Children Act 1989: Local Authority Responsibilities

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Kate Osamor

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kate Osamor]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I will go on to discuss the hostile environment and its impact on the most vulnerable in society.

Project 17, an east London-based charity that I have been working with, works closely with families who have no recourse to public funds. Its recent report, “Not Seen, Not Heard”, documents the experiences of children living under this condition—I call it a “condition” deliberately. In 2018, four of the eight families living in Enfield who attended Project 17—my constituency of Edmonton is in the borough of Enfield—were told to call the emergency out-of-hours service each night for extended periods, rather than being provided with accommodation. It is standard practice for some local authorities to wrongly refuse interim support when they are first approached by families who need help. One woman was forced to call the out-of-hours service every night for almost two months.

The practice of not being child-focused is deeply concerning for a number of reasons. First, families have no stable place to be. When they are asked to leave temporary accommodation by 9.30 am, they wander the streets and have no safe place to go. Secondly, it is unclear how long it will take the out-of-hours service to arrange temporary accommodation following a request in the evening. Thirdly, navigating the out-of-hours service can be difficult for anyone, not least for those who struggle with English as a second language.

I hear reports of more and more families sleeping in the A&E reception. The reasons vary from them not understanding the system to safety, warmth and, basically, being destitute. One such report comes from Joel, who is nine years old. His family were forced to sleep in the accident and emergency department when they were left street homeless after a local authority refused their request for section 17 support. Joel said:

“We had to keep going to McDonalds every night and we would also go to A&E. I would have to wear my school clothes and sleep like that. They would say we have to sleep where the people wait but it’s just like lights and there is nothing colourful there. The chairs were hard. You know when you just sleep in the waiting room? I felt sorry for my mum because she had to stay up and my head had to be on her lap. She had to stay awake, her eyes were open like 24/7, all night and all day so she could watch over me. It was hard for her but also hard for me.”

Joel mentioned that he slept in his school uniform. That gives us more context on the plight of these children: despite having no fixed abode, Joel sleeps on his mother’s lap every night in an unsafe A&E reception. He is also expected to get up and concentrate in school.

I thank the Education Minister for being here today. I will not focus much on those young children’s experience in school, but I want to highlight the fact that, because a lot of their parents have no access to public funds, they cannot apply for free school meals and other things that would help their day in school.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important contribution and is outlining the problem. Local authorities have obviously been underfunded in relation to childcare for a very long time, although the Government will not admit it; they keep telling us that they are putting more money in, but they are starting from a low base.

One thing that struck me in what my hon. Friend said—I have come across cases like this—is that kids, whatever their background, are expected to go to school, but they cannot concentrate on their education if they are worried about where they will live when they come home from school, whether they will get a square meal, whether their father and mother are together and whether there has been domestic violence. We can understand why kids sometimes become resentful in those circumstances. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Kate Osamor]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. What I take from it is that there is a lot of emotional strain on young children, which we must express and, more importantly, acknowledge.

The “Working together to safeguard children 2018” statutory guidance says that, where urgent needs are identified,

“social workers should not wait until the assessment reaches a conclusion before commissioning services”.

As I have illustrated, homelessness or destitution is clearly an urgent need. A refusal to provide interim support has led to a vulnerable woman and her children in Enfield having to stay with a local stranger they met on the street. When I first heard that story, my sadness turned to frustration at the fact that families are having to risk their safety and, ultimately, their dignity.

Why are families—mainly black families—forced to live like that? Would there be more of a public outcry if the victims of this pernicious policy were white? Would I even be standing here speaking on this matter? The hostile environment has a lot to answer for. The Prime Minister has a lot to explain, because it is her legacy that those innocent families are enduring.

Housing is a chronic issue across the UK, but housing scarcity does not remove local authorities’ obligation to ensure that all children are safe and that their needs are met. Amir, aged eight, described living in shared accommodation for 10 months:

“Where I live now, I’m not comfortable. There’s a lot of noise from people coming up and down the stairs. It’s always dirty. I have no space to do my homework and I don’t feel safe. At 3 am someone broke a door in the house—people were fighting.”

Poor living conditions are commonly reported. Project 17 reported the issues that children raised about the conditions of accommodation provided under section 17. They included living with rats, not having access to cooking facilities, cockroach infestation, antisocial behaviour from other residents in shared accommodation, not having basic furniture such as a table or chair, and not having access to washing facilities.

Civil society groups also report families receiving rates of financial support below the support rate of £37.75, set out in section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The Home Office says that that is the minimum amount required to avoid a breach of the European convention on human rights. Case law suggests that it would be unlawful for local authorities to expect families in receipt of section 17 support to live on less than that amount. It is unreasonable to expect families to live off less than £37.75 per week, and I am concerned that the Department, and thus local authorities, do not adequately recognise the negative impact of lower levels of support on children’s development and wellbeing. Even when support is provided, the current provision is insufficient. Interim support is being refused, and poor accommodation and low rates of financial support are being offered.

How are we helping these families and children? While there are process and practice issues that local authorities need to address, civil society groups across the UK have also reported that local authorities are increasingly deliberately putting barriers in place before supporting these families. Embedded Home Office immigration officials are one method by which that is done. While they can be used constructively, there are more consistent reports of their deployment to intimidate. The perceived threat of immigration enforcement action can deter the most vulnerable families from seeking support that they should be able to access. The management of these officers differs considerably between local authorities. Local authorities must take charge of their use.

Unfortunately, it is not just Home Office officials who intimidate parents. Worryingly, there is a trend of excessive scrutiny—of credit checks, minor inconsistencies being used to undermine a family’s case, allegations of fraud, and even threats of removing children without sufficient cause. I am sorry to say that several families in Enfield were simply misinformed by council officers. One family was even told that Enfield does not provide financial support to families.

How can we work together and help the failing authorities? Looking ahead, I would like to offer some solutions. At a local level, councils can take steps to ensure that such hardship is a thing of the past by signing up to a commitment to ensure the health, development and wellbeing of every child in their area. There is already such a pledge in Project 17’s children’s charter, and the Children’s Society has a charter, too. Project 17’s charter sets out a framework for local authorities working with children in need of support under section 17. It was derived from the UN convention on the rights of the child, the legal duties defined in the Children Act 1989 and subsequent case law, and what children and young people have told civil society groups about what they want.

I ask the Minister whether the Department will agree to meet Project 17 to discuss its work and its children’s charter. At a strategic level, I ask the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, if it is listening, to encourage local authorities to sign up to such a charter, and to clarify the procedures that local authorities must follow, and their obligations, regarding their care for every child in their area. In addition, those in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government can lobby the Prime Minister and their colleagues in the Home Office to end the hostile environment policy, which causes me deep concern. With all due respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, although Brexit is important, it is all we debate in this House, while this important issue only gets an airing in an end-of-day Adjournment debate.

The hostile environment policy builds destitution into the asylum process; destitution is going to happen, and that is wrong. Any attempt to combat destitution will be limited as long as the hostile environment continues. In a sense, people with insecure immigration status being forced to go without money, food or nappies for their children is not a failing in the system; it is the system. Can the Minister really say that he is happy with such a system? If not, will he do everything he can to ensure that the Department looks at the policy and how it affects the most vulnerable?

Ensuring that the needs of children are met should be the utmost priority of local authorities. However, if boroughs are expected to provide this essential support, it is crucial that they be provided with the resources to do so. In an age of austerity, it is imperative that the Government take this matter seriously and open a dialogue with local authorities and other organisations involved, to determine how much annual funding is required.

To put this in context, London boroughs spent £53.7 million in support of an estimated 2,881 households under the no recourse condition in 2016-17, and the estimated average total annual expenditure per borough was nearly £1.7 million, but the case load size in six boroughs led to their having far higher expenditure than the London average—expenditure of £5 million per year. That funding is primarily derived directly from the local authority’s social services budget: if pressures are not uniform across London then funding levels to cope with “no recourse” families should not be uniform, but targeted to ensure effective service delivery.

As I come to a close, let me say that I understand that local authorities are under immense pressure from a population with growing and increasingly more complex needs, from year-after-year reductions in Government funding, from the hostile environment policy and from a host of other problems and concerns. That is why no one expects every council to be able immediately and perfectly to adopt every proposal that I and others have made. However, when the stakes are so high for the children and families involved, I ask local authorities, the Minister and the Government to make concrete steps in the right direction.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Kate Osamor

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kate Osamor]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am concerned that we learn from the past. I am not here to pull punches: this is about learning from the past and ensuring that we move forward in the correct, transparent way.

The second question the Government must answer is on the priorities of the CDC. Recent history is not kind to the CDC and the decisions it has made on the allocation of its funds—UK taxpayers’ money. In recent years, the CDC has become a more commercial organisation. In 2004, the CDC created the private equity arm, Actis. In a deal that raised serious concerns on the governance of the corporation, 60% of the equity firm was sold to managers at the CDC at a bargain basement price. In the space of a few years, they had turned the CDC from an aid agency into a cash machine. With the focus turned to maximising profits, mainly for those who worked at the CDC, the traditional areas of financial support that the CDC had focused on for nearly 60 years were being abandoned. Food security through agriculture programmes went, safe and clean water projects were cancelled, and transport and infrastructure projects were abandoned. Poverty reduction—surely key to any development objectives—withered on the vine of self-interest and, I am afraid to say, earning a fast buck.

It is worth comparing the principles and values on which the CDC was founded to achieve its aims with the realities of its present-day operation. In 1998, the CDC spent 50% of its budget on agribusiness in Africa. That investment had two virtues: first, it helped to feed people in those countries, where starvation and hunger were rife; and, secondly, it enabled communities to become more self-sufficient, created jobs, and was a step on the ladder out of poverty. Today, funding for agribusiness has dropped to just 5%.

We see similar patterns in the CDC’s infrastructure programme. For people to live healthy lives, and to enable communities to thrive, not simply survive, we need to help create a solid infrastructure as part of our development priorities. Dirty water and poor sanitation robs the lives of over 300,000 people each year. Infants and young children are especially susceptible to diseases because of their immature immune systems. Their young bodies simply do not have the right immune system to cope with waterborne diseases. According to UNICEF, over 40% of medical facilities in Africa do not have access to clean water. Dirty water and a lack of good sanitation do not just rob people of their lives; they make a country less productive. A recent study estimated that there was a $150 million shortfall for water and sanitation projects in sub-Saharan countries, while the World Health Organisation estimates that we need £535 billion in investment to achieve universal access. I accept that those are huge sums of money, but look at the benefits. It is estimated that every dollar spent on improving water quality and sanitation delivers $4 in increased productivity. With such overwhelming evidence for the health and economic benefits, the case for investing in infrastructure programmes should be beyond doubt.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Another dimension, when we are talking about health, is the pharmaceutical industry and the products that it sells to some African countries. Surely, the Government should be looking at this area and trying to make pharmaceuticals a lot cheaper for those countries.

[Kate Osamor]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We need not only to look at the health of poorer people but to make sure that they can access water and sanitation.

It is surprising, if not shocking, that the CDC reduced infrastructure support for water, sanitation and roads from 35% of its budget in 1999 to just 8% a decade later. If the money is no longer going to support agribusiness or infrastructure, where is the CDC spending it? Let us begin by looking at some of its recent investments, such as Xiabu. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am partial to a takeaway on a Friday night—so, it seems, is the CDC, because it has provided thousands of dollars to the Chinese fast food chain Xiabu. That may be a good commercial investment, but is it the best use of the CDC’s resources? Can the Secretary of State set out what guarantees she has obtained that the UK’s increased contribution to the CDC will not go towards such projects?

While the Secretary of State is here, I would like to hear from her that the Government will seek assurances that in Africa the CDC will put more emphasis on food security than it puts into funding the building of new shopping malls at present. I have no doubt that the people of Accra are grateful for their brand new shopping mall, but what strategic role it plays in increasing life expectancy in Ghana is a mystery to me.

National Minimum Wage: Care Sector

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Kate Osamor

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for securing this debate.

In September 2015, I made representations to the Minister on behalf of a social care organisation in my constituency, North London Homecare and Support, which was concerned about its financial capability to accommodate the increase in the national living wage. The Minister, in his response, informed me that the Government were working with the social care sector to consider the overall cost of social care and funding for local government, and that the result would be announced in the spending review. In spite of commitments about further funding, however, the social care sector is still not receiving adequate investment.

According to Local Government Association estimates, the social care precept will raise £372 million, which stands far short of the £2 billion figure suggested by the Government. The majority of that will be used to cover the cost of the transition to the new national living wage. In addition, although the better care fund is expected to deliver around £1.5 billion by 2019-20, the gap in social care funding is expected to reach £3.5 billion by the end of the Parliament in 2020.

With an ageing population and an NHS under increasing pressure, it is clear that we need the social care sector.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing the debate. One of the tricks that the Government have pulled is to shove the responsibility for social care on to local authorities. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but what the Government have not done is give them the resources to do it—they have given them about 2%. Three or four years down the road, we will reach a point when the Government come back and want to cap the local authorities, because they are spending too much—that is what the Government will say. We have had all that before. The other thing we should bear in mind is that at the moment local government is badly funded, to say the least.

[Kate Osamor]

I could not agree more. Those points are alarming and worry us all, and that is why we have all come to speak in the debate.

Only a thriving social care sector that is valued and respected will be able to give our NHS the support it needs to provide integrated healthcare solutions. The Minister and the Government must accept their responsibility to support social care through the transition to the national living wage and beyond to 2020. Sustainable, long-term investment is desperately needed.