Flood Resilience
Debate between Jim Shannon and Ellie Chowns(3 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Not long after my election in 2024, I received an email from a father of three whose home had been flooded for the second time in five years. He wrote:
“The increasing uncertainty in the weather caused by global warming only increases the flood risk in the immediacy—and in future, we fear we won’t be able to secure insurance on the property. And we live in constant fear of repeat situations for something that, in theory, can be resolved.”
His words stayed with me, because they capture exactly what I hear across North Herefordshire, and what I am sure colleagues hear across the country. Flooding is no longer something that people talk about as a freak event or a piece of bad luck; increasingly, they expect it to happen again. As our climate changes, flooding is becoming something that communities now must plan around.
We recently marked Flood Action Week, and I pay huge tribute to everyone, from local volunteers to emergency responders, who worked tirelessly to help communities prepare. But for many, flooding is no longer an occasional emergency; it is becoming a part of life. We have already seen unprecedentedly deadly climate impacts this summer. The climate crisis is no longer a future threat; it is here now, and affecting homes, farms, businesses and critical infrastructure across the country.
As we head into winter, scientists are warning that a powerful supercharged El Niño could contribute to much wetter and stormier conditions during parts of this winter. We know that the risks are growing and that the cost of failing to prepare will be borne by our communities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate—I spoke to her beforehand. This is not the Minister’s responsibility, but back home they have allocated £16,000 for flood resilience, which would hardly pay to get a JCB and a trailer down to where the coastal erosion and floods are happening. Does she agree that it is a case of penny wise and pound foolish? If we do not address flood resilience issues and coastal erosion now, we will pay substantially more later. The Minister should make the money available now.
Dr Chowns
Absolutely, and that is a point I will return to later in my speech. There is a huge benefit-cost ratio for early investment in flood resilience—it pays back many times over.
Let us recognise the scale of the challenge that we face: 6.3 million properties across the UK are already at risk of flooding. The Climate Change Committee estimates that flooding has already cost the UK around £3.3 billion every year and warns that annual damages could increase to about £4.5 billion a year by the middle of the century if we fail to adapt. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has said, it would be much cheaper to invest now to ensure that we are protected against that.
The costs are measured not only in pounds, but in the strain placed on families trying to rebuild their lives. The bill for flooding is already here; the question is whether we invest now to reduce those costs or pay far more later.
Dr Chowns
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Government have a crucial role to play in supporting farmers to put in place the measures that are so helpful for our long-term resilience and have many wider community benefits too.
This work is key because healthy soils, healthy rivers and resilient landscapes are key to long-term food security. As the National Farmers’ Union points out, 58% of England’s highest quality agricultural land lies within floodplains, underlining the fact that flood resilience is not just an environmental issue but a food security issue. I know many farmers whose land has been at times completely under water, which has devastating impacts on their livelihood.
Farmers are increasingly having to manage both floods and drought as part of normal business planning. They want to be part of the solution, but they need the certainty and support to make long-term investments in managing water, improving soil health and restoring nature. Indeed, I met with the Herefordshire Rural Hub to discuss the local farmers’ water action group, which is looking exactly at how they can manage having excess water in the winter and not enough water in the summer, and connecting those two together to support our communities.
When farmers hold on to water on their land to protect homes and infrastructure downstream, they are providing a much wider public benefit. Does the Minister agree that farmers who help to reduce flood risk in this way should be properly recognised and fairly rewarded for the role they play?
More broadly, we need to invest much more in natural flood management, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) said. Restoring wetland, improving soil health, reconnecting rivers with their floodplains, planting trees, restoring hedgerows—all these things help to slow the flow of water through the landscape. Every drop of water held upstream is a drop that does not have to be managed in an emergency downstream.
As has been noted, rivers do not recognise administrative boundaries, and neither does floodwater. What happens upstream affects communities downstream, often many miles away, so what are the Government doing to improve co-ordination and co-operation between local authorities, farmers, the drainage boards, regulators and water companies across the whole catchment?
Flooding and drought are two sides of the same coin. I welcome the establishment of the new flood and drought resilience taskforce, which is currently looking at community engagement, water resilience and property flood resilience. Let me pay tribute to Flood Mary—one of my constituents—who has played a crucial role over many years in encouraging the adoption of property flood resilience. The test for me is how the work of the flood and drought resilience taskforce will translate into practical action on the ground for communities such as those in North Herefordshire. Met Office data shows that the winter of 2025-26 was the eighth wettest in England since records began, yet by August this year 71% of England had entered drought status. These are the extremes of flood and drought writ large, in our faces right now. It perfectly illustrates why flooding and drought can no longer be treated as separate challenges. What plans do the Government have to increase water storage, including new reservoirs, so that excess winter water can help tackle flooding while also improving resilience to summer droughts?
The case for action is overwhelming. Flooding threatens homes, food production, local economies and the long-term viability of communities. We know that investing now is far cheaper than paying for the damage later. In fact, the Climate Change Committee estimates benefit-cost ratios of 3:1 to 5:1 for natural flood management, 5:1 for property flood resilience, and 5:1 for other approaches to flood risk management. This is great value for money and a fantastic return on investment.
We know what works: better planning, better maintenance, stronger protection for homes, support for farmers and approaches that work with nature rather than against it. Indeed, I saw lots of that in action when I visited the Netherlands a couple of years ago with the Environmental Audit Committee. What was striking is that there they work out what needs to be done to protect communities, what the most cost-effective investments are and then how they are going to mobilise the funding. But in this country we seem to fight with the Treasury for a little pot of money, with everybody having to get their elbows out to engage in a bunfight about what resources can be secured for different places. We need a much more holistic approach. That requires more investment up front, but it will pay back many times over.
Dr Chowns
I am sorry, but I am going to finish as we are short of time.
The responsibility of Government is not simply to respond to flooding after it happens, but to build the resilience our communities will need in a rapidly warming climate. The question is whether the Government are ready to act at the scale that the challenge of flood resilience demands.
MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition
Debate between Jim Shannon and Ellie Chowns(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
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—
Dr Chowns
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.
Progression of Bills through Parliament
Debate between Jim Shannon and Ellie Chowns(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon
No.
That scrutiny cannot simply be a rubber stamp. If it is conceived of as a rubber stamp, that is a false understanding of what scrutiny entails. The Hansard Society has stated clearly during the previous Session that
“The House of Lords has the authority to reject, delay, or otherwise block the assisted dying bill.”
That myth needs dispelling.
The second myth that needs to be dispelled is the absurd accusation of the blocking or filibustering the assisted dying Bill by just a small handful of Lords. Amendments were tabled or co-signed by more than 90 peers, and some 140 peers with a range of views on the principle of assisted suicide expressed opposition to the Bill in the Lords, in the form of amendments, speaking in debates or Parliamentary questions. Some have pointed out that hundreds of amendments were tabled by a small number of peers, but it is important to note that dozens of other peers would have tabled the same amendments. It is a total fiction to suggest that opposition came from only a few—there were multiple peers involved.
I will tell hon. Members who those prominent peers were. They were lead signatories on these amendments because of their expertise. They included Baroness Grey-Thompson, who tabled amendments relating to disability—who has better knowledge than that lady? Baroness Finlay, a leading palliative care professor, tabled amendments on medical issues—again, her knowledge is significant. Lord Carlile KC, tabled amendments related to legal concerns. Had they not put their names to those amendments, countless others would have done so. They led on those amendments, and the fact that others did not add their names does not mean that they would not have done so in turn.
It is also important to understand that, having been sent to the Lords by this House, the Bill was scrutinised by three separate Committees: the House of Lords Constitution Committee, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and a Lords Select Committee. The Delegated Powers Committee was scathing about the skeletal nature of the Bill’s provisions, which included handing more than 40 sweeping, unspecified and unjustified powers to future Ministers to determine what assisted suicide under the Bill would actually look like.
The final myth, on which the petition partially rests, is that Lords scrutiny of a Bill should be rendered null due to public support for this particular proposal. That is an exceptionally flimsy argument and does not stand up to scrutiny. Putting aside the veracity of claims of 70% public support for the Bill, a recent multi-level regression and post-stratification poll found that, across the country, just 8% of the public would support pushing a non-manifesto commitment into law without approval and full scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament. The same poll found only 7% ranked it among their top three priorities for their MPs to focus on.
We should listen to our constituents. I always listen to my constituents, in Strangford. I suggest that others may need to do the same.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Warm Homes Plan
Debate between Jim Shannon and Ellie Chowns(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Chowns
The hon. Member is right to draw attention to the eye-watering profits made by energy companies—a subject raised during exchanges on the statement made just before this debate—and the irresponsibility of many of those companies’ actions. It is essential to ensure that when people pay their bills, the money goes towards keeping them warm, not filling the coffers of shareholders. Given those eye-watering profits, it is clear that there is capacity in the energy market, not least because of the hike in energy prices that has resulted from Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is what has driven them through the roof; it has nothing whatever to do with levies and policy costs. We should be ensuring that those eye-watering sums are reinvested in supporting those who are most vulnerable to fuel poverty, and enabling them to live in warm homes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for raising this issue. In Northern Ireland we have a slightly different scheme called the affordable warmth scheme, run by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The problem we have is that only a certain amount of money is set aside, and it is first come, first served, so some people in poverty do not receive the benefit, whereas others do. Does the hon. Lady agree that such schemes, whether here in England or in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, must always make funding available to those who meet the criteria?
Dr Chowns
The hon. Gentleman may have been reading my notes over my shoulder, because I was about to make exactly that point. We must keep the needs of the most vulnerable households front and centre.
I was talking about the fuel poverty statistics. According to the Government’s own figures, 3 million households were fuel-poor in 2024, but using the definition that is still used in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, campaigners estimate that the number of UK households facing fuel poverty is nearly double that number—about 6 million households. We live in one of the world’s wealthiest countries, and no one, but no one, should be struggling to keep their home warm.
In the west midlands, where my lovely constituency is, we face the highest regional rate of fuel poverty in England. North Herefordshire far more badly affected than the national average. Adding to the strain in my constituency is the fact that rural homes are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. They are more likely to be detached or built before 1919—that is certainly the case in North Herefordshire—and therefore harder to heat efficiently, and rural households face deep fuel poverty and high energy costs. Moreover, installers are known to avoid complicated homes, such as those in my constituency, because they are less profitable, which means that schemes such as the ECO often fail to reach rural locations.
COP29 and International Climate Finance
Debate between Jim Shannon and Ellie Chowns(2 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ellie Chowns
Absolutely. The hon. Member makes a very important point, which relates to the one I made at the beginning: we cannot avoid the fact that we in the UK have an historical responsibility to take action on climate finance. We need to ensure that we are not storing up further problems for the future by providing climate finance in the form of loans, which make things harder for the poorest people in the poorest countries. Frankly, it is a scandal that, as he says, so many people in the poorest countries find that their Governments are spending more on debt repayments than they are on investment in crucial health and education, which build what we sometimes call the human capital that is so essential to sustainable development in such countries. I very much hope that the Government will lead on this issue and ensure that climate finance is in the form of grants—all of it, if possible, but at least the very largest proportion of it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I spoke to her beforehand, and the subject is incredibly important. According to international climate finance reports, 14 programmes have been initiated to support farmers across the globe to improve their access to clean energy. As she rightly said, that is an objective not only internationally, but at home. Does she agree that the Government must do more to assist farmers domestically across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with incentives for greener and cleaner farming?
Ellie Chowns
I thank the hon. Member for making that point. This debate is on international climate finance, but I am happy to address his question about the interaction between domestic policy and the climate crisis that we face. I was disappointed not to hear in the Budget statement any commitment on climate or nature. Indeed, reading the detail on page 37 of the Budget, we will have a real-terms 2% decrease in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs budget over the next two years. Investment, however, is vital. Nature-friendly farming in the UK is one of the crucial ways to reduce our own emissions and get a little closer to doing our fair share of mitigating climate change. Another issue close to my heart is the role of DEFRA in tackling water pollution, and again we are not seeing that. I agree that investment domestically in nature-friendly farming and environmental policies is crucial. We have to put our money where our mouth is, and we have to ensure that we ourselves are on track to meet our climate goals.
At COP28 last year, the stocktake found that the world is off track to meet the 1.5° target. In itself, that commits us to serious effects already. In real life, we see increasing drought and wildfires, and the increasing frequency and severity of flooding in our own country. We know that climate change is happening. We have to do everything possible domestically to tackle it.
My fourth point is that international climate finance must be additional to aid. In recent years, we have seen not only a shameful, in my view, reduction in the overseas development assistance budget—I strongly urge the Government to bring that back up to 0.7% as soon as possible—but the wrapping of all sorts of other costs into the ODA budget. A real risk, if we put international climate finance into the ODA budget, is less money to spend on health, education and all those policies that are so essential to tackling international poverty and inequality. International climate finance must be treated separately from ODA.
My fifth point is about where the money should come from. Again, that is an important topic on Budget day, and indeed I will digress slightly to comment on the Budget. One policy we have seen today is a retention of the fuel duty freeze, which is effectively a subsidy for fossil fuels. That is clearly incompatible with the Government’s rhetoric on climate change. We should lead the way as a country in pushing for “polluter pays” taxes to generate the finance necessary to meet what I hope will be strong and ambitious international climate finance goals, because—to recap—this is urgent. 2024 is on track to be the hottest year ever on record. This change is going only one way. I do not know how many economists and scientists we need to tell us that the investment must come early—as soon as possible—because the transition will get more and more expensive. The longer we leave it, the costlier it will be, not just financially, but in terms of the effect on human lives. COP29 is a crucial moment in the international climate negotiations.
I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister how she will ensure that the UK plays a leading role, putting our money where our mouth is and doing everything possible to influence international partners to ensure that climate finance is sufficient to address the challenge that we face.