142 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 13 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Business of the House

   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?

   Hansard source
2. 12 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Fuel Poverty: England

   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.

   Hansard source
3. 12 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Fuel Poverty: England

   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.<span id="126WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="126WH"></span> 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.

   Hansard source
4. 12 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Fuel Poverty: England

   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.<span id="127WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="127WH"></span> 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?

   Hansard source
5. 12 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Fuel Poverty: England

   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?

   Hansard source
6. 12 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

   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 <span id="196WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="196WH"></span>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.

   Hansard source
7. 11 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Youth Provision: Universal and Targeted Support

   Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister should answer two questions? The first is about the funding and jobs that will flow from the national youth strategy, and the second is about integration. We need a youth chapter in the housing strategy, as Centrepoint has asked for, and to bring its co-production values into the “Get Britain Working” strategy, aspects of which are quite worrying.

   Hansard source
8. 11 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I rise to speak in particular to new clause 72, which is on a similar topic to new clause 30, although arguably is not quite as simply drafted. The number of children in care is at an all-time high, and outcomes for those children remain poor. Evidence from the children’s charity Action for Children shows that children who have any interaction with social care are twice as likely to fail an English or maths GCSE than their peers. We need to change those outcomes, preferably through early intervention. We have spent much time in Committee discussing the Bill’s provisions on improving care for children who need to live with a foster family or in a residential home. It is important that the best possible support is available for those children who, for whatever reason, cannot live with their birth families. However, to significantly improve children’s social care, we need to radically reset the system with a much greater focus on helping families earlier on. I welcome the Ministers’ comments in our previous debates that the Government are committed to helping children growing up in our country to get the best start in life through wider investment in family hubs and parenting support. However, as drafted, the Bill does little to do this. Only one section of the Bill, which covers family group decision making, and which we discussed right at the start, directly addresses the need for more early intervention. Unless we amend the Bill to go further, we will continue to have a system heavily balanced towards working with families when they reach crisis point, rather than one that seeks to prevent problems before they start. As we have discussed, families in England face mounting pressures from the lingering effects of covid-19, the high cost of living and economic uncertainty. At the same time, there have been significant cuts to services to support families. I find this statistic shocking: between 2010-11 <span id="534" class="column-number" data-column-number="534"></span>and 2022-23, spending on early help, such as family homes and children’s centres, decreased by 44%, while spending on late intervention, including children in care, increased by 57%. The skew is going the wrong way, and it does not have to be this way. Since the late 1990s, several initiatives have been aimed at providing support to families in their communities. That includes the Sure Start centres—first established in 1997, with more than 3,500 children’s centres having been developed by 2009—and the latest family hubs, which provide support to parents from pre-birth all the way through to 18. These centres provided welcome, non-stigmatising support for families. The services they offer and have offered are varied, but often include provisions such as stay-and-play sessions, speech and language support or benefit and employment advice for parents. While welcomed by families themselves, too often such services are seen as a “nice to have” and subject to cuts when funding is short. It is perhaps not surprising that evidence suggests that around 1,000 such centres have shut since 2009, but we know that cutting early support for families is a false economy. It does not benefit children and families, who are too often left to struggle alone, and it does not save money in the long term. In fact, spending on early intervention programmes has repeatedly been shown to be cheaper than spending later. And this is not just about the finances; it is about the wellbeing of children and families.

   Hansard source
9. 11 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for banning smartphones in schools, but does he agree that banning smartphones in schools will not, in and of itself, tackle the problems that he has articulated? A recently published study, the first proper nationwide study of its type, shows that banning smartphones in school does not generate any statistical differences in various outcomes, because there is no difference in the amount of time that children are spending on their devices. Although there are strong arguments for banning them in school—and I recognise that there is a strong call for that from parents, teachers and, indeed, many students—a much more holistic approach is needed to tackle the harms that he has outlined.

   Hansard source
10. 11 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    Are we not getting a bit distracted? The new clause is about banning things from the start of the first lesson to the end of the last, not on the way to or from school when children might want to call their parents.

    Hansard source
11. 11 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    “Are you going to ban teachers from carrying phones?”, I think is what she means.

    Hansard source
12. 11 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    New clause 70 concerns anti-bullying work in schools. Bullying is a serious and a widespread problem. Each year, one in five children report being bullied. It has devastating effects on children’s mental health, their sense of belonging and their ability to thrive. It is a leading cause of school refusal, failure to attend school and disruptive behaviour. Children who are afraid to attend school miss opportunities to learn and grow. Bullying creates long-term harm. Victims of bullying often suffer lasting consequences into adulthood, including poor mental health, unemployment and a lack of qualifications. People who are bullied may also struggle with relationships and lack life chances. Bullying has unequal effects; it affects different groups unequally. Some groups are significantly more at risk, including children with special educational needs and disabilities, those living in poverty and young carers. Bullying also costs the economy an estimated £11 billion annually due to its impact on education, health and productivity, so it is a serious problem. The new clause would require the appointment of anti-bullying leads in schools. Evidence shows that a whole-school approach is the most effective way to tackle bullying, but that requires co-ordination by a senior staff member. Appointing an anti-bullying lead potentially alongside and within existing roles such in safeguarding or pastoral support ensures a focused and effective strategy. It is important to record bullying. Systematically recording incidents helps schools to identify patterns, <span id="566" class="column-number" data-column-number="566"></span>implement interventions and measure progress. This duty, which is already in place in Northern Ireland, can be streamlined with digital tools. Transparent reporting fosters trust, supports accountability and creates safer and more inclusive schools without burdening staff. It is also important to look at teacher training. Currently, there is no requirement for trainee teachers to receive anti-bullying training, and nearly half—42%—of teachers report feeling ill equipped to address bullying. The new clause will require schools to outline what anti-bullying training is provided to staff. Short, targeted training equips teachers to prevent and respond to bullying effectively, creating safer schools and improving wellbeing and learning outcomes for all pupils. This matters because of the effects that I talked about on children and young people. We hear heartbreaking stories all the time. The Anti-Bullying Alliance collects testimonies from children and young people. One young person said, “All the way through year 10 and 11, I ate my lunch in the toilet.” Another child said that it “scars you for life.” Bullying has devastating effects, but it is not inevitable. With the right systems and the right leadership in place, we can make a difference and make schools safe for everyone. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this new clause.

    Hansard source
13. 11 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 5, in the name of the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), is a probing new clause, and I sincerely hope it will generate debate and action. Its purpose is to make the holiday activities and food programme statutory provision. Following Marcus Rashford’s high-profile campaign, the HAF programme was rolled out across England to provide children with nutritious food, childcare and activities in the holidays. One of its aims is to ensure children receive healthy and nutritious meals during the school holidays. Nutrition is a key concern. Recent reports show an increase in hospital admissions for nutrient deficiencies, and that data should really ring alarm bells. The longevity of the cost of living crisis—it has been with us for years now—means that food insecurity has become the norm for many families, who are unable to buy staple nutritious products. Stark health inequalities are highly prevalent, particularly when it comes to diet-related poor health. The most deprived communities are affected disproportionately by much higher rates of food-related ill health and disease, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dental decay. No doubt the Committee will be concerned by the food insecurity statistics collated by the Food Foundation, which show that 14% of UK households experience food insecurity, but inequalities mean that the number <span id="486" class="column-number" data-column-number="486"></span>is much higher for certain groups. Among households with children, it is 18%. Among single-adult households with children, it is 31%. Among households of a non-white ethnicity, it is 26%—double the rate for white households. It is 32% for households with an adult limited a lot by disability, but 10% for households with non-disabled adults. Food insecurity and health inequalities go hand in hand. In that already difficult context, school holidays are a known pressure point for families, which face extra food and childcare costs, and can have reduced incomes due to time of work to care for children. Evaluation of the HAF programme shows multiple benefits to families. In a qualitative review of HAF programme holiday clubs in Yorkshire, parents reported that children were eating more healthily and experiencing a wider variety of foods during those holiday programmes. Analysis of meals in five clubs in areas of high deprivation found that children eligible for free school meals who attended a club had better quality diets on days that they attended the club than on days that they did not attend. HAF clubs provide free childcare to working families and help to reduce the costs associated with the loss of free school meals, which are significant for families in the holidays. Of course, they help to reduce learning loss over the summer holidays by providing enriching activities and physical activity for children. But HAF funding is currently committed on a short-term basis. Although the current funding has just been extended for a year, short-term extensions periodically leave local authorities unable to plan provision in the long term. As a former councillor, I have seen for myself that a hand-to-mouth approach to funding creates uncertainty for club providers and leaves children at risk of holiday hunger if funding is not renewed. That is why the holiday activities and food programme must be secured and put on a statutory footing, alongside other crucial parts of the nutritional safety net such as free school meals and the Healthy Start scheme. I sincerely urge the Government to take this important step. Although this is a probing new clause, I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

    Hansard source
14. 11 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 8 Identification of children eligible for free school meals “After section 512ZA of the Education Act 1996 (power to charge for meals etc.) insert—<span id="488" class="column-number" data-column-number="488"></span> <em>‘512ZAA Identification of children eligible for free school meals</em> (1) The Secretary of State must identify all children eligible for free school meals in England. (2) A child’s eligibility for free school meals is not dependent on any application having been made for free school meals on their behalf. (3) Where a child has been identified as eligible for free school meals, the Secretary of State must provide for this information to be shared with— (a) the school at which the child is registered; and (b) the relevant local education authority. (4) Where a school has been informed that a child on its pupil roll is eligible for free school meals, the school must provide that child with a free school meal. (5) A local education authority must provide the means for a parent or guardian of a child who has been identified as eligible for free school meals to opt out of the provision of a free school meal under subsection (4).’”—<em>(Ellie Chowns.)</em> <em>This new clause would place 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.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em>

    Hansard source
15. 11 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
16. 11 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    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?

    Hansard source
17. 11 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    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 <span id="489" class="column-number" data-column-number="489"></span>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.<span id="490" class="column-number" data-column-number="490"></span> 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.

    Hansard source
18. 11 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    The hon. Member makes an absolutely excellent point, not just about the excruciatingly low threshold for eligibility of free school meals, but about the fact that these thresholds, when set in law, get stuck at the numbers. Does she agree that thresholds should be set at, for example, a percentage of average household income, or a similar threshold that moves over time, so that we do not end up with children’s eligibility being squeezed and squeezed year on year as incomes rise but the threshold does not?

    Hansard source
19. 11 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> 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;<span id="494" class="column-number" data-column-number="494"></span> (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.”—<em>(Ian Sollom.)</em> <em>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.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em>

    Hansard source
20. 11 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I rise to speak to new clause 52 on bereavement policy in schools, which is closely related to new clause 9. The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire has already alluded to the fact that no official data is collected on the number of children and young people who are bereaved of someone important in their lives. In the absence of annual statistics, the Childhood Bereavement Network has estimated that over 46,000 children and young people are bereaved of a parent each year in the UK. That is a huge number—around 127 each day. Data from representative samples suggest that about one in 29 children and young people in school today—roughly one per classroom—has been bereaved of a parent or sibling at some point in their childhood. Some 70% of primary schools have at least one recently bereaved pupil on roll. That means that all schools are likely to be touched by bereavement, and those ripples of grief can be felt across the whole school community. When somebody in the family is terminally ill or has died, just getting to school, concentrating, getting on with peers and managing emotions can be hugely challenging, and can have major consequences for attendance and achievement in the long term. Parentally bereaved young people’s GCSE scores are an average of half a grade lower than their non-bereaved peers; in one study, girls bereaved of a sibling scored almost a full <span id="496" class="column-number" data-column-number="496"></span>grade below their matched controls. Bereavement also has long-term effects further in life. The death of a parent by age 16 is associated with women failing to gain any sort of qualification, and both men and women being unemployed at the age of 30. Schools clearly have a huge role to play in supporting children facing such tragic circumstances. Two years ago, the independent UK Commission on Bereavement surveyed children, young people and adults about their experiences of bereavement. It found some examples of fantastic practice and support in schools, but it was far from universal. Just under half of the bereaved children, young people and adults who shared their experiences said that they got little or no support from their education setting after their bereavement. That is such a tragic missed opportunity. Many children and young people shared the loneliness, isolation, and lack of acknowledgment and support that they had faced. For example, a young teenager said: “I knew my teachers all knew, but no-one spoke to me about the fact they knew, so it felt like an unspoken secret.” A primary-aged child said: “I felt like I was the only one whose daddy had died.” Another teenager said: “Everyone sees it as me just misbehaving. Maybe if teachers and any other adults involved were trained to see the signs I wouldn’t of been left for the last 18 months with no support.” These young people are crying out for support from their schools and from us. To address the challenges, the commission recommended that all education establishments should be required to have a bereavement policy, including staff training and a process for supporting bereaved children and their families. In line with wider evidence from parents, teachers, and children and young people themselves supporting the inclusion of grief education in the curriculum, the commission also recommended that students should have opportunities to learn about coping with grief as a life skill. New clause 52 would directly address the inconsistencies in support that grieving children and young people face, and it would help schools to get on the front foot. At the moment, they often reach out for support in crisis mode when a pupil is facing bereavement or has been recently bereaved. They make contact with local child bereavement services, scrambling for guidance on how to respond, how to tell the rest of the school community, and how to make a plan to support grieving pupils coming back to school. All too often, they wish they had done that work in advance of the crisis. The new clause would help schools to be wise before the event, to respond calmly and consistently, and to help children and young people stay on course as they navigate this most challenging of events in their life. I have tabled this as a probing amendment; I am interested to hear the Minister’s response. I hope that the Government will consider taking this opportunity to write into legislation the requirement for schools to provide support, consistently across the country, to the children and young people who desperately need it, to ensure that bereavement is addressed by every school to improve the life chances of children facing these most difficult circumstances.<span id="497" class="column-number" data-column-number="497"></span>

    Hansard source
21. 11 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I am pleased to speak to new clause 13, which proposes that the Bill should provide a default delegated authority for foster carers to make day-to-day decisions for the children and young people in their care, which I think is quite straightforward. Foster carers should have delegated authority to make these everyday decisions for children in their care—for example, about day-to-day activities such as school trips, holidays and sleepovers; about important appointments for their health and wellbeing or medical appointments; or indeed about haircuts, which is an issue that has been raised regularly by young people in care and their foster carers. The guidance around delegated authority has not been strengthened since 2013. As a result, practice varies across fostering services, and foster carers are often unclear about which decisions they can take and which decisions they have to get permission for from elsewhere. Many foster carers report experiencing a lack of communication, clarity and information from social workers, with unnecessary paperwork and box ticking, and complicated processes. In the Fostering Network’s 2024 state of the nations survey, less than a third of foster carers said children’s social workers are always clear about which decisions they have the authority to make in relation to the children they foster. That lack of clarity is clearly a huge issue for a large majority of foster carers. Only half of foster carers said that social workers are able to respond to requests for decisions in a timely manner; we all know social workers are under huge pressure. Foster carers reported that the most difficult decisions to make were around social opportunities, followed by healthcare, relationships and childhood experiences. This new clause would set out in legislation that foster carers have default delegated authority on key everyday decisions where the child’s placement plan does not specify an alternative decision maker—and the placement plan can always specify that alternative. That default delegated authority would include decisions in day-to-day parenting, such as healthcare and leisure activities, and it would exclude routine but longer-term decisions such as school choice and significant events, such as surgery. It would provide more clarity, speed up decision making within foster families and for social workers, and provide foster carers with the confidence and autonomy that they need to make day-to-day decisions for the children who are in their care.<span id="501" class="column-number" data-column-number="501"></span> I urge the Government to take on board these points, and the content of this new clause, to make it easier for foster carers to make those decisions for children who, after all, they know best as they are caring for them. The new clause would ensure that children and young people do not miss out on the opportunities that they need to live a happy and healthy childhood.

    Hansard source
22. 11 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> 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.<span id="502" class="column-number" data-column-number="502"></span> (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.”—<em>(Neil O'Brien.)</em> <em>This new clause would set up a national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First </em><em>time</em><em>.</em>

    Hansard source
23. 11 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
24. 11 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Elective Care Waiting Times

    <Question HRSContentId="{2D194860-5945-4DC8-AFC0-3B939333EA78}">5. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{A3E7E3EA-D851-43AE-9DF1-AD95F66B24DB}">What progress his Department is making in reducing waiting times for elective care.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
25. 11 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Elective Care Waiting Times

    I get regular messages from constituents facing terrible waits for care with potentially serious consequences, including a one-year delay for an early dementia referral and an 18-month delay for a cardiology review. Although I understand the case for the short-term, one-off use of spare private capacity to tackle the backlog while the NHS is rebuilt, can the Secretary of State please outline his longer-term thinking regarding privatisation of the national health service? In particular, why is he encouraging the development of long-term relationships with the private sector?

    Hansard source
26. 10 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I rise to represent North Herefordshire, where this is an issue of huge concern. Some 914 people in my constituency have signed the petition; I think it is the second highest number of signatories in a constituency. I know that there is a great deal of concern because I hear it from farmers in my surgeries, and I have met dozens of them here in Parliament. I have heard from them loud and clear just how much anxiety and distress this policy is causing, so I want to represent their voices. I feel that the way the policy has been introduced is deeply regrettable, not only because it has caused such huge distress to the farming community—we are all aware of the mental health challenges that those in the community face anyway, and this has made it worse—but because it hugely undermines the much more positive and constructive conversations that Government and farmers desperately need to have in order to face the challenges of food production, job generation, tackling climate change and protecting biodiversity. Those are areas where farmers and Government need to work <span id="19WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="19WH"></span>hand in hand for the long term, but all of that has been blown up in the air by the way the policy has been introduced—it is super frustrating. In his introductory speech, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) spoke about the need to consider complexity and offer solutions, and I agree. I feel that we should be doing that in politics all the time—not just tossing insults at one another across the Chamber, but really working to grapple with this issue. In that spirit, if we are talking about addressing and understanding the complexity, we desperately need a set of figures that we can use as a common basis for discussion. We still have Government saying one thing and farmers saying another. Indeed, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board recently said that 76% of farmers will be affected. When will we get some statistics and modelling that we can agree with as a basis for understanding the impact? <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Sorry, I will not give way because of the demands on time. Several solutions have been raised today, such as reviewing the thresholds and the rates. As many have referred to, farmers recognise the problem of the use of land as a tax loophole, but this policy does not plug that gap properly. We should think about the thresholds and their impact on farming. Perhaps we also need to address the issues facing older farmers—those over 75 who have not had any opportunity to engage in tax planning. But fundamentally, we have to fix the problem of farming being insufficiently profit-making to enable people to secure their livelihoods long term. That has got to be the focus of Government policy.

    Hansard source
27. 10 Feb 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields

    If the Minister will not comment on Rosebank or Jackdaw because of the threat of legal appeals, will he at least confirm that his Government will put a stop to extraction from a reported 13 new oil and gas fields that received licences <span id="32" class="column-number" data-column-number="32"></span>from the previous Government but are still awaiting their final consents? I believe that they are not subject to the restrictions that cause him not to want to comment on Rosebank and Jackdaw.

    Hansard source
28. 10 Feb 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Biomass Generation

    Drax is a clean energy scam that has been handed £6 billion by successive Conservative Ministers since 2012, when that money should have been spent on getting energy bills down. The Minister rightly cites past excess profits and I believe he said specifically that the new contract will allow Government to claw them back. Will the contract allow clawback of previous excess profits and remedy <span id="54" class="column-number" data-column-number="54"></span>the past misspending of public money? Or will the clawback apply only as we go forward into the future, in which case that is still throwing good money after bad, just slightly less of it?

    Hansard source
29. 10 Feb 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

    The Government deserve credit for swiftly scrapping the disgusting, immoral and illegal Rwanda plan, but we need to scrap the attitudes that underpinned it too. The demonising of vulnerable people and of anyone who is different—pandering to the nasty, dog-whistling of Reform and the Tories—is divisive and dangerous. It is shocking, then, to witness the Government trying to mimic the Tories and Reform with migrant raid videos and adverts boasting about deportations. Do they not understand that that just serves to reinforce Reform’s scapegoating rhetoric? Let us not forget that last summer we saw mobs, driven by hate, trying to burn refugees alive in hotels. The Government should be challenging those narratives head-on and helping communities to heal from divisions, not publishing videos that risk encouraging further animosity towards migrants and anyone perceived as being one. Let me turn to the Bill. I share the Refugee Council’s concerns about the potential for clauses 13 to 16 and 18 to lead to the unintentional criminalisation of refugees who are forced to make decisions under coercion when their survival is at stake—by being forced to steer a small boat under threat of death, for example. Although I am pleased to see the repeal of child detention powers, 1,300 children were wrongly assessed to be adults over an 18-month period, so how do the Government plan to address that? I welcome the repeal of much of the Illegal Migration Act 2024, but I am concerned that some aspects that should have been scrapped will remain, including, for example, the automatic inadmissibility of asylum and human rights claims from certain countries, which is particularly dangerous for LGBTQ+ asylum seekers. Let me come to my central point. Focusing solely on enforcement simply is not saving lives. The number of deaths in the channel remains horrifying. Enforcement against criminal gangs is of course needed, but that is not going to work on its own when refugees have no other choice. Instead, if people have a choice not to go with gangs, not to put their children in a deathly dinghy and not to risk their lives, the gangs lose their power. I hope that Ministers have seen the report on safe routes published by the APPG on refugees, of which I am a member. It contains three recommendations, all of which are already tried and tested in other countries and should, in my view, be totally uncontroversial. <span id="98" class="column-number" data-column-number="98"></span>First, we must urgently fix family reunion. Refugee children are being intentionally kept apart from their parents by the UK’s asylum laws. That is unconscionably cruel. We must move in line with the majority of European nations by bringing parents and children together, which would likely reduce the number of parents making dangerous journeys across the channel to be reunited with their children. Secondly, Ministers must improve the UK resettlement scheme, which has a lot of potential but has consistently failed to help enough people—only 435 people were resettled last year. My inbox—like those of many Members, I am sure—is full of heartbreaking pleas from people caught up in delays and huge backlogs, and that step could help to fix the system. Thirdly, I would like the Government to pilot a humanitarian visa, to provide a safe option for refugees with strong asylum claims to travel here and make their claim. It is based on successful schemes in the US and Switzerland that have helped to reduce people smuggling. In conclusion, bits of the Bill are important and hugely welcome, but let us be clear: scrapping something illegal, immoral and unworkable is the bare minimum, and now we need Ministers to build something better that helps this country to rise above the far-right narrative that demonises all migrants. Before I end my remarks, I invite everyone in the Chamber to join me in a very short thought experiment. “The political environment in your home country has become extremely dangerous for anyone with your political views. People in your movement have been murdered. Last month, your children got followed home by an unmarked car, and you have received threatening calls. You have a family member in the UK who successfully claimed asylum a few years ago and is very worried about you. He implores you to join him. Your options are to stay in your home country, risk being murdered and leaving your children orphaned, or to flee to the UK.” Who among us could say with 100% certainty that we would stay? I will abstain on Second Reading, because although I support the scrapping of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act and the Illegal Migration Act, if the Government truly want to modernise the asylum system, they must be honest about the need for safe routes and respect for human rights.

    Hansard source
30. 6 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I rise to speak to demonstrate the cross-party support that has already been referred to for new clause 10 and consequential amendment 11 in the name of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), and I would like to start by congratulating and thanking her for her important work on this issue over many years. Giving children equal protection from assault cannot happen soon enough. Although we tabled amendment 11 as a probing amendment, I cannot urge the Government strongly enough to grasp this opportunity, in this Bill on children’s wellbeing, to take this forward and put it into law. Taking the essential step of giving children equal protection from assault has very widespread support not only among the general public, but among all sorts of organisations that advocate and work on behalf of children, including the NSPCC, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Parenting and Family <span id="462" class="column-number" data-column-number="462"></span>Research Alliance and the Children’s Commissioner, to name just a few. We heard from the Children’s Commissioner herself in oral and written evidence just how strongly she feels about this matter. I share her view that it is totally unacceptable that in 2025, children have less protection from assault under English law than adults do. The existence of the “reasonable punishment” defence perpetuates ambiguity in the law. It leaves children exposed to potential harm and undermines efforts to safeguard their wellbeing. New clause 10 would remove this outdated defence and provide clarity, consistency, and equal protection for children under the law. The Minister talked about wanting to wait until we have evidence from Wales, and of course, as she acknowledges, it is only in England and Northern Ireland that children do not have this protection. Scotland and Wales have already passed legislation on this matter—indeed, Scotland did before Wales, in 2020. The Minister mentioned waiting for evidence to come from Wales as to the impact of this. There is very clear evidence—worldwide, in fact—on the benefits of giving children the same protection from violence as adults. I believe there are 65 countries worldwide that give that protection, and there are decades of evidence on that topic. I am sure she has received that evidence and I warmly invite her to peruse it very carefully. Many studies show that physical punishment is not only ineffective at managing children’s behaviour, which is what some parents may intend, but actively harmful. It is associated with increased behavioural problems, increased risks of mental health issues and increased risks of more serious assault. The current, grimly outdated legal framework complicates the matter of addressing improving safeguarding efforts and makes it harder for professionals to assess and effectively address risks to children. The Minister referenced the roles of professionals in safeguarding children, and there is significant testimony from those professionals about how unhelpful this ambiguity in the law is. Fundamentally, there is an inequality here. If an adult hits an adult, it is assault; if an adult hits a child, they can claim the defence of reasonable punishment.

    Hansard source
31. 6 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    There are two points that I would want to make. Is the Minister really arguing that whether we should protect children from violence depends on whether an impact assessment shows that there are a certain number of prosecutions or whatever? Is this not about the fundamental equality of protecting children in the same way that we give adults legal protection against assault? Secondly, the impact of giving that equal protection is surely not something that should be measured in the sense of how many prosecutions there have been over how many years. This is not about getting more prosecutions; it is about shifting the culture as a whole to recognise that there is no justification for violence against children—none.

    Hansard source
32. 6 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    The Minister cited an example from Ireland. I do not think anybody is arguing that abolition of the defence of reasonable punishment will, in and of <span id="465" class="column-number" data-column-number="465"></span>itself, stop all violence against children, but we are arguing that it is an important component of what must be done to stop violence against children. The Children’s Commissioner and all the other people I have cited have made very powerful arguments to that effect. Professionals working in the sector have talked about how the ambiguity of the current law is actively unhelpful to them in offering support and intervention to families in which this might be an issue. Going back to the point about needing to wait for an impact assessment, does the Minister think there is any universe in which it could be more beneficial for children to keep the defence of reasonable punishment than it would be to abolish it? Surely it is logical to expect that ensuring equal protection for children will move things in a better direction, alongside all the family support required to make a sustainable long-term change.

    Hansard source
33. 6 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I rise to speak in support of the new clause, while recognising what the hon. Lady who tabled it has just said. In doing so, I am particularly mindful of a constituent of mine who came to see me in January to tell me that she had given evidence to the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. Frustrated does not even cover how she felt—she was incredibly upset at the lack of progress on implementation under the previous Government, and she was frustrated to find that progress now is still not fast enough. We have a huge responsibility to all who suffer child sexual abuse, and in particular to those who have been brave enough to come forward and give evidence, trusting that that evidence would help to make changes. I hope that the Minister can clarify timetables for implementation.

    Hansard source
34. 6 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 2 would extend the provision of free school lunches to all primary school children, from year 2 up to year 6. It was tabled in the in the name of the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher)—I thank him for his work on this—and has been supported by 43 hon. Members across the House. In addition to this high level of support from MPs, the No Child Left Behind campaign, which underpins new clause 2, is backed by more than 250 civil society leaders, from unions to charities, from medical bodies to faith leaders, and from mayors to councils. This widespread backing is unsurprising, because the case for universal free school meals is, in fact, overwhelming. Let us start with the need, which is acute. I am sure colleagues remember how during the pandemic Marcus Rashford ignited the campaign for free school meals, pointing out that we could fill 27 Wembley stadiums with the 2.5 million children who were struggling to know where their next meal was coming from—a shocking indictment. That shameful legacy of child poverty from the last Government continues, with hunger in schools still endemic. University of Bristol research shows that one <span id="472" class="column-number" data-column-number="472"></span>in five schools runs a food bank. That figure, I am told, is higher than the total number of community food banks being operated outside schools by organisations such as the Trussell Trust and the Independent Food Aid Network. The National Education Union explained that its members see the struggles of children in poverty every day. Some 80% of teachers asked said that they had provided food for hungry children out of their own pockets—is that not extraordinary? One of those teachers said: “So many of our children arrive tired and hungry. I find the issue with food so awful. I stock my school kitchen every week with fruit, cereal, milk, biscuits...the number of children who pop in to see me and then ask for food has grown over the last two years. It is heart-breaking.” It truly is. New clause 2 is therefore a probing amendment to make the case for a universal approach as the best policy response for three key reasons. First, it is immediately good for children. Secondly, it is an effective long-term investment. Thirdly, it is basically just efficient. I will briefly explore those arguments. Universal provision is good for children; it immediately helps children to learn, grow and thrive in school. For example, we have recently had the roll-out of free school meal provision to all children attending primary state schools in London. Initial research evaluating that roll-out, which was published a couple of months ago, found that the policy helped with children’s readiness to learn and ability to concentrate. It helps children to do what they are supposed to be doing in schools—learning. The Department for Education evaluation of the pilot undertaken by the last Labour Government found that pupils in schools where all children received free school meals made four to eight weeks’ more progress in maths and English over two years. That is an extraordinary improvement in progress. In that pilot, the poorest children were those who made the most progress, reducing the attainment gap. In areas with means-tested provision, the effect on attainment was negligible, so we have strong evidence for the benefits of universality. On the health benefits—this is really shocking—research by <em>The BMJ</em> found that less than 2% of packed lunches met the school food standards. That represents an extraordinary nutritional shortfall in what many children are eating. A policy of universal free school meals would be a major opportunity to increase healthy eating. Ensuring that every child in a school has access to the same food also helps to reduce the stigma and shame that comes from singling out pupils through means-tested provision, and gives pupils a better sense of belonging in school. Those are the immediate benefits of universal provision, but there are also really strong long-term investment benefits from it. The evidence shows that these universal systems reduce inequality and deliver wider economic prosperity beyond the classroom. PwC—that well-known radical institution—produced an analysis showing that, for every £1 invested in universal free school meals, £1.71 is generated in core benefits, such as increased savings for the NHS and for schools, and increased lifetime earnings and tax contributions. Other expert research also shows that the provision of universal free school meals increases pupils’ lifetime earnings, with <span id="473" class="column-number" data-column-number="473"></span>the biggest increase again for the most disadvantaged children, thereby reducing inequalities for a generation after school. It is such a powerful policy for reducing inequalities. I have banged on in other Commons debates about the value of public procurement for investing in our wider UK food and farming sector. When food is sustainably sourced, there is a huge potential benefit; work from Food for Life demonstrates that every £1 spent creates £3 in social, economic and environmental value, mostly in the form of jobs in the local economy. The third key argument for universal free school meal provision is simply that it is more efficient. We know that providing free school meals helps to end a situation where children fall through the gaps. Means-testing is always going to miss some children and families and, in England, the genuinely draconian eligibility criteria for free school meals means that one in three children living in poverty are still considered too well-off to access free school meals. That is extraordinary. Restricted eligibility, complicated registration processes and stigma also block countless families from accessing support. A universal provision would end this situation where far too many children fall through the gaps. Free school meals, by the way, would also be massively more efficient in reducing administration. Schools would be able to get back administration time with all children’s meals being provided in the same way at the same time, as one mechanism, and we would get rid of problems around school lunch debts. These universal policies are also easier to defend and protect from erosion by future Governments, who might seek to freeze thresholds or restrict eligibility. In the UK, Wales and London are leading the way in the provision of free, universal, healthy meals at lunch time for every child in primary school as a means of reducing inequalities. England needs to catch up. I sincerely hope that the Minister will consider new clause 2 ahead of Report to build on the excellent progress on breakfast clubs included in the Bill. Would it not be even more efficient and beneficial—nutritionally and economically, and for all the other reasons I have outlined—to ensure universal free school meal provision when children are already in school? It certainly would be at primary level, which is the case made by this amendment. I and my party support a policy of extension of universal free school meals to all children, because hunger does not stop at age 11. This amendment focuses particularly on primary school-age children. We know children cannot learn effectively when they are hungry and school dinners help children to focus. They bring the community together and help children to connect with their peers and to build bright futures. Our children learn and play together—they should eat together, too.

    Hansard source
35. 6 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I welcome what I believe I heard: that the Minister maintains a relatively open mind on this question and will continue to look into it. He said that the effectiveness of the free school meal policy would be evaluated in the light of whether it was an effective mechanism for tackling child poverty. I want to re-emphasise that my arguments are not just about impact on child poverty. In considering expansion of free school meals, will he evaluate their effectiveness in terms of the full range of their potential benefits—not just the impact on child poverty, but health benefits, wider economic benefits and so on?

    Hansard source
36. 6 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I thank the Minister for his response. As I said at the start, I tabled this as a probing amendment and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 3 Reporting of local authority performance regarding EHC plans “In the Children and Families Act 2014, after section 40 insert— <em>“40A Reporting of local authority performance</em> (1) Local authorities must publish regular information relating to their fulfilment of duties relating to EHC needs assessments and EHC plans under this part. (2) Such information must include— (a) the authority’s performance against the requirements of this Act and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 relating to the timeliness with which action needs to be taken by the authority in relation to EHC needs assessments and EHC plans; (b) explanations for any failures to meet relevant deadlines or timeframes; (c) proposals for improving the authority’s performance. (3) Information published under this section must be published— (a) on a monthly basis; (b) on the local authority’s website; and (c) in a form which is easily accessible and understandable.”” —<em>(Ian Sollom.)</em> <em>This new clause would require local authorities to publish their performance against the statutory deadlines in the EHCP process.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em>

    Hansard source
37. 6 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    River Health

    <Question HRSContentId="{EAADD0B9-68AE-4902-A24C-4A93128EA58D}">5. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{875E3B3D-872B-40BA-B1A5-FE60B38AA21E}">What steps he is taking to help improve the health of rivers.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
38. 6 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    River Health

    As the Secretary of State knows, North Herefordshire is badly affected by water pollution, with devastating effects for the local economy. He also knows that agricultural pollution, not sewage, is the main problem in my constituency. He did not mention that in his answer, so I respectfully remind him yet again that the Government need to tackle agricultural pollution and sewage pollution in a joined-up way. We know the solutions—

    Hansard source
39. 6 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    River Health

    I apologise, Mr Speaker. I will get to my point. As the Minister did not answer the first part of the question, I had to raise it. In North Herefordshire, we know that the solutions require farmers, regulators and environmental organisations to take action together. Will the Secretary of State now commit the funding needed to take forward the Wye catchment plan, and will he visit North Herefordshire with me?

    Hansard source
40. 6 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

    President Trump’s comments earlier this week were grossly irresponsible and dangerous. Does the Minister recognise that forcible displacement of a population under occupation constitutes ethnic cleansing and is a war crime? Will she clearly and unequivocally condemn the remarks of President Trump? Will she recognise the state of Palestine, as an essential step to the long-term sustainable peace that she has articulated support for?

    Hansard source