Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I believe that fans are the lifeblood of the game—where would we be without them? They always have the best interests of their club at heart, and clubs should do everything they possibly can to make tickets as affordable as possible.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I fear that my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy was being even more premature than he thought. A couple of weeks ago, he extolled the virtues of the fantastic portable antiquities scheme, which has now brought in more than 1 million artefacts. Is he aware that there has been a 5% cut to the scheme this year, and that several finds liaison officer posts are under threat? We really need to find a more sustainable, long-term solution for funding that excellent scheme.

[Mr Vaizey]

I am having more comebacks than Frank Sinatra.

I am a huge supporter of the portable antiquities scheme, and in fact we ring-fenced its funding when we came into government. I will do all that I can to support that very effective scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

This year, China will produce something like 2 million graduates in engineering and engineering-related subjects. Engineering firms in my constituency tell me how difficult it is to recruit engineers, particularly female ones, and that when they train them up, they often lose them to larger firms. What can the Minister do to make sure we have a better join-up between business requirements and education so that engineers stay in this country and produce for our economy?

[Nick Boles]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the desperate need for more engineers, but we have been making good progress. Since 2010, the number of people starting an engineering-related apprenticeship has gone up by 52%, and since 2013 the number of people starting an engineering degree has risen by 6.5 %. If we can get a better supply coming through the pipe, companies will be less inclined to poach from each other and will actually invest in developing the talent themselves through an apprenticeship.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that LEPs should take this seriously. Some are doing better than others on this, but our message is clear: they have a key responsibility, working with local businesses and colleges such as the one my hon. Friend referred to, to ensure that as many businesses as possible take up the opportunity of an apprenticeship. because that is the way to build the skills that his constituency and others need for the future.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The Minister gave a progress report on the Government’s dealing with late payment, but, according to a recent small business seminar in my constituency, it remains a bugbear. One international telecommunications company was cited which not only charges a fee to be a supplier, but has 180-day payment terms. What more can we do to name and shame and make transparent these obscene practices, which clobber small businesses?

[Matthew Hancock]

The single best thing we can do about that is to pass before the end of this Parliament the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, which is still going through the other place. That brings in transparency measures which mean that we will not name and shame just on an ad hoc basis, but have league tables of late payment performance, celebrating the best and admonishing the worst.

Birmingham Schools

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I welcome the support from the shadow Secretary of State for the fact that there is no place for extremism or intolerance in our schools, and for the teaching and promotion of fundamental British values. Let me turn to the points that he made in response to my statement. He will be aware that the permanent secretary did not only review the events of the past four years; in fact, he went back much further, including to times when members of the hon. Gentleman’s party—including the shadow Chancellor—were Secretary of State for Education.

The permanent secretary’s report found that the Department had not missed any warnings—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would stop talking, he would be able to hear the answers—[Interruption.] He is clearly not interested in hearing the answers even though he said that the issue was not about partisan politics. He talked about our policies, but they have delivered improvements than mean 1 million more children are in good or outstanding schools since 2010. That is thanks to this Government’s reforms.

The permanent secretary’s review concluded that Ministers from both sides of the House had not missed warnings but had shown a lack of inquisitiveness, and we are putting procedures in place. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Peter Clarke’s report set out compelling evidence of a determined effort by people with a shared ideology to gain control of the governing bodies of a small number of schools in Birmingham, but he is wrong to say that that is down to Government policy or the reforms that we have put in place since 2010. Given that the hon. Gentleman is a historian, I am surprised that he has not gone back to look at the history of these events. The problems started much earlier, before this Government, and even before the conversion of schools to academies. This Government have had to react, to listen to the accusations in the letter and to work with members of the hon. Gentleman’s party on Birmingham city council. Academies are more accountable under the new system, and we have improved the education of 1 million children in this country.

The hon. Gentleman completely overlooks the role of the regional schools commissioners, who are extremely active in relation to the schools in Birmingham. He asks who is in charge in Birmingham. I am surprised that he does not know the name of his own party’s lead member for children’s services. In my statement, I made it clear that the leadership capacity of Birmingham city council left much to be desired. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand the difference between children’s services, the Bob Kerslake review of the governance of Birmingham city council—which should worry him, given that it is his party that is in charge in Birmingham—and the education of children in Birmingham.

In relation to the inspection of academy chains, I have made it very clear, both in evidence to the Select Committee and in the House, that while we fully support the way in which Ofsted talks to academy chains and the support that it offers to schools, looking at a head office will never give it any experience.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned private faith schools and supplementary schools. Local authorities have a duty in relation to the safeguarding of all children in their local areas and we continue to look at any other regulations or protections that are needed.

As I said in my statement, we are putting in place whistleblowing provisions so that those who are aware of, and concerned about, what is going on in a school will have an easy mechanism to report their concerns to the Department. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the evidence that Sir Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector, gave to the Select Committee yesterday on training put in place for Ofsted inspectors to inspect on the issue of British values.

We have made it clear that there is no place for extremism in any school. We have made strong progress, as Members will see from the documents I am placing in the House of Commons Library today, on the recommendations in the Peter Clarke report. We are tackling this problem at both ends: taking determined action where we find areas of concern and building resilience into the system—a resilience that was lacking under the 13 years of the previous Labour Government.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The Ofsted report into Birmingham schools that came out in June found that

“Often, the curriculum, culture and values now promoted in these schools reflect the personal views of a small number of governors.”

I welcome the measures the Secretary of State has announced. She touched on whistleblowing, which is a specific recommendation of the Ofsted report. Will she provide more detail on how that is going to work, particularly in relation to governors and parents who might want to whistleblow? She mentioned legal protections for members of staff only. Why does she think the system will be more effective than it has proved in the past in what are, in many cases, very closed communities?

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. As he says, we are working with Ofsted to improve procedures for schools on whistleblowing. We are also strengthening the way anyone can contact the Department to raise concerns. I mentioned the strengthening of the due diligence and counter-extremism group—I think my hon. Friend was a Minister in the Department when the group was set up by the previous Secretary of State for Education—in order to take these issues extremely seriously and to tackle them. Concerns can be raised by parents, governors and members of the general public. We are also considering extending legal protections in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 for school staff making whistleblowing allegations. We continue to work with local authorities and regional schools commissioners. The wider point is that, until the Clarke report was published last year, there was perhaps a general disbelief that these sorts of things could be going on in our schools. We are now very well aware of the risks to our children.

Young People in Care

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He is absolutely right.

We made recommendations about better preparation for young people who are leaving care, including through the development of life skills. We highlighted a number of areas where support was crucial, based on the evidence that was presented to us.

The concept of instant adulthood has been raised with me. It describes the sudden change in the lives of people who have been very much looked after and who have had everything done for them and everything provided for them. It describes how corporate parenting is not working in the way we would expect for this group of young people. The concept of corporate parenting had been used as a way of identifying how we should look after such young people.

A point that has been made to me is that young people must value the support that they receive. It is not good enough for the authorities to describe what type of support should be available and who should provide it. Young people often have relationships with those they do not necessarily want supporting them, whether a social worker or somebody else they come across while they are in care. It is really important to listen to young people in deciding who is best placed to provide support for them. It is a matter of trust—I have heard that word mentioned a number of times.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the “Maintaining positive relationships” part of the Select Committee’s report, which I thought was interesting. It mentions how we can do better with personal advisers, but it also refers to sibling groups. Does he share my concern that a report issued today by the Family Rights Group shows that half of all sibling groups are split up in foster care? Does he think that more could be done, as those children leave care, to re-establish relationships with other family members that have been denied them in the care system? That could prove important in anchoring them and giving them stability, so that they can move into adulthood with trusted relatives.

[Bill Esterson]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. As an adoptive parent of a sibling group, some of whom are still in care, I know from experience that that is incredibly important to my own children. He hits the nail on the head—sibling groups should be kept together wherever possible, and every effort should be made to keep siblings in touch while they are in care and into adulthood. As he says, we touch on that in the report. Such relationships can really help young people as they leave care and move into adulthood. What came out strongly in the evidence that we took, and in the evidence that I got from elsewhere, was the importance of a young person having someone to advise and support them, whether it is a sibling group, a friend, a trusted professional adviser or the parent of a friend.

I have had some good information provided to me by Barnardo’s, with examples of what goes on. It says that there are a number of examples of good practice around the country. The Chairman of the Education Committee mentioned what goes on in Wiltshire, and I am aware of good practice by Barnardo’s in Merseyside, for example, where it provides support not just for care leavers but for other young people in the same age group.

Barnardo’s also gave me examples of nightstop, crash pads, supported lodgings and supported housing projects. Crash pads are short-term emergency supported lodgings. They are temporary forms of family-based accommodation, with placements lasting up to eight weeks. They provide specialist support to young people who need somewhere to live on a short-term basis.

Supported lodgings provide family-based support to vulnerable young people aged 16 to 25 who cannot live with their own family and are not yet ready for independent living. Young people are provided with places to live in the homes of local people, from whom they receive varying levels of practical and emotional support, enabling them to develop the confidence and capability to live independently. Young people normally stay in supported lodgings for up to two years, but they can also be used to provide shorter-term emergency housing.

Supported housing projects offer high levels of support to young people for up to two years, although some have a small number of emergency beds available at short notice for a few days at a time. They tend to house a group of young people with more complex needs, and they usually have 24/7 on-site support from staff.

I give those examples to address the point made by the Chairman of the Committee about emergency accommodation—what is sometimes called bed and breakfast. Some of those examples are from Barnardo’s and other providers. I hope that the Minister and shadow Minister will look at what is out there already, because if we are to provide the range of alternatives that our report calls for, we should learn from good practice and share and apply it, so that—in the shortest possible time—better opportunities are available for this group of young people. I hope that the Minister will take my comments on board and perhaps respond when he winds up the debate.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

As has already been said, our report made recommendations on bed-and-breakfast accommodation, on staying closer and on the regulation of all external accommodation—to name but a few. The recommendation I wish to discuss today is on the lack of “Staying Put” arrangements for the 9% of our young people—some would argue that they are the most vulnerable 9%—in residential care homes.

First, let me remind the House of some of statistics about these vulnerable young people, our nation’s 70,000 looked-after children. Everybody will surely agree that this country’s record in helping that most vulnerable group when they leave care has been nothing short of appalling in the past. Of the 7,000 19-year-olds who were in care at 16, 36% were not in education, employment or training and only 6% of all care leavers are in higher education, compared with 43% of their peers. Less than 26% of children in care obtain five good grades at GCSE, compared with more than 70% of their peers, and 23% of the adult population in our jails have had experience of the care system. Around a quarter of those living on the streets have a care background and care leavers are four or five times more likely to commit suicide. About 47% of looked-after children aged between five and 17 show signs of psychosocial adversity and psychiatric disorders, which is higher than the most disadvantaged children living in private households. Physical and mental problems also increase at the time of leaving care.

As we know—the Chairman of the Committee mentioned it in his speech—and to the Government’s huge credit, they have allowed young people who are fostered to remain with their carers until they are 21, if they wish, if their carers agree and if it is considered to be in their best interests. That is in an attempt to address the many serious challenges care leavers face. All young people in foster care are offered enhanced support up to the age of 21. For young people in foster care, that is one of the biggest and most fundamental changes to their support when they leave care, and it has been widely applauded as a significant change in the right direction for that group of young people.

The big scandal, however, is that the extension to foster placements excludes the 9% of young people in care who are in children’s homes. Those young people have a wide range of needs and challenges. What most have in common is that they are vulnerable. That vulnerability is exacerbated by the stigma attached to residential care among politicians, the public and, sadly, some in the social work profession. Ministers appear to see living in a family as the best option for children in care and the only setting in which children will thrive. That is not reflected by some social workers, who see children’s homes as the last resort, as a place for children who have failed family placements and as somewhere the more challenging young people can be placed. Many of the public see children’s homes as places where naughty children are sent. Historically that view was compounded by some local authorities who used children’s homes to accommodate their more challenging young people.

The Education Committee’s recommendation was that young people living in residential children’s homes should have the right to remain there beyond the age of 18, just as young people in foster care now have the right of staying put until the age of 21. We recommend that the Department for Education extends “Staying Put” to residential children’s homes.

Despite the evidence taken in our inquiry, the Government do not agree. They said that too many children’s homes are not of sufficient quality and that the immediate priority is to improve significantly the quality of residential care. To be fair to the Government, they are doing that. They said that the evidence for placing such a duty on supporting the “Staying Put” arrangements for young people in foster care is robust. We do not have the evidence for children’s homes, as they were not covered by the plans.

The Government said that there are a number of practical and legal issues we would need to consider and test out. There would be vulnerable adults living in homes with much younger vulnerable children—despite the fact that that happens in many households throughout Britain. In addition, a children’s home accommodating three care leaders and one child would technically no longer be a children’s home. The Government also mentioned money, and that has to be taken into consideration, particularly in these economic times.

None the less, the Department recognised that those challenges should not be viewed as insurmountable barriers. It said it was working in collaboration with charities to consider some of the issues associated with “Staying Put” and residential children’s homes. Natasha Finlayson, from the Who Cares? Trust, confirmed that that work was in progress. The Minister confirmed all that nearly a year ago, when I secured an Adjournment debate on this very issue.

In fact, a scoping report was requested from the Minister from a collaboration between the National Children’s Bureau, the Who Cares? Trust, Action for Children, Barnardo’s, Together Trust, the Centre for Child and Family Research, and Loughborough university. Their work was published only yesterday, after a year of working on the scoping exercise. A stakeholder workshop identified four different options for residential care “Staying Put” arrangements, which formed the basis of a consultation with young people. Overall, the scoping exercise showed that care leavers from residential homes would prefer to have options, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is making a good case for what is a very difficult solution for kids in residential care homes, but does he not recognise that the “Staying Put” exercise is largely staying put with carers, which is more easily achieved through foster care, for example? In residential homes, workers tend to move on. Indeed, the average stay in residential homes is rather short, so there is not that attachment. Would it therefore not be better to try to establish options, which he is now describing, that form links with foster carers and others to give a proper bonding and link with advice and support, which one does not get from an attachment to a building that is a residential care home? That is rather different to a foster care relationship, which the young person will have been in for many years in many cases.

[Craig Whittaker]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He raises some valuable points, particularly on the turnover of staff in residential homes. The point is that a lot of young people in residential homes have a stigma attached to them. Not only that, quite often a foster placement has broken down. One could argue quite easily that they are the more vulnerable of our children in care. That being the case, to turf them out by themselves at the age of 18, often with very little support, is not the way forward. That will not be the case for all young people in residential homes—of course not. Some will be robust enough to take that step. For those who choose to stay, we feel strongly that that option should be open.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Timpson]

I thank my hon. Friend for those words. As he knows, this has been a long-standing issue on which we have sought the advice of the Law Commission and others to establish a way forward. The fact that we can now legislate and implement these provisions represents a good outcome for many people, including his constituents.

In amendment 2, we have clarified the point at which the fostering for adoption scheme must be considered for a child and established that before a local authority considers placing a child in this way, it must first have considered kinship care and decided that it was not the most appropriate placement. Also in part 1, through amendments 7 to 10, we have introduced an affirmative resolution procedure in relation to the Secretary of State’s powers to direct local authorities to outsource adoption functions, in relation to the use of personal budgets and in relation to allowing approved prospective adopters to search and inspect the Adoption and Children Act 2002 register in pilot areas.

On part 2 and family justice, many hon. Members will be pleased that the noble Lords accepted the principle and purpose of clause 11. However, we have accepted amendment 12 to clause 11 from the noble and learned Baroness Butler-Sloss. As hon. Members will also be aware, clause 11 introduces a presumption that a child’s welfare will be furthered by the involvement of each parent, where this is safe and subject to the overarching principle that the child’s welfare must be paramount. Baroness Butler-Sloss’s amendment addresses concerns raised that the clause could be misinterpreted as giving a parent a right to a certain amount of time with a child. That was never the intention, as I have said several times during the Bill’s passage. The amendment addresses those concerns by clarifying that “involvement” does not mean a particular amount of time.

Importantly, the amendment does not change the effect of clause 11, as it will remain for courts to determine what arrangements are right for each child in the light of the evidence before it. I want to put on the record my gratitude to my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Northampton South (Mr Binley) and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has championed this change in the law for many years. I have no doubt that had he not done so, we would not have made the significant progress we now have.

[Tim Loughton]

I thank the Minister for his comments. I understand the logic of Baroness Butler-Sloss’s amendment in not referring to a particular division of a child’s time. Despite being at loggerheads with her over many years, I can see the logic of that. Will he explain, though, why her amendment refers to “direct or indirect” contact? What does that add to the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

As I have said, the Bill before us now is vastly changed and improved, but only because of the herculean efforts of those in the Lords. Sadly, before it left this place, the Minister rejected all but one of the amendments from Members in the Commons. This is a Government who appear to want to make legislation in the other place. I am delighted that the Minister has now accepted so many amendments. We generally welcome the changes on adoption and, in particular, Lords amendment 2, as well as the decision to recognise the importance of kinship and friends when considering children for adoption. I welcome amendments 3 to 7, and the limitation on the Secretary of State’s powers to force the outsourcing of adoption services, especially as we have such a capricious Secretary of State at present—

[Tim Loughton]

What does that mean?

[Steve McCabe]

I’ll buy you a dictionary.

We also welcome amendments 9 and 10, which add safeguards on regulations to give prospective adopters access to information on the register. Finally, in that section, we are happy with amendment 12, as we want children to have access to both parents after a separation when that is in the best interests of the child, but not when it involves an arbitrary division of the child’s time between the parents.

[Tim Loughton]

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have now accepted the principle of shared parenting. Will he tell us what changed his mind? I seem to remember that he signed the early-day motion in favour of shared parenting but subsequently voted against the proposal in the 2006 Bill, so what has changed his mind? I am delighted that he has now come full circle on this matter.

[Steve McCabe]

I think there might be a slight difference between our definitions of shared parenting. That might be the simplest explanation. I am in favour of children having access to both parents, as I have said.

We are pleased that amendments to part 3 mean that the Minister now recognises the need to provide for children who have a disability but not a special educational need. I also welcome the Government’s conversion on the need to cater for young offenders, many of whom do have special educational needs. I congratulate the Minister on accepting amendment 128—the “staying put” amendment—which means that children in foster care will now be able to stay with their foster parents until the age of 21. I want to acknowledge how much personal effort he has devoted to these changes, along with all the others who have been arguing for them.

I also welcome efforts to improve the appeals system for parents, who often feel that the problem is not that their child has a disability or special need, but the lifelong battle they are forced to engage in with the authorities to get their child the help and support they deserve. Of course, the amendments covering young carers address a glaring omission in the original Bill, and we are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for all her efforts on that point.

Many more areas of the Bill have been vastly improved by their lordships’ intervention, but I wish to discuss the amendments standing in my name and those of my colleagues in the shadow education team, which deal with a number of concerns we have about how the Bill will work in practice. We do not intend to press any of these amendments to a vote, but that does not diminish our concern about how these issues will develop. On our amendment (a) to Lords amendment 43, we want to make it abundantly clear that the local offer must not be the minimum a local authority thinks it can get away with; it is no good producing legislation full of good intentions while simultaneously stripping resources from local authorities, thus making it almost impossible for them to deliver on these intentions. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West, I hope that we can be assured tonight that the Minister will be instructing his officials to monitor the implementation of the Bill and ensure that reasonable local services are provided across local authorities, and that where omissions or obstacles are identified, he will intervene to make clear that it is not acceptable, and that it is not the intention of his legislation, to create a postcode lottery where access to services and provision depends on where someone lives and what impact Department for Communities and Local Government cuts have had on their local authority area.

On Lords amendment 73 to clause 37, and our further amendment, it is our wish to make it abundantly clear that there should be no get-out clause for local authorities in providing access to social care provision specified within an education, health and care plan. If that is not the case, this Bill will have failed and the Minister will have let down hundreds of thousands of families up and down the country who have taken him and his Government at their word that this is a brave new world of joined-up provision, designed to try to relieve them of their daily struggles for support. I welcome the Minister’s comments on the code of practice, but I want to know that he will step in if there is any question of a local authority seeking to evade its responsibilities to provide social care as specified in the plan.

Finally, we continue to doubt the entire wisdom of childminder agencies, but we recognise that this is largely a cost-saving measure by a Government who cannot give Ofsted the resources to inspect individual childminding provision. On clause 51D and Lords amendment 158, and our further amendment, we are seeking to make it crystal clear to the Minister that we do not want shoddy childminder agencies on the cheap, with little or no regard paid to the quality of care provided for the children. As the Minister will know, the Department did not consult effectively with childminders on this proposal, and it is not broadly welcomed by childminders. None the less the Government have gone ahead, so we need to be clear that Ofsted will have sufficient powers to check the quality of care provided by individuals within the agencies, especially at the first whiff of concern that the agency or individual provision is not up to standard. There is a potential conflict with childminder agencies, in that they will be both inspector and inspected, and they will have a financial incentive to recruit childminders.

Staying Put Agenda

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

May I say what an honour it is to have secured this evening’s Adjournment debate?

We have all heard some of the statistics on outcomes for our nation’s 68,000-plus looked-after children, and I think everybody will agree that our country’s record on helping this most vulnerable group of young people when they leave care is nothing short of appalling. Of the 7,000 19-year-olds who were in care at 16, 36% are not in education, employment or training, and only 6% of all care leavers are in higher education, compared with 43% of their peers. We can add to those figures the fact that just 12.8% of children in care obtained five good GCSE grades, compared with 57.9% of their peers, and that about 23% of the adult prison population have spent some time in care. Around a quarter of those living on the streets also have a care background, while care leavers are four or five times more likely to commit suicide. Finally, about 47% of looked-after children aged five to 17 show signs of psychosocial adversity and psychiatric disorders, which is higher than among the most disadvantaged children living in private households.

Physical and mental problems increase at the time of leaving care. In order to address the many serious challenges faced by care leavers, the Government propose to introduce an amendment to the Children and Families Bill to allow young people who are fostered to remain with their carers until they are 21, if they wish and their carers agree and if it is considered to be in their best interests to do so. All young people in foster care will be offered enhanced support until they are 21. For young people in foster care, this is one of the biggest, most fundamental changes to their support when they leave care and is widely applauded as a hugely significant change in the right direction for this incredibly vulnerable group of young people.

The scandal, however, is that the extension to fostering excludes the 9% of young people in care who are placed in children’s homes. These young people have a wide range of needs and challenges. What most have in common is that they are vulnerable. That vulnerability is further enhanced by a stigma attached to residential care among politicians, the public and still, sadly, some in the social work profession. Ministers appear to see living in a family as the best option for children in care—I believe they are right—and as the only setting in which children may thrive. That is reflected by some social workers who see children’s homes as the last resort—a place where children who have “failed” family placements may be sent or as somewhere the more challenging young people may be placed. Many of the public see children’s homes as places where “naughty children” are sent. Historically, that view was compounded by some local authorities that used children’s homes to accommodate the more challenging young people.

When recently asked by the Select Committee on Education to explain different care leaving ages for foster children and those in children’s homes, the Secretary of State for Education replied that fostering is different from residential options and that children’s homes will not get support until an unspecified number of children’s homes nationally have improved within an unspecified time, at which point he may consider it. However, Ofsted inspections of 400 children’s homes concluded by June last year found that on overall effectiveness 65% were good or outstanding and only 7% were inadequate; on outcomes for young people, 67% were good or outstanding and only 3% were inadequate; on quality of care, 74% were good or outstanding, with only 6% inadequate; on safeguarding of children and young people, 69% were good or outstanding, with only 6% inadequate; and, finally, on leadership and management, 57% were good or outstanding and only 9% inadequate.

The Ofsted data, based on Ofsted inspection standards, thus show that the inspectors found most children’s homes to be good or outstanding and only a small percentage to be inadequate. I wonder whether the Secretary of State realises the absurdity of his argument. Surely, as the holder of the purse strings, he should be targeting the homes he is not happy with, and not the young people who are in them through not fault of their own. This suggests strongly that the stigma and misuse of residential care often mask some excellent work that is taking place. It is a credit to residential care that so many of the young children placed in children’s homes under such pressure grow up to lead fulfilling lives.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Perhaps I should declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but is not part of the problem the fact that the children who end up in residential children’s homes are, as he says, often there as a last resort, and will usually be there for only a matter of months, when what we really need to look at, rather than short-term spot purchasing of places, is long-term planning? Children need to go into good-quality residential children’s homes—the quality still needs to be improved—as a long-term planned option, just as it is for long-term fostering, rather than as a last resort. If that were the case, enabling children to stay on, which would be wholly consistent with fostering, could be seen as much more of a natural process.

[Craig Whittaker]

I agree absolutely with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend, who has had massive experience in this field over the years and has worked tirelessly for young people. The solutions sought for these young people need to be diverse, but long-term planning for residential care is, without question, vital.

The problem with allowing the amendment just for those in foster care is that it leads to inequalities and discrimination within the system, creating a two-tier system for these vulnerable young people. It does not include young people in residential care, so the state just washes its hands of children anywhere between the ages of 16 and 18 and cuts them free without any support in the big wide world. I have even heard stories of young people being sent back to their birth families just a few days before their 16th birthday, so the local authority no longer has to support them.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on looked-after children and care leavers—a post held that the Minister held before me, so he has had massive experience with the APPG—I have been inundated with stories of young people feeling that the state is yet again letting them down because of the inequality and discrimination being created. In this particular case, however, I have noted a real anger coming from those young people in residential care—an anger that I feel is justified. The brilliant campaign led by the “Every Child Leaving Care Matters” team has in less than a month secured 5,000 signatures for the petition from care leavers to change the Government’s mind, and this has been backed by academics and charities from all over the nation. Five thousand young people cannot be wrong: they are angry about their exclusion, and as one young man said to me, “We are being stitched up yet again.”

Strengthening Couple Relationships

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to set the scene first, because the problem is of such magnitude that it is important to put the facts on the record. I will admit to him that I am light in the department of what the solutions are, but he will not be surprised to hear that I have some advice for the bishops. I know, however, that my hon. Friends are doing good work in this field.

I was drawing attention to an article in yesterday’s Daily Mail. Some people will say that it refers to an extreme example, which it may be, but it reflects on a smaller scale what is going on right across the nation. I regularly deal with broken family cases at my surgeries. One constituent recently told me that the father of her child walked out the day she went into labour and has not been seen since, although he boasts on Facebook that he has paid hundreds of thousands of pounds in cash for a London flat. Another told me that the father, who smokes a lot of weed, has not seen the children for two years; he has a child by another woman and is now with a third woman. A third constituent told me that she is expecting a child by a man who is not interested and has no job; he himself was placed in care as a child. This is going on all over the country. I am not talking about a deprived inner-city area. This is Aldershot, Hampshire. If it is happening there, imagine what else is happening in some of our inner cities.

The men who father these children seem to have absolutely no interest in bringing them up, let alone paying for them. It is important that we recognise that we cannot afford to continue to subsidise people who live such dysfunctional lifestyles. We do not have the money. It is immoral, it is wrong and it has to stop. Am I being judgmental in an age when such an approach is deemed inappropriate? Of course I am being judgmental. For the sake of our country, we need to be judgmental. Besides, plenty of people never cease to be judgmental about Members of Parliament.

Let me move from the particular to the general. Let us consider the data. According to the Centre for Social Justice—an excellent organisation—more than 3 million children are growing up in a lone parent household, 92% headed by the mother. Does that matter? I submit that it does matter because the evidence shows that

“marriage provides the most reliable framework for raising children.”

Those are not my words, but those of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), the former Home Secretary, in his 1998 consultation document entitled “Supporting Families”. That view was essentially reiterated by this Government when, in their social justice strategy paper published in March 2012, they said that

“this Government believes marriage often provides an excellent environment in which to bring up children. So the Government is clear that marriage should be supported and encouraged.”

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. His point about dadlessness is important. The lifelong impact on dadless children’s educational achievement and job prospects, among other things, is immense, but does he accept that children sometimes grow up in dadless households because dads who want to be there have been excluded? The purpose of the presumption of shared parenting in the Children and Families Bill, which is going through Parliament now, is to ensure that, wherever possible, those dads who are unable to live with their children because of an acrimonious split continue to have whatever meaningful and valuable contact they have with their children because of the huge value that it brings to the experience of the children.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. It is not one that I intended to cover in my speech, but I am glad that he has put that on the record, because it is clear that there are fathers who do want access to their children and who do want to play an important role in bringing up their children, but they are denied. I hope that the Children and Families Bill will be a move in the right direction to rectify that wrong.

Let me be clear that the problem is not just about the financial cost, massive though that is. As all right hon. and hon. Members are only too aware from their surgeries, there is a massive social cost in human misery, which has an undeniably detrimental effect on children, as my hon. Friend has just illustrated. Statistics show that children of separated parents are more likely to have physical and mental health problems in childhood and to fall into crime or substance abuse in later life. The Centre for Social Justice observes that lone parents are two and a half times more likely to be in poverty than couple families, and children from broken homes are statistically less likely to be able to establish stable relationships themselves, thereby continuing the cycle.

Research by the Office for National Statistics on “The mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain”, published in 2000, found twice the incidence of disorders in boys aged 11 to 15 in lone-parent households as in married households. Even more interesting, the incidence in cohabiting households was similar not to that in married households, but rather to that in lone-parent households. I shall have more to say on cohabitation in a moment, but clearly one has to recognise that although not all children brought up in such conditions will necessarily struggle in those ways, we cannot ignore the facts if we are to tackle the issue. According to Relate, another excellent organisation, the number of families with dependent children increased by 5% between 1996 and 2012. The number of married-couple families with dependent children fell by 12%, however, and the number of lone-parent families rose by 22% and the number of cohabiting couples doubled. One million fathers do not live with their children.

Marriage, which for the majority of Conservative Members of Parliament can be only between a man and a woman, remains the core of a stable family. Only in this environment do children have both male and female role models for guidance and support. However, the number of marriages has fallen from about 415,000 in 1970 to about 240,000 in 2010, a near 100-year low. The number of single-parent households has risen from 8% of the total in 1970 to 22% in 2010. Since the late 1970s, there has been a steady increase in the rise of cohabitation, with nearly half of all children today born outside marriage, but cohabitation is a relatively unstable substitute for marriage. Figures from the Centre for Social Justice show that fewer than one in 10 married couples separate by their child’s fifth birthday, compared with one in three cohabiting couples.

Many of us welcomed the Government’s acknowledgement of the contribution that marriage makes to a strong society when the Chancellor included a tax break for married couples in his autumn statement. At this point, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who led the campaign on that front, but it can only be the start. I agree wholeheartedly with the Christian Institute that

“most marriages last for life… Children need a father and a mother to nurture them... Children need parents who love them and love each other just as much. That love must be a permanent and not a temporary commitment… The best environment for raising children is marriage because the spouses have committed themselves to each other, and thus their children, for life. No other kind of relationship provides this environment of stability and permanence for children. Social science confirms that lifelong and loving marriage is the ideal context in which to raise children.”

Some say that in a free society, people should be entitled to live any lifestyle that they want and to an extent that is unquestionably true. I am conscious that I am trespassing on delicate territory, as we are all touched in one way or another by such trends, even at the highest levels in our land, but overwhelmingly it is the taxpayer who is picking up the tab for the current state of affairs, so the state cannot be an idle bystander.

Cyber-bullying

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the serious problem of cyber-bullying and the appalling consequences for an increasing number of children and young people who are its victims; and calls on the Government to take action to help eradicate this form of intimidation and harassment, including the consideration of legislation to make cyber-bullying an offence.

I rise to speak on the motion in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I do so in the reassuring knowledge that it is more than likely, I trust, that in the general thrust of a debate on cyber-bullying, party political differences will, for the most part, be set to one side. I say that not out of any sense of presumption, but it is borne of my experiences as a Member of this House and of the united opposition of all parties to the growing phenomena of cyber-bullying and internet trolling.

Let us remind ourselves that cyber-bullying is the use of electronic communication to bully a person, typically by sending intimidating or threatening messages. Most hon. Members in the Chamber have access to a mobile phone, an iPad and other electronic devices, which we rely on in carrying out our responsibilities as elected representatives. Our phones and mobile devices are all equipped with software that allows even the most novice of users to browse the internet, and if we so wish, to communicate via social media.

I engage with my constituents via social media daily. Today, technology allows me to reach out and express my views to thousands of people at the click of a button. That is a very useful tool, but the fact that a person can reach out to thousands of people by the click of a button is a harrowing one for approximately 65% of teenagers. We will be blinded by facts and figures in this debate, but they must all be aired to hit home what a problem cyber-bullying is and what a lasting effect it has. We hear more and more reports of young people who take their own lives as a result of bullying, and cyber-bullying in particular.

I arranged to meet Dr Arthur Cassidy, who heads up an organisation in my constituency called the Yellow Ribbon. Dr Cassidy is involved in UK-wide research into cyber-bullying and internet trolling. He has carried out comprehensive research on the effects of bullying on young people, including the long-term effects on the development of its victims. Recent reports have found that approximately 65% of teenagers say that they have experienced online bullying or trolling, with the most common form being cruel posts that comment on the way that someone is dressed or on what they look like. Some 48% of those teenagers said that it had made them feel very upset. More than half of that 65% said that it was happening to them at least once a week.

The anonymity permitted by certain forms of online social interaction can give bullies the false impression that they can say anything they wish, no matter how hurtful, with little consequence for themselves or for the person they might have harmed. Children have the right to feel safe and secure, particularly when they are at school. Schoolchildren are still developing and do not always have the wisdom to avoid cyber-bullying or to seek out the best solutions or help in dealing with this issue.

In October, I contacted every post-primary school in my constituency and asked each school to identify two student representatives to sit on a forum to discuss cyber-bullying. The meeting was attended by Dr Arthur Cassidy, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the community safety partnership and some parents. I thank them all for their help. I felt that it was essential to engage with young people and to hear their views on how social media affect them both positively and negatively.

Many of the children emphasised how difficult it can be to find help when they have been bullied and to get adults to listen to them. They said that many adults do not understand social media and that more should be done to educate parents and teachers about cyber-bullying. I was very impressed by the openness of the young people at the forum. I was hesitant when it was brought together, because I did not think that they would open up in such a forum, but they did. On that day, I made a commitment to those young people that I would do whatever I could as their Member of Parliament to urge the Government to take whatever steps were needed to tackle this growing phenomenon.

I am pleased to say that steps have been taken in my constituency to address the problem. A workshop is scheduled to take place tomorrow evening to offer advice to parents who are concerned about keeping up to date with modern technology and who want to know what they can do to keep their children safe online. I commend the children and young people’s strategic partnership for its role in making that happen.

We need to work together to eradicate cyber-bullying. The venom that a cyber-bully produces has been proven to leave long-term effects and to make the lives of their victims miserable. Many victims succumb to anxiety, depression and other stress-related disorders. The anonymity and protection of distance makes it easier to push the boundaries and to provoke and taunt with practically no accountability.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this important subject. I am interested to hear of the progress that he is making with schools in his constituency. Is not part of the problem the lack of confidence among parents of my generation, older generations and even younger generations, who lack the technological savvy to tackle the problem head-on with their children? Schools have a responsibility to educate not just children, but parents so that they know how to educate and look after their children.

[David Simpson]

Progress is being made on that. Our forum will meet again in the second week of January to hear an update. Hopefully we will see more movement from the Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly on this matter.

The hon. Gentleman is right that in today’s society, talking is almost a thing of the past between parents and their children. They do not interact in the way that they used to. Parents do not understand such things—I am one of them. Because of the generation that I grew up in, I still use just one finger on an iPad, let alone on a full computer. A lot of education is needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

As I said, as well as setting out what the Government are doing, I am here to listen to views from all sides of the House. As the hon. Gentleman made clear, I hope this will be a thoughtful debate about something on which Members are united, which is to see this venomous trend—to use his powerful adjective—curtailed in the best way we can. On the criminal element, as I understand, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill will include a new offence of causing nuisance and annoyance and there will be the opportunity for someone to get an antisocial behaviour order against people who cause nuisance and annoyance. That can also be used in cases of cyber-bullying.

As well as criminal law, it is important to consider the other issues raised by the hon. Gentleman in his excellent opening remarks, including the whole ecology that exists in terms of we in society uniting to combat this scourge. I hear what he says about cyber-bullying being a growing threat, and I welcome his constructive suggestions—for example, he made a point about doing rather than talking in the work to educate parents in his constituency.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend said that nuisance and annoyance may be covered by new legislation, but we are talking not about that but about downright abuse that can lead some people to commit suicide. Can he tell the House how many people have been prosecuted under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or the Communications Act 2003 for offences that this House would recognise as forms of cyber-bullying?

[Mr Vaizey]

I would hesitate to answer that question in the detail that my hon. Friend requires, at the risk of misleading the House. As I said a few minutes ago, my understanding is that there were 2,000 prosecutions last year. I do not have a breakdown of those figures, but I will write to him if he requires that. The fundamental point, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that under existing legislation prosecutions are taking place for what you or I would recognise as cyber-bullying.

It is important to involve everyone in society in combating this threat. That includes the Government, of course, but also parents, teachers and the industry, which the hon. Member for Upper Bann mentioned. As he knows, the previous Government established the UK Council for Child Internet Safety—UKCCIS—which has continued to work with this Government, bringing together three Ministers: myself, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who will wind-up the debate, and the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims. The council brings together industry, academia, charities, parents groups, and law enforcement under three Ministers.

It is often said—again, I would welcome any critique of this—that the UK is a pioneer in internet safety, and my experience of working in the field is that we are highly regarded around the world for the work we do. That does not, I hasten to add, signal any sense of complacency on our part, but it shows that we are proactive about the issue, as were the previous Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

We are lucky enough to have sitting next to me one of the top Education Ministers, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson). By the time he comes to sum up, he will have an answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question. The change in the law was welcomed, but I cannot say, from my eyrie in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, what statistics the Department for Education has at its fingertips on its effectiveness. The Department is proud of reducing 481 pages of bullying advice down to 11 pages. Common sense tells us that bullying advice is now being read by schools. The hon. Gentleman alluded to search powers, but the 2011 Act also introduced the new simplified Ofsted inspection regime. Since January 2012, Ofsted has four core criteria only, one of which includes freedom from bullying. Schools can therefore be held to account for their policies.

From September 2014, pupils in every key stage—all pupils from ages five to 16—will be taught about online safety as part of the new curriculum. We hope that that will empower young people to tackle cyber-bullying through responsible, respectful and secure use of technology, as well as ensure that pupils are taught age-appropriate ways of reporting any concerns they may have about what they see or encounter online. I was also going to mention—

[Tim Loughton]

rose—

[Mr Vaizey]

That I want to take an intervention from my hon. Friend.

[Tim Loughton]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Will he confirm that academies and free schools will not have to follow the curriculum guidelines? What will he be doing, with his colleagues in the Department for Education, to ensure that these important procedures will still be taught in all our schools?

[Mr Vaizey]

All schools will have to have a protection policy in place and they will be subject to Ofsted inspections. My hon. Friend’s intervention gives me an opportunity to say what a fantastic job he did as children’s Minister. One reason why I have such respect for his remarks is because he is one of those former Ministers who has maintained an interest in the policy in which he was so intimately involved, and he continues to make important interventions in our debates.

The Education Act 2011 strengthened schools’ powers—a specific Government intervention in this area—so that teachers can now impose same-day detention, use reasonable force to protect children from harm and have the power to search for and delete images or files that they think are inappropriate. Schools do not exist in a vacuum. Sometimes the rhetoric is such that we almost pass on to schools the responsibility for sorting out all society’s ills. Schools have to work with parents, and parents have to be participants and allies in the work to combat cyber-bullying. Schools need to work with parents to make it clear that no one will tolerate any kind of bullying, and to ensure that parents are aware of the procedures to follow if they believe their child is being bullied. Schools should investigate and act on all reports.

Making parents aware of what they can do to keep children safe online is also important. I am pleased that, as part of our work to protect children from inappropriate content online, the main internet service providers have come together and formed an alliance to carry out a large-scale internet safety awareness campaign for parents. I understand that that will have a budget of approximately £25 million per year for the next three years and will include signposting to further sources of help and advice. I have said to the ISPs on many occasions that while it might be helpful to them in a competitive environment to offer new and up-to-date tools to parents to keep their children safe online, they must also work together as one. They have the experience, they know their customers, they have the highly paid marketing directors and they have the relationships with the advertising agencies and so on to work together as one for the common good to put forward this message. I am pleased we have got this deal with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow that very balanced, stark and worrying speech from the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), which was in the same vein as that of his colleague, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), who opened the debate. This is a very important subject and I pay tribute to the DUP for having brought it to the House’s attention today. It is a very important and topical subject, and it merits greater coverage and attention than is suggested by the number of Members who are able to be here debating it today

We have had a number of debates on related subjects recently, which is a sign of the seriousness with which this House takes this issue and the threat that this problem presents to many of our constituents day in, day out—the young, the old, the vulnerable and everyone else as well. There has in the past perhaps been a focus on access to harmful material on the internet—violent pornography and violence generally—and its hugely insidious effect on our young people and particularly on vulnerable and impressionable teenagers. Just a few days ago yet another case came up and was reported in the newspapers where a boy of 12 raped his younger sister after watching online pornography, prompting a judge to warn yesterday that

“the internet is not a benign babysitter”.

We have become almost conditioned and immune to horrific cases like that being a fact of everyday modern life, but that does not make it any less important that we should urgently tackle this problem. We must not take it for granted. We must do much more than we are doing now collectively as a country, as a Government, and with all the institutions at our disposal.

I welcome the progress made recently in various parts of Government, in co-operation with businesses and other institutions, on the proliferation of filters, which we are now going to see on accessing pornography and harmful material. However, we have a lot more to do, and they are just one part of what needs to be a whole jigsaw of solutions addressing the effects the internet can have on impressionable people who can be influenced by it.

The bigger question is not so much how people get access to the internet and how we restrict it, but why they want to look at these things and why they are influenced by them. Why does the internet have such a huge influence on impressionable boys in particular, and how has it come to normalise hardcore and often violent behaviour for our kids so they take this stuff for granted—stuff that we are aghast at and would have been absolutely aghast at if we had had access to it in our impressionable teenage years? The internet is a fantastic tool that we cannot, and would not wish to, uninvent; it is one of the great fashioning things of the late 20th and 21st centuries. Why do some people turn to the internet to use it to bully, harass and abuse?

As my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned, in my time as children’s Minister I jointly chaired the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, a really important body that is part of the solution. It has been providing answers and it needs to be at the heart of the solutions we provide. We must have a multi-faceted approach, which is why that body, which brings together academia, business, the internet service providers, the child protection people, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, Government and everybody else, is so important. In my time on the UKCCIS we focused on access to harmful content—violent and adult content—for young people in particular, and I think the focus is still the same. I regret, however that we did not latch on earlier, as we needed to do, to the malign effects that the misuse of social media to abuse and bully is having on our children, some of them under the age of 10, every day of their lives.

[Mark Tami]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point and has hit the nail on the head. We can put all the barriers and protections in place, but in terms of bullying, children have access to Facebook and the other similar sites because that is part of modern life. It is how they meet and arrange parties, and if they are not part of that network, they fear they will be excluded, which presents us with a difficult circle to square.

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Like it or not, my teenage daughters go absolutely berserk if their internet connection is down or they lose their mobile or other such device. You cannot leave home without it.

It is ironic that, as we heard earlier, at a time when, technologically, communication has never been easier—we can telephone, text, e-mail, tweet, use Bebo—actually, we do not talk to each other much. Certainly, children do not talk to their parents much, and vice versa. When my wife or I sometimes get a request by e-mail from one of my teenage daughters for supper in her bedroom, I think that we have gone quite far enough. She will not be getting any supper that night, if that sort of nonsense goes on.

Important though it is, rather than just concentrating on access to harmful material, we need to take much more seriously the use of social media for malign purposes by young people against other young people, and, of course, by older people masquerading as young people who are seeking to groom and abuse them sexually. It is extraordinary to note the number of young people who will still communicate with strangers—they know not where they come from or what their intentions are, yet they have conversations with them over the internet and even meet up with them, as if they were best friends.

These sites will expand, and more social media opportunities will of course come the way of our children. Some are supposed to be age-barred, but in practice we know that it is almost impossible to do that. Having spoken to young people, including during my time as chairman of the UKCCIS, I know that what really worries them is a malign posting on social media sites, which undermines their integrity. Such a posting can go viral, and in a matter of minutes a huge audience may be privy to some deeply offensive and abusive, personal, private sexual information that is now out there. In the past, such information would have been in hard copy form—a piece of paper available to just one or two people, so it had limited effect. Now, it is out there for ever, potentially.

Some 38% of teenagers have received sexually explicit texts or e-mails, and according to one survey that figure is going up. Indeed, “sexting” is just one of the more alarming manifestations of social media having become part of our everyday lives. This can turn into bullying when threats to send increasingly explicit photos over social media are used as a form of blackmail. Of course, we have had the recent tragic cases of young people, including a 14-year-old girl, being driven to suicide by the fear of what is out there—by the threat of its being publicised and used against them on social media.

[Mark Tami]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, because potential future employers are increasingly looking at young people’s Facebook history, their career prospects could be ruined and they could be denied such opportunities because of something that has been put on Facebook?

[Tim Loughton]

And of course, as Members of Parliament, we know all too well that, for members of the press—not too many are present in the Press Gallery today—such activities are often part of their job description.

The internet affects everybody’s lives. It is un-cool, as we have heard, not to be on the internet or not to have the latest internet-enabled mobile device. Research by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has shown that almost 40% of our young people are affected by cyber-bullying. A survey by Nominet, which has done a lot of work in this area, showed that 65% of young people have experienced online bullying, or “trolling”, or know somebody else who has. For ChildLine, which is part of the NSPCC, bullying is the second most important issue, accounting for more than 10% of the counselling sessions arising out of the referrals it receives.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman and I have worked on many children’s issues together, and he will remember that the commission on stalking on which we worked found that this terrible use of the internet was destroying people’s lives. Is it not good news that we quickly got the law changed on stalking? People said that it could not be stopped, but we proved that it could be. Now, that same commission is being re-formed to look at cyber-bullying, I hope with the same success.

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman is right. A recent debate in this place showed what can be done when we put our minds to it and listen to people who have solutions, rather than always listening to those who focus on the problems.

The Department for Education’s own research shows that 30% of secondary school-aged children have been deliberately targeted, threatened or humiliated by abuse on mobile phones or the internet. Cyber-bullying is an even more cowardly form of what we might have known as playground bullying, because it often hides behind anonymity, done by people in the comfort of their own bedroom. However, the psychological effects can be every bit as damaging as physical, face-to-face bullying, and such bullying has the capacity to be spread cancer-like among a much wider body of peers, at the press of a button. It can undermine a young person’s confidence and self-esteem, at a time when they are still finding their own identity. It can lead to depression, truancy, self-harm and even suicide; to a fear of returning to school to face one’s friends, who may be the authors of some of this cyber-bullying; and to a feeling of being permanently unsafe.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Being bullied by electronic means could actually be worse than being bullied in the playground. At least in the playground, people perhaps have their friends around to sustain them. Being bullied privately, perhaps in a quiet place, could really prey on someone’s mind.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and of course in such situations there are no witnesses around. People suffer in silence, and there is not necessarily anybody on hand to report such behaviour to. That is why it is every bit as damaging as, and probably more damaging than, the playground bullying that he and I might have been witnesses to—certainly not part of—in our days of yore in the playground.

Nominet’s “know the net” research suggests that socially and economically disadvantaged children and young people are at greater risk of experiencing cyber-bullying and suffering its adverse effects. It is more likely to affect disabled children, young carers, children with learning disabilities and recipients of free school meals. Cyber-bullies are picking on the most vulnerable children—an even more shameful act. Facebook is the most common place for it, as we have heard. Facebook has made great strides, but there is an awful lot more it can do. Such bullying happens on Twitter, and it happens with Instagram. There are now various new modes of communicating, whereby an image is sent and it self-destructs within 10 seconds, so the evidence is gone. Those are all clever ways that can be used by malign people to bully even more effectively.

What is really worrying is that only 37% of teenagers who experience online bullying report it to a social network, so two thirds do not. Some 36% of those who do not report it said that they choose not to because it is not taken seriously and doing so would be a waste of time. Very few even report it to their parents, yet a third of all parents fear that their child is actually causing bullying on the internet, according to research by the National Children’s Bureau and McAfee. Some 45% of parents have set up Facebook accounts themselves for their own children who are under the age of 13. The recommended minimum age for having a Facebook account is 13, yet some parents are clearly ignoring that. Indeed, Facebook itself has discussed removing that age threshold. However, that is one of the few safeguards that provides guidance to parents on the age at which it is appropriate for their children to be exposed to these very powerful forms of social media. Only one in 10 parents believe that their own children are safe online, yet over a third have never had a conversation with their children about the dangers of the internet, and only one in five bothers to set up controls on their internet devices.

This is an extraordinary situation, a perfect storm. Schools are not doing enough to teach the hazards of the internet effectively. We need better sex and relationship education as armour to deal with some of the sexual abuse on the internet. Parents are afraid of appearing ignorant and do not communicate with their children about the hazards, and the social media companies are still spending too much time on maximising the number of people attracted to their sites, the revenues earned by the sites and the stock market capitalisation as the sites are launched on the American stock market. The Home Affairs Select Committee reported earlier this year that too many of our social media companies remain far too complacent and laid back about the perils of the internet for young and impressionable people.

The other big problem is that abuse of the internet lacks consequences. That was behind my earlier question to the Minister when I asked him how many people were being prosecuted and actually feeling the force of the law. How many people are being shown that what they are doing is not just a bit of harmless fun, a bit of ribbing or a bit of playfully taking the mick out of someone, but that it is dangerous abuse that can ultimately be fatal?

[David Simpson]

Recent figures on trolls who have stopped abusing people online have shown that many of them admitted looking for the most vulnerable targets and making their lives a misery. They admitted that that behaviour was like a drug, and that they would move on to another vulnerable target. Something more needs to be done about this.

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman is right. It takes an extraordinary mentality to want to use the fantastic technology of the internet to abuse and, ultimately, to cause harm and even death. This is perhaps similar to those people who invent computer viruses and get a kick out of causing huge inconvenience and misery to large numbers of people.

I have been a bit gloomy so far, but I want to end by mentioning a few of the good things. Good progress has been made. The work of the Prime Minister and the Government internationally with the FBI on promoting filters and using greater powers to remove harmful images from the internet is very welcome. The profile of the problem has certainly been raised, which is also welcome. We now have better guidance on e-safety in schools, although my complaint is that that focuses too much on the mechanics of the technology and not enough on the ethics of what is good and not good and what cannot be trusted on the internet.

The Department for Education has awarded £4 million-worth of grants to BeatBullying, the Diana Award, Kidscape and the National Children’s Bureau, all of which are excellent organisations doing some really good practical stuff, but it is a drop in the ocean when we consider how many hundreds of millions of people are using social media. The Education Act 2011 gives teachers greater powers to search for and delete inappropriate images on electronic devices, which is welcome, as is the fact that Ofsted should now be inspecting behaviour as part of its assessment of schools and looking closely at the effectiveness of internal policies to prevent bullying and cyber-bullying. I also welcome the additional funding to enable the Internet Watch Foundation to use its new powers to take down inappropriate sites.

There is more that we need to do, however. We need to empower parents and pupils. We need to ensure that schools not only educate the kids but invite the parents in so that they can learn what the kids have learnt, so that they know what to look out for when they go back home. This is just like healthy eating: schools are very good at giving kids healthier meals and telling them about healthy eating, only to let them go home and be stuffed full of pies by parents who do not have the right attitude. We also need more in-your-face guidance from the Government, through the Department for Education and the Home Office, about the real dangers of what is going on.

[Mr Sheerman]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is always possible to recognise a school that has a big question mark hanging over it when its head teacher says, “My responsibility ends at the school gate”? It could never end there in relation to bullying, because the bullies used to hang out on the street outside. Bullying of that kind, and bullying on the internet, must be tackled by head teachers managing their schools properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Cyber-bullying might start in the playground, but it can continue in the bedroom of the anonymous person who is carrying out the campaign.

Our social media companies need to do much more. We need far more effective in-your-face reporting mechanisms, proper hot buttons and faster, more effective mediation and adjudication on what is acceptable. Also, there must be consequences, so that the people who post this stuff can have it taken down and have their site confiscated. In some cases, we should not shy away from naming and shaming the perpetrators in school and preventing them from using social media.

As the House has heard, I have my own long-standing troll who continues to post malicious material about my family. For many months, I have been complaining to Google, which hosts his blog. This person has posted pictures of my teenage, under-age daughters on his blog, alongside abusive comments. They have not been removed. When he was spoken to about it, he replaced their faces with horses’ heads, alongside equally abusive comments. After about six months, Google got round to doing something. It sent me this response:

“Hello. Thanks for reaching out to us. We have reviewed your request. At this time, Google has decided not to take action. Blogger hosts third-party content. It is not a creator or mediator of that content. We encourage you to resolve any disputes directly with the individual who posted the content.”

That is not an effective way of dealing with clear and obvious abuse, and I am still on at Google—and it is not just Google—to take this sort of abuse seriously. If it is unable to do that for a Member of Parliament who has a platform here, imagine how many of our children must be suffering in silence because they have no means of drawing attention to this deeply abusive, offensive and completely unnecessary form of cyber-bulling.

We also need better sentencing guidelines. There are some bits of legislation, but we have not yet seen people being hauled before the courts. Frankly, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions must do better in this regard. They complain that this is a grey area and that the thresholds are high, but cyber-bullying is cyber-violence and if that violence were committed in person in playgrounds or in pubs, it would be dealt with properly by the police and the courts. Cyber-bullying should be no different.

I have recently written to all Members of Parliament, with the help of Nominet, asking for cases in which their constituents had been the victims of cyber-bullying so that we can put together some best practice to use when our constituents come to our surgeries when their children and family members have experienced this kind of bullying. We as Members of Parliament also experience cyber-bullying. I have spoken to Mr Speaker about this and he is sympathetic to our receiving guidance on how to help ourselves to guard against trolling and cyber-bullying, which we should not have to accept as we try to do our jobs.

This is a problem that affects all of us: the young, the old and, in particular, the most vulnerable. It is just a technological advance—albeit a particularly insidious one—from playground bullying to cyber-bulling, but it can go as far as to involve threats of terrorism, as certain Members have found out to their cost. There is no magic bullet, but we all have a responsibility better to educate our children.

Schools should have a designated teacher who is responsible for anti-bullying work, and we should have much more effective procedures and mechanisms for reporting incidents of bullying, including cyber-bullying, in schools. Cyber-bullying should be included and referred to in all policies on behaviour, anti-bullying and acceptable use. All teachers should be given training, support and guidance on dealing with bullying, including cyber-bullying. Those are just some of the recommendations in the BeatBullying “Virtual Violence” report. We need clear guidance along those lines from the Department for Education to schools on whether or not they are bound by the curriculum, and not the current postcode lottery and the laissez-faire approach that I fear we have. We need clear guidance from the Home Office to justice institutions.

We also need greater social responsibility from our social media companies. They need to monitor, and we need to monitor, how good they are at reporting this stuff and taking it down, and how quickly they do it. They need to invest in moderators and to signpost better where young people can go to get help. Above all, there needs to be consequences for cyber-bullying and the Government need to take a greater lead. I have sympathy with what Democratic Unionist party Members were saying about making cyber-bullying an offence, because, as I said earlier and I say again, cyber-bullying is cyber-violence. We would criminalise it in any other context and we need now to look seriously at how the law can treat it equally seriously.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Deaf Children and Young People

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I am sure that the Minister will make clear the initiatives that the Government have taken, many of which I commend; they are helpful. I am not here to criticise the Government for what they are doing, but I think that more could be done, and I hope that we can press the Government to consider what that might be.

Ninety per cent. of deaf children are born to hearing parents who, when they are confronted, as I was, with the knowledge that their child is profoundly deaf, often have no knowledge of, or contact with, the deaf community. I pay tribute to the National Deaf Children’s Society, which provides excellent support for people when that happens to them.

Eighty per cent. of deaf children are now being educated in mainstream schools, which is different from the time when my daughter was educated, and they may be the only deaf child in that school. The question that has to be asked is how well deaf children are achieving. Government figures suggest that only 37% of deaf children achieved five good GCSEs last year. That is a dismally low, indeed a shameful, figure because it compares with 69% for hearing children. Let us be clear that deafness is not in itself a learning disability. There is no reason why the majority of deaf children should not achieve the same as other children, provided that they get the right specialist support.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Not only is the difference in achievement between children with hearing problems and their peers shocking but it is getting worse. That figure of 37% was down from 40% the year before. So things are going in the wrong direction. The right hon. Gentleman may also be aware that it is estimated that 80% of teachers of deaf children are over 50. So we shall have a serious recruitment problem if we do not do something about this quickly.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

That is right. I have been shown local authority adverts for teachers of deaf children that did not require full capacity in sign language. In some circumstances, the sign language of the children is better than that of the teacher, and that cannot be satisfactory.

Things are getting worse in many areas. The NDCS has carried out a survey that shows that 29% of local authorities are cutting services for deaf children and a further 25% have identified that there is a risk of cuts. Of course we are living in a time of spending restraint, but that should not impact on people who have such real need and are so vulnerable. The Government have made it clear that they want to maintain support for vulnerable learners, but if it is not happening we have to ask the Government what more they can do to ensure that cuts do not happen and that standards are maintained. We have to work out what can be done to maintain support for deaf children, and we should have aspirations to do a lot better.

One suggestion is that Ofsted should be required to inspect services for deaf children. When we consider how much scrutiny mainstream teachers in schools are subject to by Ofsted, many people tell me that they are surprised that teachers of the deaf and specialist support services are subject to virtually no such oversight. That sends a signal that deaf education is less important than mainstream.

Daniel Pelka

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robinson]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, it might have been plagiarism—I hope that is not an inappropriate word—but that was another idea I was going to take from her. We should have not one huge centre but various centres in which creative means of communicating with difficult children are imaginatively developed and explored. The day before Daniel Pelka died, a teacher was found in another school in Coventry—there are loads of them—to talk to him. She happened to be Polish and was able to speak the language, but that is not good enough. It is pathetic that things got to that stage.

I agree with my hon. Friend, so let us make that our No.1 point: children must be talked to and we should develop a whole area of useful specialisations, as opposed to a load of paper that gets churned out continually. Children could tell us what their parents look like by using diagrams. We might start to learn something and it could tell quite a story.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the need to talk to the child. The situation was even worse in this case, because I gather that they relied on another child in the family to communicate with him, which obviously is not appropriate.

There is a big issue of social workers being fobbed off at the door. When social workers are dealing with communities that are not naturally fluent in English, we need to make sure that they have people alongside them who can communicate in the relevant language so that they are not fobbed off by communication difficulties, let alone by all the problems involved in crossing the threshold and finding out exactly what is going on. This is a real problem for some of the incoming communities, particularly those from eastern Europe.

[Mr Robinson]

Yes, that is a problem. Let us think creatively and commonsensically about how we can deal with it. It will not be enough to train a whole load of interpreters to become experts in Polish, arts and crafts and other languages and grammars. We need the same sort of practical thinking as inventive mothers who work part time and know how to do things with their kids.

I do not want to be unkind to the Minister, because he inherited the situation and was gracious and courteous enough to agree to meet me on the afternoon the case review was published, but at that meeting he said, “I think we’re going to make a big difference now,” and produced a 74-page document full of all sorts of jargon. The Minister should not worry, because I will say something else to qualify my comments in a moment. The document was statutory guidance, which is an oxymoron—it is either statutory or it is guidance; it cannot be both. The Minister said, “Well, Geoffrey, if you think that’s feeble, it was 700 pages when I got it.” Think of all the time, effort, pen-pushing and talking that is going on, and yet we cannot find a means of getting through to a young kid because he speaks a different language. It does not make any sense at all.

Secondly—I owe a good deal to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport for this point, too—the lines of responsibility have to be much clearer. Who is responsible? I thank the well meaning and extremely professional National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and half a dozen other agencies, as well as probably a dozen people from other constituencies who have been, or fear they will be, affected by this issue, for their response to tonight’s debate. The first recommendation in the NSPCC’s briefing paper is:

“Front-line agencies must see and listen to the child”.

That is sensible and we all agree with it, but it then states in a green box:

“All notifications of domestic abuse should be sent to a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH)”.

What sort of line of communication is that? What it amounts to is a mishmash. We see that more and more.

It is not that the agencies are not talking to each other. They probably are not as good at communicating with each other as they should be and improvement is necessary, but the problem is that we do not know who is responsible. The NSPCC says that a lead is needed. It is not a lead that is needed, but somebody who is responsible for the case and who knows that he is responsible for it. I am sorry, I should have said “he or she”, because the only person who had the guts to put a foot in the door and leave it there was a female youth community officer, who did a fantastic job and found out that the abuse was going on.

MASH just about sums up what is wrong. What we need is clearer lines of communication.

[Tim Loughton]

I am loth to intervene again in case the hon. Gentleman does not get on to his other points, but I must say that the MASH is the way to go. It allows all the different agencies to communicate with each other better because they sit next to each other in the same room. In a relatively short period of time, all the relevant people can come together and swap information. Importantly, somebody then picks up the ball and acts on what has been said. That is the responsible person to whom the hon. Gentleman rightly refers. It is happening more effectively in MASHs than it has done before. That is why most London authorities and most other authorities in the country are going that way. It is the way to go.

[Mr Robinson]

I am delighted to hear that and I wish the hon. Gentleman well with it. I hope that it works. However, a MASH can work only if at the end of all the talking—I accept that that has to happen, because there is no other way of getting everybody to know what they need to know—there is a clear line of responsibility. Somebody has to write the minutes, somebody has to say what will be done and there must be a clearly identifiable responsible person or group of people who are charged with carrying it through. Otherwise, it will not happen.

The MASH is a committee and committees do not do anything. It serves the useful purpose of bringing people together so that they can talk and exchange the information that they need to know about. What is missing from the system is a clear way of saying at the end of the meeting what the conclusions and recommendations are. Those must be very short. A person or group of people—a lead, or whatever you want to call them—must then be responsible for carrying out those recommendations.

That was certainly what was missing in Coventry. There was meeting after meeting. Everybody was grouped together and the information was being exchanged. However, when the dreadful news broke, I asked who was actually responsible. The reply was that we were all responsible. If we are all responsible, no one is. We must not be afraid of allocating responsibilities and ensuring that they are carried out. If they are not, retraining is always a good option. People do not have to be sacked. We are not like that on this side of the House. However, people in the country cannot accept that the head of the department, Colin Green, resigned a few days or weeks before the report came out and was appointed to exactly the same position elsewhere. That was wrong. What sort of confidence does that provide?

That point reminds me of another Adjournment debate that I secured about a distinguished surgeon at Walsgrave who was almost sacked because he had reported somebody else. It turned out that the chief executive of the hospital was not up to the job—there were a whole series of these cases—and all six neighbouring MPs served by that hospital called for his resignation. He was sacked—well, that was what it was called, but within six months he was back in charge at Birmingham Heartlands hospital. It is unbelievable what such a network of controls can do.

My next point will, I am sure, again be contentious for the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and others who are a bit on the side of the establishment, because it concerns the compositions of serious case reviews. Each area has its own chairman—that is all it has, actually—and lay members. When it comes to the inquiry, the chairman or chairwoman brings in a rapporteur, a writer of the report, and both she and he know each other—I am not suggesting that is wrong; it could sometimes be very helpful—and have written many of these reports in the past, either together or separately. Already in my book that does not seem quite right. It is not independent, and the essence of the serious case review is that it must be seen to be independent.

My last point—I have left plenty of time for the Minister—concerns Ann Lucas, whom I begged to carry out an independent report. “Why should I be the only one to put Coventry through that when nobody else has ever done it?”—she did not say that, but that was what I felt she felt. That would have meant a completely new board, fresh blood, with people who did not know the situation in Coventry or the chair of the Coventry group, and who had a completely dispassionate view.

I do not think anybody would agree any longer with the police investigating the police. Why should the civil servants who had administered the case in question be those who were the team supporting the independent chair—she was independent—and the so-called appointed independent rapporteur, or reporter? He wrote the report and one could see he is a professional. Every perfect piece of civil service-ese was in it; it could not be faulted. However, out of that comes nothing so far, and so Ann Lucas wrote to me and asked whether I would relay this message to the House tonight. She is an outstanding council leader who has been in the job about six months. She was distraught to find that she had inherited this case, and she went along with a traditional conventional review. She said that

“we need a national debate around safeguarding issues—

that is obvious—

“with the setting up of a Commons Select Committee to take evidence from all concerned. From politicians, from front-line workers, from all agencies, social workers, the police, health agencies—including GPs, hospitals, health visitors and schools. And very importantly, from experts working with Domestic Violence”,

in which she is an expert.

I do not know whether that is a runner, but I am clear that I do not see it ever working—I have not left the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham time to add his comprehensive view. We need a more forensic direct attack. For example, there were four or five points at which Daniel Pelka could have been saved. That is clear. We need a mechanism so that when such a point is reached—I guess the people doing it did not know—or anything like that, the man at the top should be informed. We need a mechanism to intervene and bring things to a head, and in a way it is about management. I hope those points will have helped the Minister in his reply.