Ellie Chowns MP: speeches

404 published records · newest first.

Speeches

23 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
The amendment appears to have two parts. The first is the requirement to consider the welfare of others to whom the information may relate. That seems quite reasonable; however, the requirement to take steps to promote the welfare of potentially anybody to whom the information may relate seems to me very broad.
23 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I fully appreciate what the Minister is saying regarding the way that the curriculum and so forth can be shaped to offer more support to children, a large number of whom will face some form of bereavement at some point. The point I would particularly like the Minister to take away and consider is how the network of support around the school can support children facing bereavement, particularly of a very close relative. That is both in terms of the opportunity for grief education for teachers, and the opportunity for somebody in the local authority to look at that subset of children with the same level of attention, given that, as a group, they are particularly subject to the challenges that this clause of the Bill is specifically about—hence the point about virtual school head responsibility in this area.
23 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Ordered , That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Vicky Foxcroft .)
23 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I, too, welcome the extension of the role of virtual school heads outlined in this provision. I would like to ask the Minister whether she has, or will consider, the opportunity in clause 6 to consider children who have been recently bereaved or are facing bereavement, particularly of a parent or sibling, as a group that has particular educational support needs. That is a surprisingly large group of people. Best estimates are that one in 29 children of school age have lost either a parent or a sibling, and there is clear evidence that those bereavements have impacts on educational achievement, as measured by GCSE results. Would the Minister consider the opportunity to use the Bill to improve support specifically for bereaved pupils? I would welcome the Minister’s comments.
23 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 7, page 11, line 38, after “support” insert “and staying put support”. This amendment would include staying put support in the support provided by local authorities under this section and extend the provision of Staying Put for young people to the age of 25.
23 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I am pleased to move amendment 12 to clause 7, on extending Staying Put for children in foster care to the age of 25. This group of amendments seeks to address the potential two-tier system that the Bill will create by extending provisions for Staying Close but not Staying Put. Many care leavers face a cliff edge in care at the age of 18. Staying Put is a scheme that has been introduced to enable young people in foster care to stay with their foster carers until the age of 21 to support them into adulthood, whereas Staying Close is for young people in residential care. In the UK, it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people to reach independence at the age of 21. In fact, the Office for National Statistics published a report last year showing that the average age at which young people move out of the family home is 24. The independent review on children’s social care recognised the disparity between young people in care and their non-care experienced peers, and it recommended that both Staying Close and Staying Put be extended to the age of 23. It appears that the Bill has responded to that recommendation by putting in place provision to extend Staying Close to age 25, but it does not do the same for those in Staying Put arrangements. I tabled this probing amendment to ask the Minister to explain the justification for that disparity and for the effective creation of a two-tier system for young people in those situations. Evaluations of Staying Put have found that it significantly reduces the risk of homelessness for care leavers. The care review found that it would contribute towards savings of £84 million over five years, mostly due to reduced homelessness. Of course, the financial savings are not the primary motivation; it is about what is best for young people and ensuring that they have the best possible opportunity to successfully transition into adulthood. Foster carers and young people consistently report that the extension of Staying Put would result in better outcomes for young people, providing them with the choice—not insistence—to remain in the family environment. In the words of a foster carer who recently spoke to the Fostering Network: “The increase in the age for staying put would be of amazing benefit to care leavers. At the age of 21 many young people who have had the opportunity to go to university are just obtaining their qualification and then have to face negotiating their next huge step, the job market, and to find that they are possibly homeless due to leaving their placement. This is a catastrophic step backwards.” I warmly urge the Minister to consider ensuring that there is parity in the Staying Close and Staying Put schemes, given that foster care and a family environment have the best long-term outcomes for young people in care transitioning into adulthood.
21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q You have enthused about family group decision making. Do you think it would be useful at other stages in the process, particularly in approaching families for unification at the point of discharge for care leavers? Dr Homden: Yes, we would support that. We would also call for specific coverage in the statutory guidance on how children with family members abroad can benefit, and for consideration in that guidance on contact, particularly with siblings. Anne Longfield: I would also look at the mechanism at other points, such as when children are at risk of becoming involved in crime and the like. But for now, yes.
21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q And Staying Close? Jacky Tiotto: Again, another welcome introduction and formalisation. CAFCASS is involved with 25,000 children a year in public law proceedings. It would be nice if the drafters could require CAFCASS—at the end of proceedings, in its closing letter to the independent reviewing officer—to say, “We think, having come to know this child, that x, y, or z would be an appropriate provision for them in terms of Staying Close.” We will have got to know and had a relationship with that child throughout the proceedings. The same could apply when we are asked to discharge care orders, which is 10% of our work—again, asking us to write back to the local authority as the child’s guardian and say, “This child will not benefit from being housed 45 miles away,” or “This child will need access to grandma.” Asking us to do that at the end of proceedings would be an important addition to regulations or guidance. We are a bit missed out from the process, and we bring that voice of the child.
21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q What about the idea of expanding Staying Put in addition to the expansion of Staying Close? Jacky Tiotto : All good. It is the same thing.
21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q To follow up a little, do you think the Bill does enough to centre the voices of children ? You have talked particularly about that in terms of family decision making, but are there other aspects of the Bill where you would like to see amendments made? Jacky Tiotto: Deprivation of liberty, definitely. May I say something about elective home education and also the Staying Close provision? The Bill’s intention to formalise elective home education is long overdue, and children’s views about that education should be well and truly sought before any decision is taken to permit it. It is a bit permissive at the minute, in terms of how section 47 is drafted: if the local authorities had cause to think that you had been, and now have established that you have been, significantly harmed or at risk of significant harm, then on no day of any week could it be okay for you to be out of sight being educated somewhere else. I think it should be a flat no if you are on a child protection plan. If you are a child in need under section 17, there should be more regular review of the child in need plan if you are being electively home educated. But every time, that child should be asked how it is going: “Is this helping you, are you feeling safe?” More generally, at every one of these points where we are mandating something about safety, the first thing should be: what is the view of the child? If the child cannot speak, or is a baby, then somebody with the ability to speak on their behalf should be asked. We should tick nothing off without that being the case.
21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Or even beyond 21. Jacky Tiotto : Well, yes.
21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q You would like to see that too. Jacky Tiotto : Yes.
21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Because that is missing from this Bill. Jacky Tiotto : Yes, it is. I have worked with many children who are terrified of the cliff edge of 18; in fact, they start worrying about it at 16. It often blights the last few years of their care.
21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q The Bill talks about breakfast clubs, but says nothing about free school meals more widely. Would you like to see an expansion of eligibility for free school meals? Julie McCulloch: We would.
21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Clause 8 specifies that local authorities need to set out a local offer. You have talked about the need to avoid fragmentation, and about corporate responsibility across the country and across Departments. Would you like to see the Bill amended to require a national offer of support to care leavers, and what do you think should be in it? Ruth Stanier: We certainly would want to see corporate parenting duties extended at a national level to Government Departments and relevant public sector bodies. We think that is incredibly important. Otherwise, we are very much supportive of the measures in the Bill in respect of the kinship offer, though we think it is important that there is a clear threshold for that support so that it is realistic and affordable and can be implemented. Andy Smith: I would support that. A national offer for care leavers is an interesting concept. There should be some absolute minimum requirements we expect in an offer, and I think you would broadly see that in many councils in what is provided for children in care and for care leavers. It is usually co-produced with representatives who were care leavers, and with councils and so on. I think that would be an important reflection within the context of a much broader understanding of corporate parenting.
21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q What would you like to see, ideally? Jacky Tiotto : The provision mandated to 21, everywhere. I will probably be shot for saying that—
21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Could you elaborate on that? Julie McCulloch: Happily. We would like to see the expansion up to 18—at the moment, it goes up to only 16 —and we would like to see it expanded to all children in families receiving universal credit. Paul Whiteman: We are in a similar position. We absolutely accept the evidence that well-fed students perform and work better. Our only concern is the level of funding that comes with it. The provision has to be funded properly, not just for buying the food but, importantly, for the capital costs to make sure that those things can be delivered properly.
21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q On balance, do you welcome the provisions in the Bill to ensure that all schools follow the national curriculum? Lee Owston: Obviously there is a review, from Professor Becky Francis, of what the national curriculum will contain, and we are speaking frequently with members of that review. From an inspector’s position, it will always be about how providers are adhering to the legal requirements set by Government and Parliament. Obviously, we look forward to seeing what the Bill produces in how we then interact with it. In terms of a broad legal requirement, and what all children as a minimum should be able to access, I would support that statement.
21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q So you would like to see the Bill amended in that way? Lynn Perry: We would.
21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Lynn, what is your view on the fact that the Bill does not contain provisions to give children equal protection from violence to adults? Lynn Perry: We think that this is an opportunity for that to be addressed in legislation. As a charity that works across the devolved nations, we have obviously seen change in other areas. Now is the opportunity for us to address the defence of reasonable chastisement in legislation and give children equal protection. It is important to note that values, public attitudes and the way in which we frame childhood have changed significantly, so to consider that further would be very welcome.
17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source
More
I have been listening carefully to what the Minister has said. Does he agree that a vote on Second Reading is a vote on the principle of the Bill, and the objections that he has been raising are micro, technical ones? Does he not agree that the urgency of the climate crisis and the immense benefits associated with solar PV mean that he should stop raining on the parade of this Bill and give us the opportunity to vote on photons?
16 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
The Office for Environmental Protection published its annual report today on our progress in protecting the environment. Unfortunately, it is not good news: we are off-track on 20 out of 43 targets, and only five out of its 52 recommendations last year have been implemented. The report, which deals with the period under the previous Government, shows that progress was slowing on nature protection in that year. This Government have announced that they will review the environmental improvement plan. Can the Leader of the House tell us when that review will be published? Can a Minister come to the House to make a statement on how the Government will turn this around to protect nature?
16 Jan 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source
More
I warmly welcome this ceasefire agreement, and like colleagues across the House, I fervently hope that the Israeli Cabinet will approve it, but I think we all recognise that, while the ceasefire may bring an end to the current extremes of violence, it will not end the conflict. A number of conditions need to be met for lasting peace, so will the Foreign Secretary set out a timetable for UK recognition of the state of Palestine, and the concrete steps that he will take to end the occupation and ensure that all those who have committed war crimes are held fully accountable?
15 Jan 2025 · Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for securing this debate on a hugely important issue that is of deep concern 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. We need the Environment Agency to have the funding and teeth it requires, including to level on-the-spot fines. Fundamentally, we need Government to grasp the nettle and to tackle agricultural pollution as seriously as sewage pollution.
15 Jan 2025 · Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality · Hansard source
More
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?

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