Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Debate between Ann Coffey and Fiona Bruce

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce]

No, I am going to continue. I thank the former Attorney-General for making that point so lucidly.

We have also heard that the new clause could introduce racial profiling of expectant mothers, but has anyone argued that for female genital mutilation? The term “family balancing” goes wider than any one particular community.

Then there is the argument that the new clause will do nothing to help abused women. It will indeed. It will clarify the law and as Polly Harrar of Jeena International powerfully told me:

“What we’ve found with the Forced Marriage Act 2007 was that we were able to use that piece of legislation as a bargaining tool to negotiate with parents, so a young woman could say, ‘You do realise this is a criminal offence?’”

In the same way, Polly says,

“with sex-selective abortion: having clarity in the law means that women could use this clarification to protect themselves against pressure to have a sex-selection abortion.”

She continues that

“as with FGM having a higher profile, legislation does effect a step change in cultural attitudes. So while legislation alone is not enough, it has real power to change behaviour, and that’s what is needed.”

That addresses clearly the Royal College of Midwives’ objection that new clause 1 will do little to alleviate the external pressures or coercion that these women face. As Mandy Sanghera said:

“We also we hope this will act as a deterrent—it will enable women to have more control over their own decisions.”

Is that not what many objecting to the clause want?

What does not help women under pressure to have an abortion simply because they are carrying a girl or a boy, whether that pressure comes from violence or coercion or is more subtle, is allowing that abortion to take place and sending the woman back to an abusive situation. To do so is to condone the very culture behind the pressure for such abortions and to exacerbate such abuse. The new clause does nothing to diminish services for those suffering abuse. Indeed, if it is followed by sensitively crafted regulations it should certainly improve them.

Then the quite offensive point is made that there is no evidence for sex-selective abortions in the UK. That is offensive as it is insulting to women such as those I have mentioned who have been campaigning for many years to stop this practice. Yes, the numbers are small compared with those in China or India, but they are real. Should we have to wait until those numbers grow before we take action? Rani Bilkhu, who, incidentally, is pro-choice, says:

“I have been supporting women dealing with sex-selective abortions…for almost a decade. Saying that there is no evidence is tantamount to saying that the women we work with are lying and that my organisation”—

Jeena International—

“is making things up.”

Interestingly, Rani also says that “nobody is collecting data”, so it is no wonder that opponents of the new clause say that there is none.

I know of many examples of women who have suffered. One had one daughter, conceived a second girl, had an abortion and then could not conceive again. Another had three abortions on the basis of gender, including of twins. Another’s husband punched and kicked her in the stomach when he discovered she was having a girl. Yet another says that

“women suffer depression after these abortions. What is not always considered is the emotional and psychological impact.”

These women deserve our support in the manner that they say will really help—through legislation and by clarifying the law. That does not stop a review, but it is essential that we clear up the confusion, support these women and pass new clause 1. In doing so, we would reflect the overwhelming public mood. A recent ComRes poll showed that 84% of the public agree that aborting babies because of their gender should be explicitly banned by law. More than that, we should support new clause 1 because it is, quite simply, the right thing to do.

[Ann Coffey]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of new clause 25, tabled by me, the right hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell), my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and the hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). I will seek to test the opinion of the House on the new clause.

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 makes it a criminal offence intentionally to unlawfully procure a miscarriage, including for a woman to procure her own miscarriage. The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 makes it a criminal offence intentionally to kill a child capable of being born alive before it has a life independent of its mother. The Abortion Act 1967 creates exceptions to those offences in limited circumstances and abortion on the grounds of gender is not one of those exceptions. It is therefore illegal and subject to criminal prosecution. Indeed, guidance was reissued as recently as May 2014 by the Department of Health that said again categorically that abortion on the grounds of sex was illegal. I am therefore not quite sure why the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) is needed or how inserting it into the 1967 Act would address her concerns.

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Ann Coffey and Fiona Bruce

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce]

I will not take any other interventions, because it would reduce the time for other speakers.

The Department for Education’s sex and relationships education guidance honours the involvement of parents, making plain the need for parental involvement in the content of PSHE. It states:

“Parents are the key people in teaching their children about sex and relationships, maintaining the culture and ethos of the family, helping their children cope with the emotional and physical aspects of growing up, and preparing them for the challenges and responsibilities that sexual maturity brings…schools should always work in partnership with parents, consulting them regularly on the content of sex and relationship education programmes.”

The majority of respondents to the recent Government consultation on PSHE believed that parental engagement was crucial, as was providing parents with every possible and practical opportunity to interact and engage with PSHE provision.

Although we should understand the important role that sex education provides, we should not aspire for it narrowly within one context. Current procedures provide a mechanism for drawing in parents who perhaps do not talk to their children about sex and relationships, and encourage those who do to continue with that. At present, all secondary schools must provide sex education by law, and although there is no centrally determined curriculum, governors and teachers, in conversation and consultation with parents, should develop a curriculum on a school-by-school basis, according to the ethos of the school. When properly applied, that decentralised approach means that this sensitive subject can be framed in a manner that has regard for parental views and concerns.If the curriculum were set centrally, that could and probably would disappear.

Currently, a good school should always contact parents to let them know when the sex education curriculum is taught, precisely so that they can follow up with their own conversations at home. The current procedures encourage parental involvement, but new clause 20 would serve only to diminish it. I cannot agree that that is the right approach at a time when many people are concerned that we live in a society in which opportunities for parental involvement and influence need strengthening and encouraging, not reducing and diminishing. Throughout this afternoon’s debate, I have repeatedly heard Ministers and others say how important it is to take into account parents’ views with regard to other aspects of education. Surely that should apply in this critical area of a child’s education.

That does not mean that I am complacent about the current approach—far from it. There is tremendous room for improvement in our relationship and sex education, not least the fact that greater emphasis needs to be placed on the duty to consult parents and communicate clearly with them about what is being taught. Some head teachers believe they must exclusively use whatever resources are recommended by their local authority, but in fact a plethora of other good materials provided by outside agencies can be used, such as the Evaluate: Informing Choice programme. Other head teachers do not accept that the decision should be for the governing body, which has a vital role. I encourage governors actively to take up that role in all schools.

New clause 20 would be a mistake and I hope the Government firmly reject it. However, I ask Ministers to tell us what plans the Government have to make the current decentralised approach to the critical area of sex education work more effectively, so that parents are more and not less involved, as is intended, and so help our next generation to form and sustain healthy, fulfilling and enduring personal relationships and family lives.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 4, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), who unfortunately cannot be in the Chamber because of a prior commitment. He has been a tremendous campaigner, along with the Fostering Network, for allowing young people leaving care to remain with their foster carers until they are at least 21. Currently, children in care leave on or before their 18th birthday, which usually means that children in foster care must leave their foster carer. Every year, hundreds of the most vulnerable young people have to leave home at age 17, but the average age for leaving home in the UK is 24.

The statistics on outcomes for care leavers are not good. One third of those living on the streets have a background in care, and almost a quarter of the adult prison population have spent time in care. Local authorities have a duty in care planning guidance to ensure that young people leave their foster care when they are ready and not before, but in 2011-12 only 320 young people—5%—remained with their foster carers after they reached age 18. Research shows that the longer a young person can stay with a foster family, the more successful they are later.

In 2008, the Labour Government set up a “staying put” pilot to assess the benefits of allowing children to stay in care and with foster carers. The pilot reported in 2012 and found that established family relationships and stability make a positive difference to young people in care as they become adults. That is not a surprising outcome—one of the basic values of our culture is the importance of families in providing a nurturing and secure base for young people to make the transition to independence. Not only that, but foster families can become families for life. My aunt and uncle had long-term foster children. To this day, contact continues, as we would expect in other families.

However, there have been no moves to roll out that scheme. It has been left to councils to decide what provision to fund. The provision is therefore a power a council can choose to exercise rather than a duty to provide a service. In effect, it is a postcode lottery. We have taken the responsibility of parenting those children, having judged that their parents’ care is not good enough. In doing so, we have effectively said that the care system will provide better parenting.

Since 2010, the Government have stressed the importance of treating looked-after children the same as we would treat our own children. Planning for the transition of care leavers to adulthood should be founded on the principle: is this good enough for my own child?

Many young people in care have experienced poor parental care, emotional neglect and abuse, and disruptive care placements. An increasing number of young people are coming into care in their early teens, often with complex needs. The care system is failing these children. They are often the ones who run away or go missing, making them vulnerable to harm, including child sexual exploitation. It is recognised that we need to cut the number of out-of-area placements, with local authorities making placements nearer home. The provision of supported foster placements will need to be considered as an alternative to children’s home placements many miles away, so that we can have more vulnerable children in foster care at 18. Although they are adults at 18, they are still vulnerable adults, which is demonstrated by the statistics I quoted earlier. What difference have we made as parents if children in our care end up on the streets, in jail or with disabling mental health problems—another generation doomed to mirror the lives of their parents?

Why would we not let them stay with their foster carers for those important extra three years? Cost must of course be a calculation, but it is minimal. Loughborough university calculated that on average it cost only £17,500 per local authority per year. There will be a far bigger public cost in providing services to a future generation of failing parents, or in helping young people through drug and alcohol addiction. The human cost in misery is incalculable, as is the cost to society in the lost opportunities of the contribution that might have been made if vulnerable young people had been better supported into independence.

For many young people, their scarring experiences will make their life a tough one. The statistics speak for themselves: young people leaving care need more support, not less. Our amendment would ensure that they receive that continuing support by being allowed to stay in foster care until they are 21 if they want to. I look forward to a positive response from the Minister.