Spoken contributions

One of Ellie’s key roles in Parliament is to literally speak up on behalf of her constituents. She takes part in debates, asks questions in the chamber, and challenges the government on key issues.

For the full list of Ellie’s spoken contributions, plus the option to view the rest of the debate or questions session, visit here: Spoken contributions by Ellie Chowns

Here are a few examples where Ellie has raised concerns, shared ideas, and pushed for change.

On Bathing Waters: Pollution
As I have reminded Ministers on a number of occasions, tackling pollution in our rivers and seas requires us to address agricultural pollution as well as sewage pollution. I am disappointed not to hear the Minister mention that, but I like to come with solutions. I recently visited the Wyescapes landscape recovery project in my constituency, which is an innovative farmer-led project of 49 farmers protecting soil, reducing pollution, restoring nature and producing great-quality food. Will the Minister, or perhaps her colleague the Farming Minister, come to visit this innovative project to see how we can tackle river pollution and protect nature and food production?

On Iran Protests
I share the horror expressed by colleagues on both sides of the House at the brutal, repressive crackdown on protesters in Iran, and pay particular tribute to the bravery of women protesters who are fighting for their rights. Among the many concerning stories that are now emerging is testimony on the use of sexual assault as a weapon of repression. Did the Minister and the Foreign Secretary raise that specifically during their recent interactions with representatives of the Iranian regime, and can the Minister set out in more detail the timetable for next steps, including implementation of the additional sanctions to which the Foreign Secretary referred last week?

Speech and question on Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality
I thank the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for securing debate on a hugely important issue of water pollution, which is one of deep concerns to residents in my constituency of North Herefordshire, which, like hers, is in the Wye catchment. The Lugg, which runs through the centre of my constituency, is a tributary of the Wye. The tributaries of the Lugg are also particularly heavily affected by water pollution, which is one of the reasons why I founded the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution on entering this House in the middle of last year.

Water pollution has terrible effects on wildlife, on people’s ability to swim in and use rivers, and on the economy. Hundreds of millions of pounds of damage have been caused to the Herefordshire economy because the levels of pollution mean that we have had a moratorium on house building since 2019—that is really serious damage.

It is not just a local issue; we have heard today about what is happening all over the country. The Office for Environmental Protection in its report last year, on our prospect of meeting the legally binding 2027 target, said that we are “off track”, and it is deeply concerning that we are failing to meet that target. We need additional measures, including additional local measures, so I call on the Minister, when she winds up, to tell us what additional measures she will take to tackle water pollution.

When I have pressed Ministers on this topic—including this Minister and the Secretary of State—in the House, they have referred to the water commission. I have read its terms of reference several times, but can the Minister tell me where they refer to the problem of agricultural pollution? They do not—I have read them very carefully. The commission does not tackle the elephant in the room. Agricultural pollution is responsible for more pollution across the country than sewage is. In constituencies such as mine, in the Wye catchment, it is the large majority.

We know what the solutions are. We need a plan and proper funding for the Wye catchment plan. We need proper funding for nature-friendly farming, because farmers have the solutions to this issue at their fingertips, but they need the Government’s support.

Does the Minister agree that the problem with the way the £35 million was previously supposed to be spent was that it was the opposite of the “polluter pays” principle, because it was essentially a subsidy to the most polluting industry? Will she agree to find £35 million to support nature-friendly farming in the Wye catchment to solve the issue?

Speech on Water Special Measures Bill
I declare an interest as a founding co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution. As the Minister well knows, I have a deep and abiding interest in the theme of water pollution. I gently remind her that agricultural run-off is the primary source of water pollution in my constituency, and I welcome the constructive conversations we had on that topic last week. Today, I will talk about the broader topic of the Bill.

Water companies have extracted £85 billion of value from our water industry since privatisation—that is an extraordinary figure—and their flagrant abuse of our rivers, seas and lakes is a stain on our country, literally as well as figuratively. Some 30% of all water bills now go on debt servicing and dividends, and this is money that should be going towards maintaining and improving our water infrastructure and services. Thames Water, Southern Water and South East Water have all had their credit ratings downgraded, meaning that about a third of bill payers in England and Wales are now paying their bills to junk-rated companies, which again is extraordinary. As companies’ finances get worse, new debt gets more expensive to service, and where does the money come from? The money comes from bill payers.

It is clear for all to see that the interests of water company shareholders and the interests of the public are at odds. It is not possible to use our water as a vehicle for maximum short-term profit and at the same time to deliver safe, reliable, affordable drinking water and a clean environment. One comes at the expense of the other.

On Independent Water Commision

I thank the hon. Member for that clarification, and I am delighted to hear that in this Parliament that has been changed. Historically, it was run by the water industry, which is why it was necessary to set up a new group.

I will confine my comments today to the two elephants in the room: ownership and agriculture. They are effectively missing from the Independent Water Commission. They are effectively missing from the water White Paper. That is frankly extraordinary. Why did the Government prevent the Cunliffe commission from looking at those two crucial issues? Without addressing them, we cannot tackle the problems in the water sector.

Privatisation of water has comprehensively failed. Privatised water companies have paid £85 billion in dividends to shareholders since privatisation, and they have racked up debts of £65 billion. All the while, leaks have been proliferating, infrastructure has been crumbling, there has been a failure to build reservoirs, and customers have been paying hand over fist for poorer and poorer service. It is completely unacceptable.

Nearly every river in England is polluted. England’s bathing water quality is the fifth worst in Europe. England’s surface water quality is the seventh worst in Europe. Over 1 trillion litres of water were leaked in 2024. I have already mentioned the £85 billion paid to shareholders and the £65 billion of debt. Privatisation will cost customers a further £22 billion over the next five years, because that is the return on capital that has been set by Ofwat. Around a third of customer bills now service corporate debt, and Ofwat allowed bills to go up by 26% this financial year alone—an average of £123 per household.

That is a failing water system. No other country in the democratic world has privatised its water system to the degree that we have in this country. It is clear that a market-based approach to the water sector simply does not work. Water is a natural monopoly. Customers have absolutely zero choice. Water is a public good and should be in public hands, so that it works for public benefit. Why did the Government prevent the Independent Water Commission from even looking at that question?

On Nature-friendly Farming
We have indeed discussed these issues before and will continue to do so, I am sure. At the weekend, I spent time on two farms in my constituency—at both I met groups of farmers, including members of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, who told me of their huge frustration at being let down by the Government’s policy on farming and the lack of support. They recognise how vital farming is, including the transition to nature-friendly farming, for this country’s food security, nature protection and climate action. Does he agree with the farmers in my constituency about how vital the transition to nature-friendly farming is for those issues, and will he give us a date for when he will introduce such policies?

In Questioning on the NHS 10-year plan
In the constructive spirit that has characterised much of this discussion, I welcome much of what the Secretary of State has announced today: bringing care closer to people in their homes, investing more in prevention—it is all good stuff. But there seems to be a missed opportunity here. In the 143 pages of this document, there is virtually no mention of social care. Lord Darzi told us last year that we cannot fix the NHS without fixing social care. Six months ago today, the Secretary of State promised cross-party talks and urgent work on the Casey commission, but the commission is delayed and the cross-party talks have never materialised. Will the Secretary of State please treat the care crisis with the urgency it deserves and bring forward that work, so that we can build the necessary cross-party consensus to fix the care crisis?

On Care in the Community
The Darzi report pointed out that 13% of hospital beds are occupied by people who are fit for discharge but who cannot get out because social care is broken. Lord Darzi said that we cannot fix the NHS until we fix social care. It is nearly six months since the Secretary of State promised cross-party talks and a commission, but the talks were cancelled and never rescheduled and the commission is delayed. Please, when will the Government stop going slow on social care? Please, when can we all get around the table to talk about fixing social care so that everyone gets the care they deserve?

In questioning on Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and share her outrage and horror at the use of AI to create these abusive sexual deepfakes. Can I press her on implementation? Our legislation is only as good as its enforcement. She talked about acting swiftly, so will she set a hard deadline for Ofcom to complete its investigation? Will she also set a hard deadline for X to act, and if it does not, impose the fullest fines possible?

Speech on Unpaid Carers: Inequalities
We all recognise that the care system is in crisis, and that unpaid carers play an essential role in supporting people who need care.

I welcome the fact that the Casey Commission, which has been mentioned already, is working—although, I suggest, perhaps not as fast as it needs to be. I am deeply concerned by the Government’s proposal that it should not report for another few years, because resolving the care crisis is a matter of urgency and political will. I am honoured to be the Green party representative on the cross-party talks; I would like those talks to be convened more frequently and to operate much faster, but in the meantime I look forward to welcoming the Casey Commission to my constituency next month as part of its evidence-gathering process.

I am currently engaged in a wide public consultation exercise, running a survey and holding listening exercises in my constituency. My team are visiting various care settings to gather people’s input. I will share the story of one constituent who contacted me a few days ago. She moved to North Herefordshire in 2022 from more than 100 miles away to care for her mother, who was elderly and declining. She left her entire life, moved in with her mum and got a part-time job at a much lower salary than she was used to in order to support her mother, who earlier this year was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and vascular dementia.

My constituent was put in the position of going out to earn £12.21 per hour while paying £20 an hour for somebody to come and look after her mother. She put in an application in early April for carer’s allowance to support the costs of a paid carer, who enables her to keep doing her part-time job, but it was refused. She contacted the DWP in July: the Department said that a mistake might have been made and she was due a mandatory reconsideration. She chased the matter up again but, seven months after her initial request, she has still not had a response. She says that carer’s allowance is too little and takes too long, and that the criteria are far too limited—I could not agree more.

I leave the Minister with my constituent’s words:

“I don’t want to financially benefit from caring for my mum. I just don’t want to be pushed into poverty while I keep her out of hospital and out of a care home.”

She cares for her mum 24/7. When worked out by the number of hours, carer’s allowance is about 55p per hour, because it covers night time care as well as daytime care. Surely the least that unpaid carers deserve from us is a benefit system—a carer’s allowance system—that supports, recognises and works with them, enabling them to provide the vital care that keeps those people who need it out of hospital and care homes.

In Questioning on the Local Bus services
In my constituency, bus services are a lifeline for residents of all ages, young and old. I was shocked to hear at a recent meeting at Hereford sixth-form college that 21 students this year have had to stop their studies because of problems with the reliability and cost of public transport. Our older residents get free bus travel, but our young people do not. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that every young person is enabled to access education, employment and training? Will he meet me to discuss how the Department for Transport can work with the Department for Education to ensure that all young people can access those opportunities?

On Local Bus Services: Travel to School
In the statement on bus services on Monday, I asked the Secretary of State about extending concessionary travel to children and young people. Her response was to suggest that MPs should talk to our individual local authorities about this, but that is not the approach that we take to concessionary travel for pensioners. I have just been contacted by somebody aged over 16 who cannot afford to go to college because it would cost £1,500 a year, and her family just cannot afford that. Is it not the case that concessionary bus travel for children and young people should be extended on a national basis, rather than having this postcode lottery?

On Building Social and affordable Homes
Will the Deputy Prime Minister please explain why her Government will not set a target for the provision of social housing? While I welcome the investment in the social and affordable homes programme that she set out, the reality is that it will meet only 10% of the total number of new homes anticipated and only 10% of the current demand for social housing. If she believes that setting national targets like the 1.5 million homes target is important to drive change, why will she not set a target for social housing?

Regarding Fuel poverty
Charities estimate that more than 6 million households in the UK live in fuel poverty. The Minister’s answer did not even mention the warm homes plan, but he talked about dither and delay. His Government have repeatedly postponed publication of the warm homes plan. They have cancelled previous fuel poverty programmes without replacing them with new insulation programmes. When will the Minister finally publish the warm homes plan? How many of those 6 million households in fuel poverty will benefit from it?

In relations to Warm Homes Plan
I warmly welcome the publication of the long-awaited warm homes plan. The Green party has tirelessly campaigned for many of the things in it: a more consistent, clearer, straightforward, nationwide system for people to access support; better inspection and accountability of installers; and of course, solar panels on roofs as default. However, I have two questions for the Secretary of State. First, this is supposed to be a warm homes plan, but there is a lot of focus on energy supply improvements, and less than I would expect on energy demand management and insulation, which is crucial to reducing bills. Why is that? Secondly, the scale of this plan is still nowhere close to matching the scale of the need. According to the Government’s statistics, there are 2.7 million households in fuel poverty; it is 6 million households, according to other statistics. This plan aims to address only 1 million of those households, and it represents a 25% cut to the amount previously promised for this work. Why is that, and what will the Government do to reach the millions of additional households that will not be covered?

More on Warm Homes Plan
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this crucial issue tonight. I hope to bring to the House the voices of people in my constituency, of campaigners across the country, and of the many families who wake up each morning wondering, “How will we keep our children warm this winter? How will we keep our grandparents warm?” Those are questions that nobody should have to ask.

The Government have committed £13.2 billion to the warm homes plan, which is welcome. It was very strongly implied that this would be £13.2 billion of additional funding, but there are rumours that the Chancellor is considering scaling back the energy company obligation and paying for it with the warm homes plan funding. That would mean that the Government were, in reality, reducing the amount of money spent on retrofit. If that is the case, it is extremely disappointing—and that is the understatement of the year.

I am really disappointed that the warm homes plan, which was due to have come forward quite some time ago, has been delayed and delayed. We now find that there is perhaps a Government plan to reassign some of the funding in a way that would fly entirely in the face of the intended purposes of the warm homes plan, and in the face of what we need to do: upgrade our homes so that everybody can live in a warm home that is affordable to heat. Fuel poverty is an absolute scandal in our country, and we simply cannot let a long-term programme be cannibalised to produce a short-term headline. The rescue mission that our housing stock needs will not survive being hollowed out further by short-term tinkering in the Treasury.

We already know the shocking scale of fuel poverty in this country. The Government’s own figures show that nearly 3 million households in England were fuel-poor in 2024.

On Warm Home Discount
Today’s announcement is very welcome and will make a real difference to many of our constituents. I am glad to hear the Minister reaffirm today that in addition to support with bills, the Government recognise the urgent need to ensure that every home is well-insulated and affordable to heat—a genuinely warm home—and are doing that through both hugely increasing standards for new homes and insulating existing homes. She has referenced the £13.2 billion Government commitment to the warm homes plan, which is welcome, though not enough, but why do the spending review documents show that more than a third of that money—£5 billion of the £13.2 billion—is money that the Government expect to get back, presumably to be repaid by households?

On Rooftop Solar Power
I am delighted that the Government have seen the light on solar photovoltaics and recognised what an important step they are on the path to the sunlit uplands of homes that are genuinely fit for the future. Does the Secretary of State recognise that energy efficiency is a crucial part of energy security, and will he meet me to discuss how the future homes standard might ensure that every home is truly fit for the future, including by being zero carbon?

In Questioning the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Yesterday’s report from the Health and Social Care Committee is explicit that we cannot build an NHS fit for the future without effectively reforming social care. Back in January, the Secretary of State promised cross-party talks as well as Baroness Casey’s commission. He cannot outsource leadership to Baroness Casey. Political will is the sticking point with the reform of social care. Will he show that leadership and bring the parties together to find the solutions to unblock this crisis?

On Sewage
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.

In relation to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that I always like to start by emphasising where there is common ground and agreement, so that we can start off on a positive foot. I do agree that there is a housing crisis. I do agree that we need to build more homes. We need to tackle the outrageous inequality in the housing market and the fact that there are nearly 1 million empty homes, as well as 1.5 million for which there is planning permission but that are, as yet, unbuilt. We need to build more homes—the right home in the right place at the right price, though—and I am not sure the Bill goes far enough to address those concerns……

On Bus Services
Does the Secretary of State recognise that rural constituencies such as mine have particular needs, and that the funding needs to reflect the extra costs associated with rurality, as well as the demographic demands? Young people, older people and people on low incomes rely on buses more than others. Will those factors be taken into account in the funding mechanisms for bus services?