Child Protection
Debate between Diana Johnson and Graham Stuart(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Graham Stuart
I am unaware of the point that the hon. Lady makes about the Department for Communities and Local Government failing to provide properly for local safeguarding boards. Will she expand a little on that?
Diana Johnson
I will say something about the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, which has produced a report in which it says that local safeguarding boards are not fully able to perform the duties they have been given. Part of the problem with that is around funding. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point.
I pay tribute to the excellent contributions made by hon. Members this afternoon. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham spoke with enormous knowledge and expertise as a former children’s Minister, and gave a long, grim list of what has happened over the past 12 months. He called for an overarching inquiry into child protection to pull together the recommendations in the plethora of reports and inquiries that have taken or are taking place. He also referred to a model in Australia that is well worth looking at.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport—such a doughty advocate for children—raised the importance of communicating properly and effectively with children, especially in relation to issues affecting child witnesses. She gave very good examples of how that can be done.
The Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), spoke about some of his Committee’s findings, including on the issue of neglect and the challenges it presents to local authorities, the issues facing older children and young people, and the thresholds for intervention—all important issues.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) spoke incredibly powerfully about Operation Bullfinch and the horrific crimes in Oxford against children and young people, and the need for progress to be delivered for real change in child protection. He called on all Members of the House to find out what is going on in our constituencies.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) spoke about his long-standing interest in care proceedings. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) spoke with great knowledge and made a passionate case for a clear lead in Government for child protection, as well as raising the important issue of the use of hotels and bed and breakfasts in cases of sexual exploitation.
The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) spoke about the need for early years intervention, and gave a memorable, graphic description of a child’s brain—a lovely cauliflower if the child was nurtured, and a shrivelled prune if the child was being abused. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) spoke about the appalling case of Daniel Pelka and made a plea for clear lines of responsibility to be identified.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), who has great experience of child protection issues, spoke about abuse within churches and religious faiths and the need for such organisations to face up to what they need to do to put their houses in order.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the need to provide awareness training, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) spoke knowledgably about issues in her constituency and the need to share good practice. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) talked about the role of social workers with a great deal of experience and knowledge, and raised important questions about probation and how public protection from sex offenders could be compromised by some of the Government’s probation proposals. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who has vast experience at local authority and ministerial level, raised the important issue of witchcraft and what our response to it should be.
I want to go through a few of the other issues that are pertinent to this debate, and to start with the question of an overarching inquiry, which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised at the beginning of the debate. There are the investigations into Jimmy Savile’s conduct and why no action was taken by various institutions. There has been an inquiry into the Waterhouse abuse scandal; the deputy Children’s Commissioner is conducting an inquiry into the culture of grooming; the NSPCC, Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society have all produced important reports. There have been a number of serious case reviews, and the Munro and Kennedy reviews. The House has benefited from the excellent reports compiled by Members. The Home Affairs Committee has produced a report on localised grooming, and the Education Committee has completed an inquiry into child protection. In addition, there have been excellent reports from a number of all-party parliamentary groups.
All these reports have given rise to many recommendations, and each makes recommendations to different bodies and at different levels. We all want to see these recommendations translated into action. Like many other Members, I think it would be ideal if one report was complied—similar to a serious case review—that brings together the various inquiries mentioned in the debate and makes clear recommendations, to be implemented at a local and national level, with clear lines of accountability.
The operation of the Disclosure and Barring Service, whose job it is to prevent people who pose a danger to children from getting work with children, has been dramatically changed by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The changes mean that the DBS seems to be barring fewer people. More than 17,000 people were placed on the barred list in 2009, but so far this year, the figure is 1,400. Perhaps most importantly, the Act dramatically reduced the number of agencies that the DBS can share information with. Indeed, in many cases sharing intelligence with a school or youth club is forbidden, even after a Criminal Records Bureau check is requested. Would the Minister like to comment on those figures?
The role of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre is vital. It has the expertise to profile offenders and to understand the processes of abuse. We need to monitor carefully how it gets on as part of the National Crime Agency. At present, the police are aware of 60,000 cases of peer-to-peer shares of child abuse images a year, but as figures obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) show, there were only 1,570 convictions last year. Of course, that may also reflect staffing shortages in regional police forces, who support CEOP’s work but unfortunately are losing thousands of front-line officers.
I raised in a previous debate the issue of confusion in the NHS as to where responsibility for child protection actually lies. I was told that a Minister would write to me, but I have not had that response. It is disappointing to learn that the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is reporting widespread confusion, lack of proper training and a lack of understanding of child protection responsibilities within the NHS.
It is important that we maintain pressure on the Government to bring in sex and relationship education, because we know that it is an important way to enable children to understand what a proper and loving relationship is. Finally, can the Minister explain what additional resources are being made available to keep children safe when they use the internet?
Child Sexual Exploitation
Debate between Diana Johnson and Graham Stuart(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and for Stourbridge (Margot James) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing this debate on child sexual exploitation. However, I have to say at the outset that, like the Chair of the Education Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), and the former Children’s Minister, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), I am disappointed that the present children’s Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), has not been on the Treasury Bench throughout the debate. I appreciate that he has been here for the past hour.
I was also surprised to be told that I would be responding to the debate as shadow Minister on behalf of the Opposition, as the lead on this matter is obviously with the Department for Education. However, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to listen to the whole debate and to the contributions from Members on both sides of the House on this important subject. I also recognise the special role of Back-Bench debates.
This is a timely debate, and I am pleased that it has consistently focused on the victims of exploitation, on what we can and should do to support them and on what needs to be done to learn from current cases to prevent abuse in the future. As we have heard today, sexual exploitation takes many forms and needs to be understood within the wider context of physical and sexual abuse. It is important to recognise the different situations in which children are exploited, because abuse is often not recognised for what it is.
This has been a good debate, and I want to respond to some of the contributions that have been made. The experience and knowledge that Members have demonstrated has been first class. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport spoke about her long engagement with these issues. The ex-Minister, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, brought his experience of the past few years to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) spoke of his experience in Nottingham, and of the need for a cultural change.
The Chair of the Select Committee and my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, went through some of the recommendations in his Committee’s report. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prostitution and the global sex trade. He provided the House with his particular focus on the matter. The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) described his experience of working with the police. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) told the House of his first-hand experience of being in care.
Many Members described constituency issues, including the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who talked about issues in Wales and about the power that insurance companies have commanded in recent inquiries. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) spoke powerfully on behalf of his constituents, and talked about some of the shocking revelations in his constituency. The hon. Members for Stourbridge, for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) also described what was happening in their constituencies.
I want to comment on the contributions of other Members who brought their specialist knowledge to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) talked about her work with incest survivors and paid tribute to those who were strong enough to get their voices heard. We should of course thank them for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) talked about her experience as a prosecutor of sexual offences, while my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) talked about what was happening in Birmingham.
We have encountered a great wealth of experience in the many hours of our discussion this afternoon. We need to remember that neither perpetrators nor victims are easily defined, although we know that certain groups are particularly vulnerable and that the reality is that young women from all different social groups are exposed to sexual violence and are vulnerable to exploitation. It is equally unwise to generalise about the perpetrators. In the media—the hon. Member for Keighley raised the issue, too—much has been made of the prevalence of grooming within certain Asian communities, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East said, in reporting what the Children’s Commissioner had said, sexual exploitation extends far beyond any particular community or ethnicity. By trying to identify typical perpetrators, we risk missing many others.
Indeed, we need to remember that most child sexual exploitation is done either by a child’s peer or by a young adult. A National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children study found that 65% of sexual abuse was conducted by the under-18s, while a Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre sample of 1,200 known perpetrators found that where the age was known, over half were under 24.
Over the last year, we have seen a number of high-profile cases of abuse and exploitation. Obviously, there has been the Jimmy Savile case, and also the fresh allegations of abuse at the north Wales care homes. We have seen the practice of grooming and sexual exploitation occurring in several towns, most notably Rochdale and Derby, where vulnerable young women were abused by networks of men and then used to recruit new victims. These cases are themselves shocking and the public interest that they have provoked is entirely understandable. However, it is important that this debate goes beyond these high-profile examples.
The really shocking truth is that child abuse and exploitation is far too common. We have already heard in this debate the comments of the Deputy Children’s Commissioner that
“sexual exploitation of children is happening all over the country.”
The NSPCC’s 2009 survey on the prevalence and impact of child maltreatment found that 5% of under-16s reported coerced sexual acts. That is one in 20 of our young people. A YouGov poll commissioned by the End Violence Against Women coalition found that 29% of 16 to 18-year-old girls have experienced unwanted sexual touching at school.
We know that a number of inquiries and pieces of research have either already been conducted or are now under way. There are the investigations into Jimmy Savile’s conduct at the BBC and other institutions, and the inquiry into the Waterhouse inquiry, while the Deputy Children’s Commissioner is in the process of conducting an inquiry into the culture of grooming. The Home Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into localised grooming, and the Education Committee has just completed an inquiry into child protection. The NSPCC has conducted a number of excellent pieces of research. I would also like to acknowledge two pieces of research from Barnardo’s: “Puppet on a String” and “Cutting them free: How is the UK progressing in protecting its children from sexual exploitation?” Then there is the excellent work done by CEOP, “Out of Sight, Out of Mind”, which has already been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport referred to the joint inquiry of all-party parliamentary group for runaway and missing children and adults and the all-party parliamentary group for looked-after children and care leavers. A joint report into children who go missing from care has been produced under my hon. Friend’s able chairing.
Now that we actually have both Ministers in their places on the Front Bench—they have seen half the debate each—perhaps I could ask the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), even though he has already spoken, to provide a response in writing to the following issues. First, in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Department for Education claimed to have accepted all 11 recommendations contained in the Children’s Commissioner’s preliminary report, so it would be helpful to know how far the Government have got in implementing those recommendations.
Secondly, support and treatment for victims is a key issue, which the hon. Member for Strangford raised. The NSPCC has identified an estimated shortfall in the provision of therapeutic services of between 51,000 and 88,000. Is either Minister aware of that shortfall, and can either of them tell us what is being done to deal with it?
Thirdly, given that the NHS is currently being reorganised, can either Minister tell us which organisation will be responsible for giving care and support to abused children within the new structures? Where will statutory responsibility for child protection lie following the demise of the primary care trusts?
Fourthly, local safeguarding children boards are key structures, and when they fail children are left particularly vulnerable. The CEOP inquiry, to which Members have referred today, found that
“Most LSCBs do not fulfil the pivotal role prescribed for them in statutory guidance in respect of child sexual exploitation.”
Can one of the Ministers explain what the Government have done to improve the performance of those boards? Thursday’s elections for police and crime commissioners have been mentioned; how will the role of the new PCCs support the boards, and what work has been done to encourage PCCs to promote and engage with them?
Diana Johnson
No. I am very short of time.
Although children’s services are another key component of the process of keeping our children safe, many councils are being forced to slash the budgets of those services. In my home city of Hull, the council’s budget has been cut by 20% during the current Parliament. What assessment have the Government made of the effects of those cuts on the performance of local safeguarding children boards?
The Government have scaled down the child protection regime to what they call a common-sense level, although organisations such as the NSPCC and experts including Lord Bichard challenged them on some of their plans. I hope that Ministers will take a moment to consider the number of children who have not been protected by common sense in some of the cases that have been discussed today. I hope that they will also have a look at the changes in the criminal records regime, which will restrict information sharing.
Finance Bill
Debate between Diana Johnson and Graham Stuart(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Diana Johnson
This section of the debate is about VAT. When we are in a double-dip recession, the imposition of VAT on items such as caravans is not going to help us to grow out of that economic position. That is what I will concentrate on.
The proposal for 20% VAT to be levied on static caravans came out of the blue in the Budget. There had been no consultation with the industry, and no warning that the Government were planning that measure. The impact assessment published alongside the Budget stated that the 20% VAT would result in a 30% reduction in the market for static caravans. The Government’s U-turn involved a 75% reduction in the amount of VAT involved, and 5% will now be levied from April 2103, as opposed to 20% from October 2012.
I can go some way towards welcoming the fact that the Government have listened and put forward a response to the widespread view that the imposition of 20% VAT would have been a disaster. There was cross-party work on the issue, with a number of debates, early-day motions and petitions. I will give the Minister his due; he did take the time to listen to what people had to say, especially those from my part of the world. However, serious concerns remain about the effect that the 5% VAT will have, and I want to run through them tonight.
I want to talk first about jobs and demand, which are at the heart of the issue. As I said, the Treasury’s own figures showed that the imposition of 20% VAT would have resulted in a 30% reduction in demand for static caravans. It worries me that the Treasury seems incapable of using figures appropriately. When I looked at the impact assessment, I realised that it had got the figures for businesses and manufacturers in the caravan industry wrong. It worries me that it cannot even get such basic information correct when it sets out to consult on a proposal. I want to see much better research into the impact of the 5% VAT on caravan manufacturers.
I have not been reassured by what the Minister has told me today, even though I have pressed him to tell me what will happen to manufacturers in the caravan industry. I did not feel that he really had a grasp of what the numbers might be. It worries me that there has been no proper assessment of this policy. Does he think that levying 5% VAT will put at risk roughly a quarter of the demand that the 20% VAT would have put at risk? Does he also think that the number of job losses in the caravan manufacturing industry will be reduced from the 6,000 mentioned in KPMG’s report to about 1,500 as a result of the change in VAT? Will he also comment on the knock-on effects for the wider UK tourism and domestic holiday industry?
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the HMRC document, “VAT: Taxing Holiday Caravans”, which was published at the end of last week. On the economic impact of the 5%, it states:
“This measure is likely to lead to an increase in the price of static and larger touring caravans which could lead to a fall in demand.”
I take the view that the Treasury civil servants are among the brightest and best that the civil service has to offer, and it seems odd that they have been able to come up with nothing more definitive than that the measure “could” lead to a fall in demand. The document goes on to state:
“Although the overall impact on the macro economy is expected to be negligible, the measure will impact local manufacturing in Yorkshire and the Humber where the bulk of static holiday caravans are manufactured.”
Most people in Hull and East Yorkshire would agree with that, but surely the Treasury can come up with something better. The section of the document entitled “Impact on businesses including civil society organisations” states:
“The vast majority of static holiday caravans are manufactured in Yorkshire and the Humber and a small number of manufacturers account for the vast majority of all UK sales. Although some manufacturers produce other types of caravans, static caravans are the main source of income for most of these manufacturers.”
Again, it worries me that the document uses such general terms. Where is the meat in all this? Where are the figures? Where does it tell us what the actual economic impact of the policy will be?
Let us bear in mind that we are in a double-dip recession and we are all desperate to get growth back into the economy. I mentioned in an intervention that 46.3 people in my constituency chase every job vacancy going, so any loss of jobs in the caravan manufacturing industry is a disaster for my constituents. I think that the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole mentioned that the caravan industry suffered very badly in 2008-09, and it is only just getting back on its feet. If the Treasury thinks that the imposition of 5% VAT will be fine for an industry that is struggling in a double-dip recession when people are not spending, it really needs to look again at its figures and ensure that they all add up.
The Minister said that the goods within a caravan were already taxed, in that VAT had already been levied on such items. My understanding is that the figure involved is about 5%. Will he tell us whether the 5% proposed in the Bill will be an additional 5%, making a total of about 10% VAT payable? I am confused by that, and the Minister has not made it clear.
One of the strongest arguments against the initial proposal for 20% VAT was that it would raise very little revenue for the Treasury. When taking that into account, we also need to consider the welfare costs that would be incurred from people in the industry losing their jobs. Has the Minister looked at the figures involved? Does he think that the sums add up?
HMRC now estimates that the 5% VAT will first raise revenue in 2013-14, when it will bring in £5 million a year, rising to £10 million a year from 2013-14. That is a relatively small amount of money, given the Government’s overall spending, especially in the light of the millions that they have found in the Budget for tax cuts for millionaires. Let us put this into perspective: £10 million is perhaps a third or half of what Mr Diamond’s severance payment might be.
This measure will have an impact from next year onwards, while raising £5 million to £10 million. When we take into account the fall in demand in the industry and the resulting job losses, I do not think that the Treasury will end up in credit. Introducing the measure could result in more money being spent, through welfare benefits. Will the Minister set out for me the sums that he is using to ensure that the measure will bring a net benefit to the Treasury? In my view, this is an ill thought-through policy, and these are crazy economics.
The Minister referred to the manufacturing standard, BS 3632. As I said in my intervention, using a manufacturing standard to dictate tax policy is silly.
Mr Graham Stuart
I want to return to the hon. Lady’s point about the overall costs. A significant percentage of the cost of a new caravan is found in the chattels inside, which already have VAT on them. So the additional overall cost will not be higher than 5%; it will be more like 3% or 4% on the overall average retail cost of a caravan. The manufacturers are telling me that they think that that can broadly be absorbed within their business model. It will have some negative impact, but a fairly minimal one. We are certainly not talking about 10% costs, but about rather less than 5%.
Diana Johnson
I am grateful for that intervention, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he did on this matter. However, I would really like to hear from the Minister what the VAT level is going to be, because my understanding is that it is 5% plus the additional VAT already levied. The hon. Gentleman says that it is 3% or 4% and not 5%, but is that 3% or 4% on top of the 5%, which would mean it was 8% or 9%, not 5%?
Mr Stuart
Basically, VAT has already been paid on those chattels, so if 25% of the cost of the caravan were for the chattels, that already includes VAT, so we are looking at 5% on 75% of the overall cost of the caravan. That is why it is significantly less than 5% as an addition to the actual cost when someone goes to a park to try to buy a caravan. The additional costs as a result of this change will be significantly less than 5%—I say that clearly and categorically.
Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman again, but I would still like to hear from the Minister exactly what the figure will be. My understanding—I was at the same meeting with the caravan manufacturers in Beverley as the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart)—was that a figure was levied across the whole price of the caravan, including the chattels in the caravan at around 3% or 4% of the overall cost. Will the Minister clarify that? Are there two figures that we need to be aware of, or is it just 5% overall of the total amount of the purchase? I have to tell the Government that if this were intended to make things clearer, the truth is that it is making things even more complicated and less transparent.
Let me return to the BS 3632 specification. I was saying that I thought that that was not a sensible way to make tax policy. I know that the distinction between static caravans and those used for residential purposes 365 days of the year is based on the reference to BS 3632. If we look at the responses to HMRC’s consultation, we see that while many respondents felt it would be relatively straightforward to upgrade static caravans to meet the BS 3632 standard so that they could benefit from zero-rated standing, many others said that the costs of doing so would be prohibitive. There is a confusion there, which is why I would like the Minister to be very clear about it.
With certified British standards changing all the time because manufacturing gets better and better, how often does the Minister think he would need to return to this tax provision to update it? I doubt whether it will be set in stone for years to come; it will have to be looked at and changed in the future. I heard the Minister’s reassurance that we would not see changes to the standard in the future, but he is opening the door to potential changes. The system that the Minister has devised, based on the British standard and keeping the distinction between static, residential and touring caravans, does not make things clearer and more transparent; rather, I think it extends the anomalies in the tax system.
An even bigger issue for me is the lack of clear evidence of what the change to VAT policy will do for my constituents and for jobs in my city. That is what really concerns and worries me. I know that the Minister has listened carefully to my pleas about employment and jobs. I hope he will think again and will instruct his officials to do a proper piece of work, so that when MPs scrutinise Government policy, they will have accurate figures to look at in order to assess whether the Government’s policies will result in what they say they are trying to achieve. In this case, I do not think the Government will see additional revenue in the Exchequer. If they bring forward this ill thought-through proposal, which will disproportionately affect my constituents, there will be a loss to the Government.