disqualification powers, which I have previously opposed. I also put on record my support for amendment 11, also in the name of the hon. Member for Poole, which rightly limits the banks’ spying powers to cases with existing suspicion of wrongdoing. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) has taken forward amendments 8 and 9, which I tabled in Committee. My Green party colleagues and I will also be voting for new clause 1, in the name of the hon. Member for Torbay, on carer’s allowance and lessons learned. It matters when we treat people who need a safety net as suspects. It matters when Governments invade privacy with a blanket intrusion that affects older people, disabled people and other minorities in a disproportionate way. And it matters that the powers proposed today extend to impoverishing citizens and punishing them for our own Department’s mistakes. Treating people with humanity and due process should be the default setting, not these intrusive new blanket laws, and I hope that Parliament will ask Ministers to dial up the competence, dial down the stigma and think again.

    Hansard source
  12. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

    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 <span id="104" class="column-number" data-column-number="104"></span>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.

    Hansard source
  13. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

    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 <span id="119" class="column-number" data-column-number="119"></span>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.

    Hansard source
  14. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
  15. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
  16. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
  17. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
  18. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

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

    Hansard source
  19. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

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

    Hansard source
  20. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
  21. ParliamentCarla Denyer

    Climate Change: International Leadership

    As the Minister knows, global leadership is about adaptation and mitigation. Does she expect the Climate Change Committee’s report on adaptation, which is due out tomorrow, to say that the Government are doing enough in this regard? Furthermore, will she show real leadership by requiring local authorities and major infrastructure providers to carry out climate risk assessments, so that, statutorily, they will have to ensure that climate resilience and preparedness form a part of their plans?

    Hansard source
  22. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{BE99825E-3496-4910-8D47-A769039E34F4}"> </QNum></strong> 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? <em><strong>Sir John Armitt:</strong></em> 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 <span id="11" class="column-number" data-column-number="11"></span>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.

    Hansard source
  23. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{C69A8626-44FD-45B8-A514-C3E251C8BCA5}"> </QNum></strong> 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? <em><strong>Marian Spain:</strong></em> 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 <span id="27" class="column-number" data-column-number="27"></span>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.

    Hansard source
  24. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{3841102B-4CC5-405F-AD98-E5750187DFED}"> </QNum></strong> 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?<span id="35" class="column-number" data-column-number="35"></span> <em><strong>Hugh Ellis:</strong></em> 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. <em><strong>Faraz Baber:</strong></em> 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.

    Hansard source
  25. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{90EAD4BB-5C7A-42DA-89CE-8D1C4905F71C}"> </QNum></strong> On the first part of my question, what do you think the purpose of planning should be? <em><strong>Faraz Baber:</strong></em> 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. <em><strong>Victoria Hills:</strong></em> 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— <span id="36" class="column-number" data-column-number="36"></span>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.

    Hansard source
  26. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{64719C88-C35B-4A10-928F-F718DCEFABDB}"> </QNum></strong> 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? <em><strong>Richard Benwell:</strong></em> 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 <span id="74" class="column-number" data-column-number="74"></span>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.

    Hansard source
  27. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{C45E7023-7EFE-428E-9D12-E5820040ACF4}"> </QNum></strong> 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. <em><strong>Richard Benwell:</strong></em> 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.

    Hansard source
  28. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{52B769BD-510A-466B-8C33-1E07A6B41774}"> </QNum></strong> But you are saying that these are easily fixable through amendment. They are not devastating to the Bill, in principle. <em><strong>Richard Benwell:</strong></em> 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.

    Hansard source
  29. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{C9BBB268-06AB-4C48-801B-6BAA46895216}"> </QNum></strong> 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?<span id="88" class="column-number" data-column-number="88"></span> <em><strong>Matthew Pennycook:</strong></em> 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.

    Hansard source
  30. ParliamentCarla Denyer

    EU Trading Relationship

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing this important debate ahead of the UK-EU summit next month. The summit comes in the throes of alarming uncertainty created by President Trump’s dangerous, chaotic and authoritarian approach to trade and international relations. The Trump turmoil makes building close relationships with our EU neighbours even more urgent. We need to fix those relationships <span id="504WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="504WH"></span>because the UK’s withdrawal from the EU has caused profound damage to our relationship with our nearest and biggest trading partner. I will not repeat the stats that Members have already highlighted, but I want to highlight that smaller firms are seeing the biggest fall in trade. I know that Brexit has caused major problems for independent local businesses in my Bristol Central constituency.

    Hansard source
  31. ParliamentCarla Denyer

    EU Trading Relationship

    Thank you, Sir Jeremy. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) spoke about defence industry businesses that are largely outside my constituency, so I am not familiar with the details, but it is an interesting point. We need a bold and positive plan to get closer to the EU, rather than capitulation to an untrustworthy US President on vital trading standards and regulations. So far, the Government’s reset of the UK-EU relationship has had some good points, such as some useful moves on reducing border checks on agrifoods, mutual recognition of qualifications and addressing problems facing touring artists, but we must go further. In particular, there is huge mutual benefit to be gained from greater climate and energy co-operation to ensure improved energy security and the delivery of net zero at a lower cost, so I hope the Minister can assure us that that will be a central part of the UK-EU reset and the upcoming summit. The UK has been falling sharply behind EU chemical safety laws post Brexit, which is a point of particular concern. As well as supporting closer trade ties with the EU, alignment with EU chemical safety protections would be beneficial for the UK by minimising costs to industry, as well as maintaining high environmental, worker and public health and safety standards. Ministers will be aware that the Trades Union Congress, representing millions of workers across the UK, has recently said that a closer trading relationship with the EU is “more important than ever” in an increasingly fraught and volatile world, and I agree. The Green party is clear that the UK would be better off inside the EU. Like many others, we were frankly astonished to hear the now Prime Minister say, just days before the general election, that the UK would not rejoin the EU—not only during his premiership but in his entire lifetime. I think that was a remarkable thing to say. Recognising that the UK will not rejoin the EU imminently, the Greens and I still feel that it would be wise for the UK to rebuild trust and links, and to break down those barriers with a view to rejoining the EU when the domestic and international situation makes <span id="505WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="505WH"></span>that more viable. In the meantime, joining the customs union as a first step towards full EU membership would be vital, and a way of resolving many of the worst problems resulting from Brexit, not least the harm done to our trading relationship with the EU.

    Hansard source
  32. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Sewage

    I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for bringing this important debate to the House. <span id="1155" class="column-number" data-column-number="1155"></span>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.

    Hansard source
  33. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Sewage

    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:<span id="1156" class="column-number" data-column-number="1156"></span> “Special administration must be a last resort, as it has significant consequences for a company’s investors.”<span id="vol_col96" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="96" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="9FFD85E0-4467-4B00-9709-3D99CB03D7FD"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Water (Special Measures) Public Bill Committee, </em>14 January 2025; c. 96.]</span> 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.

    Hansard source
  34. ParliamentCarla Denyer

    North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support

    I welcome the opportunity provided by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) to debate transitional support for oil and gas workers, who are already bearing the brunt of the North sea’s disorderly decline as reserves have dwindled without a clear agreed plan. In my first ever job in the renewable energy sector in 2008—17 years ago now—I co-wrote a report on the huge potential of British North sea ports to move into the renewable energy industry as locations where offshore wind turbines and associated infrastructure are manufactured and then shipped. While some of that has been realised, a lot of opportunities were missed as jobs went overseas. The need for action is now urgent. We already know that new oil and gas projects are incompatible with averting the worst impacts of climate catastrophe. If the goal is also to provide North sea workers and communities with the long-term security that they deserve—and it must be—new oil and gas fields are still not the answer. Even with hundreds of new licences issued and new field approvals granted in the past decade, jobs supported by the UK oil and gas industry have more than halved already, and multiple sources predict a continued decline. We must protect those workers and provide security for that workforce, but in a declining basin that will not come from desperate attempts to double down on new drilling. Let us take the specific example of the Rosebank oil field. Setting aside the significant climate harm that Rosebank would cause, the claim that the project will create thousands of jobs is inflated. Equinor’s own estimate suggests that only 255 direct jobs would be created in the UK over its entire lifetime. Equinor has decided to construct the main offshore vessel for Rosebank in Dubai, and unions are rightly furious that the project has yet to create a single UK design or construction job. Meanwhile, analysis shows that properly investing in British clean energy supply chains could create over 20,000 jobs for workers in key areas such as Scotland’s oil and gas communities, many of whom, as Members have pointed out, have a lot of the transferable skills we need. Rather than bowing to the industry’s last-ditch calls for new drilling, will the Government do what is needed to protect workers? For too long, oil and gas companies have been in the driving seat of the North sea transition. Time and again, they choose to prioritise their own short-term interests over the long-term needs of workers and their communities. As the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) said, alarmingly, just seven of the 87 North sea operators plan to invest anything at all in UK renewables between now and 2030. Instead, these companies are on a sunset <span id="414WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="414WH"></span>ride, maximising profits from oil and gas while they still can, regardless of what that means for the rest of us. That lack of investment has clear consequences for workers, who are demanding clear pathways out of high-carbon jobs and into the renewable energy industry, where they know they have a longer-term future. Oil and gas companies like to blame the windfall tax for preventing them from investing, but they had been failing to invest long before that levy was introduced. We have also seen companies choosing to make workers redundant while simultaneously banking excessive profits and issuing their shareholders huge payouts—more proof that they continue to prioritise their own private interests over the workforce. Does the Minister agree that it is time to stop betting on private oil and gas industry companies doing the right thing? How does he plan to ensure that the interests of workers and communities, rather than just those of oil and gas bosses, are served in the Government’s plan for the North sea? The need for the Government to step in and manage the transition in the public interest is now urgent, and the current approach, which is overwhelmingly focused on de-risking private investment, is wholly insufficient to achieve that aim. It risks recreating the inequalities and failures of our current energy system, where wealth and jobs flow overseas. The unjust closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery without plans to support workers is a damning indictment of that failed industry. To ensure good, secure jobs for workers and build wealth that lasts in communities that are already experiencing the sharp edge of the transition, we need an entirely new approach—one that plans ahead before private companies decide to abandon their workers. Alongside a clear, worker-led plan for the North sea, unions and climate groups are calling for the Government to commit to an emergency ringfenced funding package in the spending review. Will the Minister meet the Chancellor to ensure that those ringfenced funds are secured, and will he ensure that past mistakes are not repeated in the North sea transition?

    Hansard source
  35. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Domestic Violence: Bail Conditions

    <Question HRSContentId="{73AA4CF6-5A1F-44CC-8057-05D8EF41E5E7}">7. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{A2DB4AC2-5839-4D76-8293-C476D46A8BF1}">What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of policies applying to bail conditions in domestic violence cases.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
  36. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Domestic Violence: Bail Conditions

    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?

    Hansard source
  37. ParliamentCarla Denyer

    “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling

    Many people are feeling deeply worried about the Supreme Court judgment and what it means for their ability to live their <span id="960" class="column-number" data-column-number="960"></span>lives in dignity and in privacy. Will the Minister make a commitment to uphold trans people’s fundamental rights, including the right to privacy, given that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was created in part to do that? The Supreme Court ruling risks dismantling that by forcing trans people to out themselves multiple times a day whenever they visit the toilet, including in their workplace, in public buildings, or, indeed, in hospital.

    Hansard source
  38. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

    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?<span id="878" class="column-number" data-column-number="878"></span>

    Hansard source
  39. ParliamentSiân Berry

    Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate

    I am concerned about public health. We all know that diesel and petrol hybrids are not zero emission, we know that the 2035 extension is not about tariffs—it applies only to UK sales—and we know that the move was already on the cards since Labour ripped clean air out of its manifesto completely. Has the Secretary of State assessed the impact of the announcement on the achievement of clean air target commitments? Is this the last we will hear of any clean air Act from this Government?

    Hansard source
  40. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians

    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?

    Hansard source