Education

John Hemming Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

May I wish you a merry Christmas, Mr Deputy Speaker?

I rise on an issue that continues to concern me greatly. I repeat my declaration of interest that I chair the justice for families campaign. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House wish to see the best possible outcomes for children who enter the care system. In trying to improve this, Tony Blair encouraged adoption, but made a big mistake along the way in miscalculating the percentage of children adopted from care.

Before I go any further, I should be precise about what I mean by “care”. When I say “in care”, I do not include those children voluntarily in care under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. In 2005, for example, 8,600 children left care and 3,400 of those left through adoption. That is 39.5%. If I could get the Department to analyse the figures by age, it would be clear that the majority of young children are leaving care through adoption. In Scotland, however, only 17% of the children who left care in 2009 aged under five left care through adoption. I accept that this includes a broader category, but if we take the numbers and uprate them for population size, we see that England has a rate of adoption from care in excess of 50% more. That is more than 1,000 children a year in England who are adopted rather than returning to their parents.

It appears that the substantial shift, which was a result of the previous Government’s pressure on authorities to increase the number of adoptions, was that children left care through adoption rather than returning to their parents. I see this in terms of individual cases where the judgments at times defy reason. It can also be seen very clearly when comparing practice in Scotland with that in England.

The Department has refused to provide many figures about the English system although some are now trickling out. When the adoption targets came in, there was a net flow into care. That would imply that the adoption pressure did not result in additional children leaving care, but instead caused the destination to change. Because the adoption target was miscalculated, there has been a general belief that adoptions from care were only a low percentage. An article written by Alan Rushton in 2007 about adoption from care states:

“Nevertheless, it would be wrong to think that any wholesale moving of children from birth families into adoptive families is taking place. Adoption from care concerns just a small proportion (6%) of all looked after children in England.”

That is clearly a misunderstanding of the situation. The Department was reporting 6% for a figure that, properly calculated, was more like 40%.

The concentration on adoption also means a lack of child protection. Peter Connolly died in August 2007, but nothing much changed until the criminal prosecution in 2008. Some 7,400 children were taken into care to the end of March 2008, 8,200 in 2009 and 9,500 in 2010. However, often the wrong children were taken into care and more babies were suspected to have died from child abuse in calendar year 2009 than in calendar year 2008. In 2008, the figure for England alone was 47 babies and 97 other children. In 2009, that increased—notwithstanding the increase in numbers of children taken into care—to 75 babies and 111 other children. There are two sides to this problem and both are unacceptable. Although the adoption targets and financial incentives were scrapped from 1 April 2008, the practice is still skewed by the pressures that gave rise to the initial changes.

The children themselves are asking why their families have been split up. There was a meeting recently in the House, attended by the Minister of State with responsibility for children and families, at which a girl asked why her sister had been adopted and she had been banned from seeing her. Additionally, as children such as Winona Vamey and Tammy Coulter get older, they are acting to reverse the adoptions.

The aggressive way in which the courts have gone after families has created many refugees from the UK—mainly from England although there is one from Scotland. Susen McCabe, Kiel and Lucille O’Regan, Fran Lyon, Kerry and Mark McDougall, Sam Thomas, Emily Burgess, Sam and Vanessa Hallimond and Angela Wileman are only a few examples for whom emigration was necessary to fight the system. Sam Thomas made the mistake of coming back to England—Somerset—and her daughter has now been put up for adoption.

At the same time, the rights of mothers such as Rachel Pullen and Husan Pari to even contest their own cases are removed on the basis of expert reports saying they are too stupid but which are later found to be in error. However, the Court of Appeal passes these cases through on the nod. False allegations of satanism and Munchausen’s syndrome continue to be accepted by the courts without a legal right to a second opinion. Dr Fintan Sheerin, Professor Mary McCarron, Professor Cecily Begley and Dr Jo Murphy-Lawless from Trinity College, Dublin wrote to me recently asking why these cases still happen in countries that pride themselves on respect for human rights. My answer was that the courts do not always properly follow the law in hearings that are held in secret where people get imprisoned in secret for complaining about injustice.

All this is in fact inhumane. Given time, the European Court of Human Rights may point this out. However, I hope that the Government will respond to this more quickly. More work on analysing the SSDA903 return is needed. It is not acceptable to use the code “other” for something as important as this.

Journalists such as Christopher Booker, Camilla Cavendish, Sue Reid, Denise Robertson, Daniel Foggo and many more have raised concerns about how the system is a machine for miscarriages of justice, but it keeps steamrolling over families and children. Many of the families affected will be lighting Chinese lanterns as a protest on Christmas eve at 10 pm. They will include Phil Thompson, whose great-grandchildren were put up for adoption for no good reason by Walsall council.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and it might give him chance to catch his breath as he seems to be in a great rush. I do not wish to detract from the serious cases that he mentions, but does he recognise that in many cases in which children are adopted from care it is because of the serious problems in their families and the neglect and abuse that they have, sadly, suffered?

[John Hemming]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. There is a need for a care system, but it has to get things right. One of the reasons children are often taken into care is that the mother has been a victim of domestic abuse. Women’s Aid argues that we should protect the mother and child and keep them together, rather than say, “Oh, you as a mother have been a victim of domestic abuse. We are taking your child.”

This morning or late yesterday, I received an e-mail about Kirsty Seddon’s case in Oldham. She was brought up in care and essentially that has been used as an excuse to remove her child. Luckily, the European Court of Human Rights is taking the matter seriously, and has now written to the UK Government asking them to comment on the admissibility of her case. There is a fair chance that, whereas this has gone through the UK courts on the nod, it will end up being picked up by the ECHR.

Even if the Government fail to do something, Parliament should be able to act to identify what is going on. Things happen that defy reason, which is why people have to emigrate to get away from the system. I will not rest until Parliament or the Government act to stop these miscarriages of justice. Sadly, the family justice review does not seem to recognise the true situation. The Munro inquiry seems to have a better focus, but both inquiries are hobbled by not having enough members who are not part of the system. We have the usual “quis custodiet” question when the people who are substantially part of causing the problem are being asked to correct a problem that they themselves do not recognise exists. That needs to change.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) on getting so much into such a short speech. I know that he has a long-standing commitment to family justice, and it was clear from his speech that he shares the coalition’s commitment to ensuring that children in this country are able to enjoy safe, happy and carefree childhoods—an ambition that is shared across the House, as is our desire to give every child the chance to achieve to the very best of his or her abilities. In responding to my hon. Friend’s excellent speech, I want first to make the point that this Government recognise the importance of keeping families together. The law is clear: children should live with their parents wherever possible and, where necessary, families should be given extra support to help keep them together.

[John Hemming]

The difficulty is that it does not appear that the law is being followed. Will the Department establish an ombudsman scheme to review individual cases and see why the law is not being followed?

[Mr Gibb]

I know that my hon. Friend is meeting our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education on 12 January, and I am sure that he can raise that with him at that meeting.

In most cases—indeed, the vast majority of cases—the extra support enables children to remain with their families. However, we are equally clear that there has to be balance in the system, so that where a child is suffering or at risk of suffering significant harm, the local authority has a statutory duty to take action to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare. However, it is important to remember that local authorities cannot remove children from their parents’ care—unless it is with the parents’ consent, of course—without first referring the matter to a court. Similarly, local authorities cannot—again, without the parents’ consent—place a child for adoption with prospective adopters without a placement order made by a court. Needless to say, adoption can be a highly emotional time for the child, the parents and those adopting, but we know that outcomes—certainly in educational attainment and health—are as good for children who are adopted as they are for children growing up with their birth parents.

[John Hemming]

Given that about a quarter of adoptions are disrupted, and the children are returned to care, does my hon. Friend take on board the point that any statistical test of the effect of adoption should include the effect on those for whom it fails?

[Mr Gibb]

The figures are based on comparing the overall statistics for children in care with those for children who are adopted.

Although we recognise that adoption will be suitable for only a relatively small number of children, it is none the less important that we get things right and help more children who need adoption to find secure and happy homes with adoptive parents. We believe that one of the best ways of achieving that is through more collaborative working with voluntary adoption agencies, so that adoption services are enhanced and families are found for the most difficult-to-place children. We also want to see improvements in adoption practice, particularly in the matching of black and minority ethnic children with prospective adopters. Race should not be a barrier to a successful placement. What matters is a loving and stable family environment. That is why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has written to all directors of children’s services and lead members to ask them to do everything possible to increase the number of children appropriately placed for adoption, and to improve the speed with which decisions are made.

[John Hemming]

rose—

[Mr Gibb]

I will give way to my hon. Friend a final time.

[John Hemming]

The Minister said that adoption is suitable only for a small number of children. The difficulty is that a majority of under-fives in care are adopted.

[Mr Gibb]

I am not sure whether those statistics are right, but, again my hon. Friend can take that up with the Under-Secretary at his meeting. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has set up a ministerial advisory group on adoption, to provide expert advice on a range of practical proposals to remove barriers to adoption and reduce delay, but I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley has raised.

Points of Order

John Hemming Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have been very explicit about the parts of the handling of this matter that I regard as unsatisfactory. What we cannot do—or it would not, in my judgment, be a proper use of the time of the House later in the week for us to do it—is rerun the statement.

The hon. Gentleman is a man of great ingenuity and indefatigability, and I feel sure that he will find ways in which to highlight his concerns—if not tomorrow, later in the week or on other occasions. I feel sure that as soon as he leaves the Chamber, he will be dedicating his grey cells to precisely that pursuit.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I dread producing a few facts to cover the Labour party’s synthetic anger, but when I heard that the list of schools was in the Library, I thought it would be useful to go and get a copy. It does raise a complex point of order. We have had a relatively long session on a statement about an important issue. At what time should documents be put in the Library? We should bear it in mind that as soon as they are in the Library they are in the public domain, and can be handed to the media. These documents went to the Library at 17.52. Should documents go to the Library and be available generally at the start of the statement, or at the end of it? That is an important point of order.

[Mr Speaker]

Let me say first to the hon. Gentleman that his points of order are always important, and that this was no exception. Secondly, let me say to him that I thought I had made this point clear, but if I failed to do, I apologise to the House. My very strong view is that relevant documents should be available on the Table of the House or in the Vote Office, or both, at the start—I repeat, at the start—of a statement, to make it easier for Members to conduct their duty of scrutiny. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and the House.

Points of Order

John Hemming Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I understand the very strong feelings—including those of constituents—that will have motivated him to raise it. In response, I would say that the remarks complained of—which I am neither justifying nor condemning—were not made in the House, and that my clear understanding is that the Secretary of State has apologised for them. He has made a public apology, and the question of whether he seeks to make an apology or any other comment on the matter in the House is a matter for him. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) for raising the matter, and I hope that he feels that I have given him at least an informative response.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

On an earlier point of order, Mr Speaker. In the previous Parliament, the Procedure Select Committee decided to establish a process whereby hon. Members could approach the Committee if they were unhappy with the nature of the answers that they received to written questions. I understand that, in this Parliament, we will continue to offer such an opportunity for people to put their complaints to the Committee, once it has been created.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a useful contribution to the continuation of point of order exchanges.

Industry (Government Support)

John Hemming Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands completely. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] He is confusing two different things: one is function, and the other is geography. They are different things. The RDAs will not continue, under any definition of our policy as it emerges through consultation—they will not perform the same range of functions as they do currently. If local people wish it, they might have a regional form, and that will emerge in due course. I think that enough has been said about the matter. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has struggled to take it in, but I think that where we are heading is abundantly clear.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

To explain the point to the Opposition, geography varies around the country. The west midlands has a number of city regions, and it would be positive development if each had a local enterprise partnership. We do not know whether Coventry is in or out of greater Birmingham, but we want a city regional basis. The north-east, however, might like a regional approach. My right hon. Friend will agree that the Opposition do not understand the concept of geography and boundaries, and believe in enforcing the same rules across the country, rather than leaving such matters to local people.

[Vince Cable]

That is absolutely right. The basic problem—and the reason that it is taking some time to explain the matter to the Opposition—is that the Opposition believe that the status quo must be protected because they invented it. There will, however, be fundamental changes.