(1 year, 4 months ago)
Public Bill Committees
Harriet Cross
Q
Councillor Conway: I will read this is out, if that is okay, because—not that this is not all important—this really is an important issue. Child sexual abuse is obviously a horrific crime, and the LGA supports the mandatory reporting duty. We do, however, have several things to say that would make it more effective.
We believe there should be training and support for those who work with children. Multiple reports, including by Ofsted and the Home Office, have identified a lack of skills and confidence among professionals in responding to child sexual abuse. A duty must not be placed on professionals without the accompanying training that will enable them to identify and respond to child sexual abuse effectively.
We also believe that there needs to be support for victims, and that there can be a shortfall in dedicated support for boys, children from ethnic minority backgrounds and disabled children. If this duty identified more victims of sexual abuse, obviously it would also be imperative that services are in place to provide appropriate support.
On that, I would also highlight the pressure on children’s social care. The duty may result in an increase in referrals to children’s social care, as has occurred in other areas where mandatory reporting has been introduced, such as parts of Australia and America. Obviously this is in a context where spending on children’s social care has already increased by 11% in the last financial year to £14.2 billion. We believe it is absolutely vital that children’s social care is adequately resourced, to ensure that all referrals can be fully investigated, with the best possible support provided, including where children obviously need to be brought into care for their own protection.
On safe spaces, we would add that there is a very fine line between creating a space of trust and then a space of reporting. Obviously local government sits at the heart of that.
Councillor Garratt: I broadly welcome the duty to report. There are two concerns that I will raise. First, there does not seem to be—apologies if I have missed it—any sanction on anyone who does not carry out that duty. I question what kind of a duty it is if you can simply choose not to do it, with no ramification. Connected to that, if you think about the way this might happen in an organisation, the person who is making the report might in effect be in a whistleblower position, so what thought is given to any duty on the employer not to treat that employee adversely as a result of in effect blowing the whistle against things that the employer may wish not to have come to light?
My third thing perhaps is a question. To what extent would this duty apply to voluntary or religious organisations? We have seen, unfortunately, more than one example of child abuse occurring in religious settings, where often there is trust and there is sometimes difficulty with anybody coming forward because of a sense of mutual solidarity that makes it difficult for people to want to step away and blow the whistle.
Those are my three areas of concern. Is there a sanction for not carrying out this duty? Is there an obligation on employers to do something to protect the person? And would the duty apply to religious settings?
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
Q
With a council hat on, I want to look at fly-tipping. Gravesham borough council has issued 386 community protection warnings and about 50 fly-tipping fines, so there is definitely a growing issue with fly-tipping. Could I ask your advice? What do you think about some guidance, perhaps to courts, about recovery costs? We know that fly-tipping largely is organised crime, and there are costs in collecting the rubbish, often for private landowners; they are left to bear the brunt of the burden. Would guidance for courts—magistrates courts in particular—on recovering the costs of the crime be welcome?
Councillor Garratt: Possibly. I would not add much to what I said before about the fly-tipping provisions in the Bill, which seem to boil down to reminding local authorities of what their responsibilities are. I do think that they already know what they are. To echo Councillor Conway, I think they probably would just say the word “resources” again and again.
Councillor Conway: That is always a welcome echo. I will just add that the LGA wants to work with the Government and the Sentencing Council to review court guidance—so, yes, what you are talking about—to ensure stringent fines for the worst offenders and provide adequate funding for councils to investigate and prosecute fly-tippers. As I am sure you will be aware locally, councils face financial challenges in prosecuting fly-tippers, with the fines issued by the courts often lower than civil penalties. It is essential for courts to properly prosecute to deter repeat offences as well. There is a financial bit and then the deterrent effect.
Anna Sabine
Q
Councillor Conway: I think we will need to write with more detail about that, if it is okay. The board I sit on definitely has people who I think would have a lot to say about that but, for specific information, I think we should write to you.
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons Chamber
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on this incredibly important Bill. Like many of my constituents, I welcome the measures the Government are taking to tackle serious crime and antisocial behaviour in order to make our streets safer. I pay tribute to the police—another public service that has been undervalued and underfunded for well over a decade. They put their lives on the line to keep us safe and uphold the law. Many measures in the Bill will directly impact them and my constituents, many of whom have become known to me through casework.
When I have knocked on doors in my constituency, residents have told me about the nuisance of off-road bikes that have blighted our streets and, often, our green public spaces—our parks—and intimidated the public. Often, those bikes and their owners were known to the police, but they lacked the powers to do anything other than give the owners a simple warning. I am pleased that the Bill would enable the seizure of vehicles that are being used antisocially.
The other issue that I heard about most often on the doorstep was fly-tipping—the disrespectful fly-tipping that is engaged in by so many organised criminals. A few years ago, Gravesham borough council started a fly-tipping enforcement team. It investigated many people and took many to court. Three years on, 386 community protection warnings have been issued, we have put people in prison, and 50 fly-tipping fines have been issued. That is incredible; it is what should be happening across the country, and I am grateful that the Bill looks to strengthen antisocial behaviour powers to deal with fly-tipping. That is incredibly welcome.
As a new MP, I hold many surgeries—as do many Members present—and I have been shocked by the terrible experiences that some of my constituents have had to face. I pay tribute to them for having the courage to come forward and tell their stories. I have heard from women dealing with stalking by an ex-partner who have changed their life routine for fear of attack and, as such, I welcome the Bill’s strengthening of stalking protection orders. I have heard from a retired paramedic, Peter Sheehan, who was violently assaulted after simply asking people in his woodland to stop their dogs tearing up the forest floor—it was a simple ask. After three years of legal issues, the man who seriously assaulted Peter was given a two-year suspended sentence and fined £750. The impact on Peter, who already suffers post-traumatic stress disorder from his work as a paramedic, was significant, and that money still has not been received.
We must let people who have experienced crime see the justice they deserve. Their trust in the criminal justice system must be restored, and they must know that if they call the police, they will come. There are consequences for crime, and this Bill is the first step towards backing people, not criminals.