Ellie Chowns MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Mar 2025 · Syria · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement and share his deep concern about the violence over the weekend. He mentioned the more than 16 million Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance and the pledging conference next week. Will he explain how the UK can support a safe, secure, sustainable transition in Syria given the recently announced devastating cuts to UK aid? What is his assessment of the security implications of those cuts in Syria and more broadly?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  As the Green party representative on the cross-party commission on social care, I was deeply disappointed at the cancellation, with only a day’s notice, of last week’s planned initial talks. Since social care is in crisis, surely it should be a matter of urgency to get these talks rescheduled, but I have as yet had no response to my request for a new date. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to urgently prioritise setting a new date for the talks as soon as possible?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Political Finance Rules · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this debate on such a crucial topic. Public trust in politics is at an all-time low; only 12% of people trust political parties, and only 15% of the population think that political funding is transparent. There is clearly a problem at the heart of British politics. As the hon. Member said, it is particularly bad in our country, because we have an Electoral Commission with very little in the way of teeth or of limits. That leaves our democracy open to corrosion and dark money, which we have to be particularly worried about guarding against. As the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) said in the previous debate, we must guard our democracy against those anti-democratic forces and against dark money—the influence of money in politics is a core part of that corrosion. In the UK, there is no limit on individual donations. That is not the case in Canada, in France, or even in the US. Why is there no limit on how much money an individual can donate, and on how much influence they can therefore exert on British politics? Corporate donations are allowed here, but are banned in so many other countries. Foreign donations are theoretically banned here, but loopholes mean that an individual such as Elon Musk could quite easily work within existing, very bendable rules in order to exert what would undoubtedly be a very corrosive influence on our politics. The hon. Member for South Dorset mentioned the Electoral Commission’s lack of enforcement powers: the maximum fine it can impose is £20,000, yet the influence in our politics totals tens of millions of pounds. Just over the past decade, £115 million has come from unknown sources. This is clearly a serious problem. I welcome the fact that the current Government made a manifesto commitment to strengthen the rules on donations to political parties, in order to protect our democracy from foreign influence. I very much hope that in her summing up the Minister will be able to clarify exactly what that will amount to. What actions do the Government intend to take in order to protect our democracy from foreign influence? Can she commit to taking measures such as strengthening the powers of the Electoral Commission to issue fines, reducing the reporting thresholds in order to increase transparency, and clarifying spending limits? Those measures would not require primary legislation, so can the Government set out the timetable by which they will bring forward those urgently needed measures to protect our democracy? Big money in politics is a corrosive influence. This Government have the opportunity to put a stop to it—to bring us up to the standards that other democracies have put in place. Will the Minister set out her timetable for doing so, and clarify precisely what she will do?

• 6 Mar 2025 · North Sea Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s commitment to no new oil and gas licences, and to putting workers and communities at the heart of the transition to a climate-safe economy. It is a bit disappointing to hear that so many Conservative Members still live on planet flat earth, with an ostrich approach to our energy future when what we need is a phoenix approach. I would like to ask the Minister a specific question. Can she confirm that the 4 billion barrels of oil equivalent currently in the North sea will not be pumped? If it is, it would be the equivalent of running 15 coal-fired power stations from now until 2050. She will know the climate implications. Will she confirm that the Government will stop consent for new production?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  I share the horror, outrage and deep disappointment and disillusion- ment of many hon. Members in the House, across many parties, and of people across the country at the Government’s terribly short-sighted and counterproductive decision to fund greater investment in defence through slashing the development budget. Like many hon. Members, I know how important the development budget is because I spent practically my entire career before I came to this place working in that field. I have seen it face to face and on the ground. I know that investing in health, education and nutrition helps increase human security for the long term, and that investing in conflict resolution, peace building, democracy support, and women’s and girls’ rights builds human security globally and makes the world, and us, more secure in the long term, as well as in the short and medium terms. So it is impossible to understand why the Government have taken this incredibly counterproductive decision. The three D’s of defence, diplomacy and development are united: they work together. We cannot possibly increase one by slashing another. It is unbelievable that this decision has been made, because it is so unnecessary. A Member on the Government Benches talked earlier about needing to “send a clear message”, but what is the message that has been sent by this decision, which follows in the slipstream of President Trump’s blocking and dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development? It is the wrong message. Members on the Government Benches—indeed, the Prime Minister himself—have talked about “tough choices”, but it is a wrong choice, because there is an alternative. We did not have to fund this investment on the backs of the poorest and most marginalised. There are other choices available to us. We should ask those with the broadest shoulders to bear the burden of increased investment in defence and security. Our neighbours in France are doing exactly that by looking at wealth taxes. In his summing up, will the Minister explain why the Government have decided to fund investment in defence by undermining diplomacy and development in slashing the aid budget, leaving us all more insecure in the long run?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  I have indeed.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, during my urgent question on Gaza, the Minister responding, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), who has responsibility for the Indo-Pacific, said that the Minister with responsibility for the middle east, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), could not answer the question himself as he was “in the region pushing for a peace deal” —[ Official Report , 4 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 166.] However, I have since received a communication from the press with evidence suggesting that he was at a Labour party networking lunch at Ronnie Scott’s at the time. Could you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether the record should be corrected if it is shown not to be correct?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Gaza.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  Over the weekend, the Israeli Government took the decision to block the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza. The Minister talked about that aid, but it can no longer be delivered. Israel is once again using starvation as a weapon of war, and today we hear that it has also announced a so-called “hell plan” that would see electricity and remaining water supplies cut off. These decisions coincide with the end of the first phase of the ceasefire agreement, with negotiations on phase 2 barely begun, jeopardising the release of the remaining live hostages, plans for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and a longer-term peace agreement. The UN has said: “International humanitarian law is clear: We must be allowed access to deliver vital lifesaving aid.” Oxfam described the move, made as Ramadan began, as a “reckless act of collective punishment, explicitly prohibited under international humanitarian law”, and the International Court of Justice has previously issued explicit instructions to Israel to facilitate aid deliveries to Gaza. Does the Minister agree that the Israeli Government are again in clear violation of the ceasefire agreement and of international humanitarian law? Has she, or have her colleagues, spoken to their Israeli counterparts to condemn Israel’s “hell plan”, and to make it clear that there must be no resumption of the war and that it is unacceptable for the people of Gaza to be denied critical food, water, and medical or any other supplies? What action will the UK take against the Israeli Government if they continue, illegally, to use humanitarian aid and access to water and power as a bargaining chip? I know that the Minister wants the ceasefire to hold. Can she share her assessment of the impact of these latest developments on the prospects for a lasting, just and fair peace?

• 26 Feb 2025 · High Street Bank Closures · Hansard source

  More

  On the specific point of the criteria, I could not agree with him more. It is really problematic. In my constituency of North Herefordshire, we have a banking hub opening in Leominster, now that Lloyds bank has left. However, in Kington, which does not have a bus service to Leominster, there is a fantastic post office that could be a banking hub, but it has been told that it does not fit the criteria. I do not understand why. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to ask the Government to make sure that these criteria are reassessed, because banking, especially in remote areas, is such an important function for businesses and individuals. We cannot continue with the system as is.

• 26 Feb 2025 · High Street Bank Closures · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Defence and Security · Hansard source

  More

  Members across the House recognise the need to invest more and to invest differently in defence and security, but it is unbelievably counterproductive and short-sighted to fund that by slashing aid to the poorest and most fragile countries, or by squeezing already stretched departmental budgets. Why will the Prime Minister not fund this by increasing taxes on the most wealthy, rather than placing the burden on the poorest?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On Monday, the Home Office published updated guidance that seems to prevent anyone from being granted citizenship if they have come to this country through a dangerous journey, despite the fact that for the vast majority of those seeking refuge, there are no safe and legal routes available. Can we have a debate in Government time on this deeply misjudged policy, and in particular on the call from a former Home Secretary to the current Home Secretary to consider very carefully its implications?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Is the Minister concerned that President Trump is repeating false Kremlin propaganda and perpetuating a gross misrepresentation of the war in Ukraine by suggesting that, for Ukraine, this “was not a good war to go into”? Will the UK Government be making it clear to the US President in no uncertain terms that Ukraine has just defended itself from invasion, bombing, rape, murder and occupation, and that it is an outrage for President Trump to suggest that Ukraine should give up its sovereign territory to Russia?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this very important debate. As he set out in his introductory remarks, the historic opinion from the International Court of Justice has significant implications for the UK Government. It adds to the growing international consensus that the actions of the Israeli Government constitute apartheid—a consensus articulated by states, by NGOs, by Israeli as well as Palestinian organisations, by Israeli politicians and by Israeli newspapers. The ICJ opinion is very meaningful for the UK because, as it sets out, third states have obligations deriving from that opinion. Third states have an obligation not to recognise as legal the illegal occupation; not to render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation; to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the occupied Palestinian territory; and to take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of that illegal situation. I ask the Minister to please answer five specific questions. Given the opinion, it seems absolutely crystal clear that the UK must, first, end all arms sales to Israel, including dual-use items; secondly, end any military surveillance partnership that could contribute to rendering aid in maintenance of this illegal situation; and thirdly, regulate the private sector—there are credible reports of complicity on the part of private sector organisations, not least oil and gas companies, in providing fuel that maintains the unlawful occupation. Fourthly, the UK should ban the import of products from illegal settlements. Fifthly, it should suspend the UK’s current trade agreement with Israel and negotiations over any new trade agreement, pending a proper and thorough review of the international human rights implications of this. In order to get peace, the occupation must be ended.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Fuel Poverty: England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this important and timely debate. I thank all the constituents who have written to me, not just in the run-up to this debate but over months and months, to share their concerns about fuel poverty, and in particular the winter fuel payment, which I will discuss later. This is an incredibly important issue in my North Herefordshire constituency, where 22.9% of households live in fuel poverty, according to the latest data from the Government’s low-income, low energy efficiency measure. That is far higher than the national average of 14.4%. As the measure indicates, fuel poverty is due to both low income and the lack of energy efficiency in the property—and, indeed, high fuel prices, as the hon. Member said. The number of detached houses in my constituency is nearly double the national average, and a far lower proportion of houses are on the mains energy supply. All those factors make fuel poverty a particular issue in a rural constituency like North Herefordshire. We also have a far higher proportion of over-65s— 50% more than the national average. All those contributory factors mean that fuel poverty is an incredibly real and presenting issue in my constituency. In the emails constituents have sent me in recent days, weeks and months, they have talked about living with only one radiator on, and the fact that the lack of winter fuel allowance means they can no longer buy any coal in the winter—coal is the only source of heating for some of my constituents.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Fuel Poverty: England · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way and for her comments so far. On the point about tackling the fragmentation and ad hoc nature of the previous system, does the Minister agree with me that home insulation upgrades are a win-win-win policy. They are good for people’s warmth and health, they are really good for jobs and they help to save the climate as well. One key barrier in recent years has been the stop-start, year-on-year type of policy that means that nobody in the supply chain is able to plan and have the strategic direction that they need to make the investments, build the labour force and so forth. Will the Government provide the long-term certainty about the policy direction and level of investment required so that everybody can pull together in the same direction?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Fuel Poverty: England · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his comments and agree that we must see the decoupling of electricity prices from gas. That situation currently contributes to the problems that people face. We have established that the problem of fuel poverty is related in part to prices, which the Government have levers to control, but also to Government policies. I would like to talk in particular about three areas: targeted support to households in fuel poverty; insulation policies and how we deal with the housing stock that we already have; and how we ensure that future housing is future-proofed so that nobody who moves into a new house has to pay through the nose for energy. On targeted support, I have criticised in the House a number of times the Government’s nonsensical decision to completely cancel the winter fuel allowance for all except a small number of people. Very large numbers of people in my constituency have written to me and still do, expressing great distress at the impact of that decision on them. I cannot urge the Government too strongly to reconsider and ensure that next winter we do not have thousands of people in my constituency, and millions of people throughout the country, facing increased fuel poverty because of the Government’s decision to stop the winter fuel allowance for so many who still need it. We also need there to be targeted support—I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth about a social tariff—and help to repay for those in energy debt. On the fundamental structural question of the quality of housing, the problem is essentially that our homes leak heat. People are paying money for energy that is going out the windows, up the chimney and out of the roof. It is a total waste. What will the Government do to tackle this? The previous Government destroyed the energy efficiency programmes. We need a nationwide, house-by-house, street-by-street home insulation programme to ensure that the energy that people buy stays in their homes. I really hope that the Minister will make concrete commitments to go further and faster to insulate homes. Lastly, new homes must be built to the highest possible energy efficiency standards. If the cheapest time to insulate a home is at the point of construction, why are we not ensuring that all new homes are built to zero-carbon standards, to ensure that all the heat in a home stays in it?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Fuel Poverty: England · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member, and I do plan to comment on that topic. A lady wrote to me saying that she now lives wrapped in blankets. Constituents have shared with me their particular needs relating to their health conditions and just how damaging it is not to be able to afford to keep warm. The hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth talked about the outrageous profits made by the energy companies, and I share his extreme frustration and distress at that situation. The Government could go even further to ensure that we do not see what is essentially price gouging. Constituents struggling in fuel poverty are the ones who are basically bearing the costs, and at the same time the big energy companies are making profits in the billions each year. It is absolutely extraordinary.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 15 National statutory inquiry into grooming gangs “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, set up a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs. (2) An inquiry established under subsection (1) must seek to— (a) identify common patterns of behaviour and offending between grooming gangs; (b) identify the type, extent and volume of crimes committed by grooming gangs; (c) identify the number of victims of crimes committed by grooming gangs; (d) identify the ethnicity of members of grooming gangs; (e) identify any failings, by action, omission or deliberate suppression, by— (i) police, (ii) local authorities, (iii) prosecutors, (iv) charities, (v) political parties, (vi) local and national government, (vii) healthcare providers and health services, or (viii) other agencies or bodies, in the committal of crimes by grooming gangs, including by considering whether the ethnicity of the perpetrators of such crimes affected the response by such agencies or bodies; (f) identify such national safeguarding actions as may be required to minimise the risk of further such offending occurring in future; (g) identify good practice in protecting children. (3) The inquiry may do anything it considers is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the carrying out of its functions and the achievement of the requirements of subsection (2). (4) An inquiry established under this section must publish a report within two years of the launch of the inquiry. (5) For the purposes of this section— ‘gang’ means a group of at least three adult males whose purpose or intention is to commit a sexual offence against the same victim or group of victims; ‘grooming’ means— (a) activity carried out with the primary intention of committing sexual offences against the victim; (b) activity that is carried out, or predominantly carried out, in person; (c) activity that includes the provision of illicit substances and/or alcohol either as part of the grooming or concurrent with the commission of the sexual offence.”— (Neil O'Brien.) This new clause would set up a national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs. Brought up, and read the First time .

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This new clause seeks to address the very real problem that up to 250,000 children, or approximately 11% of those eligible for free school meals, even under the currently very restrictive eligibility criteria, miss out on them because it is an opt-in process. It is simply not okay that so many eligible children are missing out on free school meals. That is in addition to the roughly 900,000 children who are living in poverty, but still not qualifying for free school meals because the eligibility criteria are so tight. I believe that we may be coming on to discuss that a little later. Early findings from areas with which the Fix Our Food research programme are working show that children from non-white communities, or lone-parent households, are more likely to not be registered for free school meals despite being eligible. Again, inequalities are reproducing themselves when it comes to people accessing their statutory rights. Charities working to address this totally unacceptable situation point to several reasons for the under-registration rate: parents may struggle to fill out complex forms; there may be language barriers for parents; there may be a lack of awareness of free school eligibility; and there may be stigma or embarrassment. The current system is regularly described by schools and local authorities as “cumbersome” and “financially and administratively inefficient”. Receiving statutory benefits should be easy and straightforward for people who are eligible. There are obvious benefits to the child from getting a nutritious, filling lunch, which we have discussed already today and also on our last sitting day, including reduced food insecurity, improved nutrition and health, and increased attainment and lifetime earning potential, as I set out when I spoke to new clause 2. There are also important wider benefits to the child. Struggling families also miss out on other benefits that free school meal registration would give them access to, including the holiday activities and food programme and uniform grants. There are also benefits to schools. If children are not registered for free school meals, schools miss out on much-needed pupil premium funding, worth £1,455 per pupil. There are also benefits to local authorities. The Fix Our Food research programme is supporting 66 local authorities to implement an opt-out, or right-to-object approach to free school meal registration. It is identifying and writing to families using existing datasets to inform them that their children will be automatically registered unless they opt out. As I understand it, in many cases, this has resulted in children, who were previously missing out, becoming successfully registered, and opt-out rates are extremely low. However, only a few councils have successfully adopted this new process. In some cases, despite local authorities’ efforts, data sharing barriers have not been possible to overcome. Some have even been threatened with legal action. The local work still does not capture all eligible children, with families falling through the gaps, as access to datasets is patchy. Further, my understanding is that this process is resource-intensive. Again, it is administratively intensive, incurring onerous governance and administration at council and school level. Meanwhile, the Greater London Authority has put resource into auto-enrolment. Although that is positive for children in London, the same level of support is not available for most children in the rest of England. Free school meal auto-enrolment would register eligible families to receive free school meals using benefits data, unless families decide to opt out. This requires data sharing between the Department for Work and Pensions, which holds the data that identifies which children should be eligible for these schemes, and the Department for Education, which administers the scheme. I really hope that, as part of this important Bill,the Government will seriously consider how they can introduce auto-enrolment for free school meals to ensure that all those who are eligible are in receipt of their entitlement. This is a fantastic opportunity to do so now. As a statutory scheme, funding for the meals for these children should already be available. There is just an administrative barrier that stops far too many children getting what they are entitled to. In the meantime, until this is established, I hope the Government will instigate collaborative working across local government so that we can agree to make progress on this issue. In conclusion, I want to underscore the fact that we should see this as a first step towards expanding eligibility for free school meals to more children to ensure that no child misses out on a nutritious hot meal at school every day.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clause 8 is another important probing amendment, tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud, that places a duty on the Secretary of State to proactively identify all children eligible for free school meals in England, making the application process for free school meals opt out, rather than opt in. I note that the Minister, in his comments on new clause 5, mentioned that making things statutory made it terribly restrictive. On that basis, why would one ever make anything statutory?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Shortly after Christmas, a person came to see me who had given evidence to the IICSA inquiry and who was deeply upset by their perception that their experience, and the experience of others like them, was being used as a political football. They were outraged to find that the conclusions and recommendations of the inquiry had not yet been implemented. In this room, my role is to represent them. Their call is not for another public inquiry but for the implementation of the recommendations of the inquiry that has already been done. I find it really disappointing that such serious matters are being used as a political football. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East made a valid point about the degree to which these issues were not addressed until very recently. I ask rhetorically: would this new clause even have been tabled were it not for pot-stirring tweets by Elon Musk? I very much doubt it. I therefore think this Committee should do the job we are here to do. We should scrutinise this Bill and not use it as an opportunity to play games with the lives of victims and survivors.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 9 Requirement to provide information about bereavement services “(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a protocol for the collection and dissemination of information relating to bereavement support services for children and young people. (2) A protocol made under subsection (1) must— (a) define the bereavement support services to which the protocol applies, which must include services provided by— (i) local authorities; (ii) NHS bodies; and (iii) charities and other third sector organisations; (b) place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish information, including online, about services to which the protocol applies; (c) place a duty on specified public bodies and other persons to provide information to children and young people about services to which the protocol applies, including— (i) specialist services for children and young people; (ii) services provided online; and (iii) accessible services for deaf and disabled children and young people; (d) where a duty under paragraph (c) applies, require the identification of children or young people who may require a service to which the protocol applies. (3) The Secretary of State must make regulations under this section by statutory instrument. (4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. (5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft statutory instrument containing regulations under this section within 12 months of the passing of this Act.”— (Ian Sollom.) This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to establish a protocol for the collection and dissemination of information about bereavement support services to children and young people. Brought up, and read the First time.