Ellie Chowns MP: speeches

404 published records · newest first.

Speeches

4 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
rose—
4 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
rose —
4 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
As the parent of a former footballer, I know that the Football Association does not let people coach football, even Saturday league, without being a qualified coach, so the right hon. Member’s analogy falls down.
4 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
No, I am making my point, which is that it is entirely reasonable to require that people who are in an educational role are either qualified to take that role or undergoing the process of qualification. If somebody wants to be a teacher and wants to contribute to educating our young people, I see no reason why they would not want to make sure that they have the skills to do that. [Interruption.] I let the right hon. Gentleman finish his sentences.
4 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
When coaching young people playing football at Saturday clubs, the Football Association is the relevant regulatory body. When teaching in a school, the relevant regulatory body is that which gives qualified teacher status.
4 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I too absolutely welcome this new duty to co-operate. It is really important in the context of the problems that competition over people’s heads has led to. I am, however, like others, a bit concerned about the vagueness of the way that it is specified in the legislation. I feel that it does not make it clear enough what the duty to co-operate actually means. Would the Minister consider making it more clear, such as specifying that the local authority becomes the admissions authority for all schools in the area? Would the Government also consider reforming the legacy of partial selection that is still there for some schools? Arguably, we should reform aptitude-based tests and other admissions tests, which evidence shows have led to inequalities in admissions.
4 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
rose—
4 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Just to expand on that, I would like to ask the Minister whether she thinks it is reasonable and justifiable that an academy trust leader has a salary of over £600,000, when a leader in a local authority with responsibility for an equivalent or larger number of schools would have a salary nowhere near?
4 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
You said that the more rigid you make the national curriculum, the more problems we will have, but we are not debating making the national curriculum more rigid. We are debating whether the national curriculum should apply to all schools. A minute ago, you said that the ability not to use the national curriculum is a safety valve against politicisation, but that goes against everything you said in the previous 10 minutes, which was all about the flexibilities that are inherent in the national curriculum, of which you gave some excellent examples.
4 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the national curriculum is a floor, not a ceiling?
4 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
rose—
4 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I am so sorry.
4 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I thank the Minister for giving way. Does she agree with me that there is a case for establishing a national pay framework for academy trust leaders, given the huge and rising salaries?
4 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I warmly welcome the proposal to ensure that there is a level playing field for pay for teachers who teach in different types of schools. Does the Minister consider that now is the time to take a similar approach to addressing pay for leaders of schools? I found it pretty jaw dropping to hear recently that the pay and pension of a CEO of a well-known multi-academy trust topped £600,000 per year. I took the trouble of having a look at that particular academy trust and found that it has 168 people on salaries of over £100,000, and it covers just 55 schools. It is clearly not sustainable for the pay of leaders of multi-academy trusts to continue to increase in proportion to the number of schools in those trusts. If that approach was taken to salary setting, the Minister herself would be on millions of pounds a year. We had an interesting discussion earlier about the difference between correlation and causation. There is worrying evidence—I have seen interesting analysis from Warwick Mansell, for example—showing correlation between the prevalence of non-QTS teachers and high pupil-teacher ratios in multi-academy trusts and high levels of executive pay. That strongly suggests that such trusts are diverting or channelling more funding into higher executive pay rather than frontline teaching, which is surely of concern. While I welcome the moves to ensure equitability across teacher salaries in all types of state school, is it not time to address pay inequalities and excessive pay in certain leadership functions in multi-academy trusts in particular? I note that the Public Accounts Committee drew attention back in 2022 to the DFE not having a handle on executive pay in the sector. I would warmly welcome the Minister’s comments on whether the Government have any intention to take action to address this.
4 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
“Use the scaffolding.”
4 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I thank the Minister for the statistics she has presented, which echo the point I was about to ask her about. Would like to challenge—as she just has—the assertion from the Conservative Benches that academies are somehow better performing? Would she agree that there is no clear evidence, as suggested by Professor Stephen Gorard, who absolutely knows what he is talking about, that academies as a whole do better than maintained schools? An ideological commitment to academies, based on a set of cherry-picked examples of individual schools, is unhelpful to the tenor of the debate. We should focus on ensuring that every child in every type of school gets an excellent education.
27 Jan 2025 · Intensive Poultry Units · Hansard source
More
I am honoured to have been asked to present this petition on behalf of more than 30,000 supporters of the Soil Association who are deeply concerned about the impact of intensive poultry production on river pollution. This issue is of particular concern to residents in my constituency of North Herefordshire, where the River Wye and its tributaries, such as the River Lugg, are deeply impacted by phosphate pollution, with troubling effects on wildlife and the wider economy. Indeed, the concern prompted me to establish the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution, of which I am co-chair. The 30,543 petitioners “therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce a ban on new intensive poultry units, to support farmers to exit this industry and to take action to reduce chicken consumption to more sustainable levels.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that industrial chicken farming produces huge volumes of polluting chicken manure which, when spread as fertiliser on nearby fields, can cause phosphate from the manure to leech into rivers, causing algal blooms which starve the river of oxygen; further that the River Wye is close to complete ecological collapse, with damaging pollution from industrial chicken farming as a leading cause; notes that the Environment Agency reports ‘unacceptable levels’ of phosphate in over half of English rivers; and further that other rivers across the United Kingdom are also at serious risk from an increase in intensive poultry units; and further notes that a similar online petition by the Soil Association received over 30,000 signatures. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce a ban on new intensive poultry units, to support farmers to exit this industry and to take action to reduce chicken consumption to more sustainable levels. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003035]
24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source
More
Given that we have strong cross-party consensus, as has been demonstrated today, on the urgency of tackling the climate and nature crisis, I do not understand the hon. Lady’s argument that the Government would somehow draw back from measures that they have committed, in negotiation with the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), to take forward. A number of hon. Members think that it is important to vote on a Bill that will help move us further and faster towards tacking the climate and nature crisis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) explained, Second Reading is an opportunity to further discuss the issues and build cross-party consensus on exactly the measures needed. Will she explain why a vote on the Bill is not a good idea—
23 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
No.
23 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
Chair, may I ask a question of the Minister?
23 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I rise to speak to amendment 49 regarding family group decision making at the point of family reunification. Reunification—the process of returning a child in care to their family—is the most common route by which children leave care, accounting for 27% of all children who left care in 2023. It is also one of the most sensitive and significant transitions a child can experience. When done well, it can offer children stability, security and permanence at home with their family, but too often the reunifications fail. In fact, one in three children who return home then re-enter the care system, so thousands of children are enduring yet more displacement, disrupted attachments, instability and broken trust. The human cost of those failed reunifications is immeasurable, but the financial cost is also stark. Failed reunifications cost the public purse £370 million annually—money that would be better spent supporting families in the first place. Research tells us that too many reunifications break down because families do not receive the support that they need to make that process successful, tut there is no national strategy for supporting reunifications. Support across the country is inconsistent, and alarmingly, 78% of authorities report that the support that they offer is inadequate—the authorities report that themselves. Amendment 49 provides a clear, practical, evidence-based solution—effectively a mirror to the Government’s clause 1. The amendment would require local authorities to offer family group decision making no later than one month after the discharge of a care order for the purpose of family reunification. Of course, in practice, it is envisaged that the family group decision-making process would be offered before the child returns home to support that return. As the Committee has already heard and discussed, family group decision making is a powerful tool. It brings families together to identify solutions, develop a plan and build a network of support around the child. It can empower families to take ownership of the challenges that they face, and foster collaborative work with professionals that promotes the safety and wellbeing of the child while also amplifying the child’s voice. My argument is that that is as important towards the end of a care process as it is at the beginning. Family group decision making is well established and recognised as best practice by professionals. We already have clear evidence on its effectiveness, and we are awaiting more, as the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said. However, the lack of a statutory duty to offer it has led to patchy practice across the country. One third of local authorities do not offer family group decision making at all during reunification. Amendment 49 addresses that gap. It would ensure that every family in England has the opportunity to benefit from that approach. The requirement in the amendment is to offer it; it does not impose any sort of time limit. Some Members might worry about the practicalities or cost of introducing the duty, but as I have already explained, the breakdown of family reunification is an incredibly costly process, both financially and for the child’s welfare. The amendment is a financial cost-saving measure as well as a child-centred one. Research shows that providing support to meet a family’s needs during reunification costs just £7,857 per child. By contrast, the cost of a single reunification breakdown is £105,000. Amendment 49 would be The amendment is practical and allows for professional judgment, recognising that every family is different. Where a meeting is not in a child’s best interests, the local authority would be exempt from the duty to make the offer, and that flexibility ensures that the needs of children always come first. The amendment also complements existing provisions in the Bill. It effectively mirrors the duty to offer family group decision making before care proceedings, and therefore offers a coherent support framework at both ends of the care process—effectively bookending it. It brings much-needed consistency to a fragmented system. With more children in care than ever before, as we have noted, and with children’s services under immense strain, the amendment represents a real opportunity. By embedding family group decision making we can enable more families to stay together, reduce the number of children returning to care, which is an incredibly damaging process, and relieve pressure on an overstretched system, all while delivering better outcomes for those children. This is about fairness, consistency, investing in what works and ensuring that all reunifying families, not just some, are given the help they need. It is about recognising the importance of successful reunification within the care process. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on the proposal and the other questions raised this morning.
23 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
indicated dissent.
23 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
I wish to ask the Minister if she would meet with me to discuss this matter.
23 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister respond directly to the thrust of amendment 49? The Bill is shifting from a position where the consideration of family group decision making is already encouraged to a statutory requirement before starting care proceedings. Amendment 49 asks for a mirroring of that at the potential end of care proceedings. Why does the Minister feel that it is important to move to a statutory footing at the start but not the end, particularly given the statistics that I have referenced on the frequency of breakdown? Would it not be entirely consistent for the Bill to specify this—bookending both ends of the care process?
23 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister give way?

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →