Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

That is a question that the Minister might answer. I hope that the Bill will be changed again after our deliberations in Committee—so there may well be a sixth or seventh version.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that part of the reason for a Bill Committee, whether in the Lords or the Commons, is scrutiny, and that if that results in change it shows the strength of the system, rather than weakness?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

If the hon. Member for North Dorset is right, perhaps he can tell us how it is that some Tory-controlled authorities up and down the country have seen an 8% increase in their funding, while other parts of the country have seen an 8% reduction.

[Michael Tomlinson]

That’s not true.

[Steve McCabe]

It is true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I think we should all have the highest possible standards for all our children, whether they are care leavers or not. That is something we should always strive towards.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting the unemployment statistics. I am chairman of the all-party group for youth employment. Each month we look at the statistics; we will have a new set of figures tomorrow. She is right to say that the figures are too high. In fact, they are too high across the board at just under 14%. Does she recognise that, under the clause, the local plan that points towards education and employment will help in that regard?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I think that only time will tell.

[Michael Tomlinson]

That is a yes, then.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

No, it is not; it is a “time will tell.”

I will not spend much longer on this new clause; it is quite straightforward. It asks that the Secretary of State carries out an annual review on access to apprenticeships and further and higher education, and takes into account some of the barriers that care leavers face around fees, grants and accommodation. We know that such problems have existed for care leavers for a very long time, so it is about time we got on, looked at that, and made policies around it.

New clause 16 seeks to improve care leavers’ transition to independence by proposing various changes to welfare and benefits that would offer much needed financial support at a critical juncture. Without financial support, it is likely that a lot of the Government’s intentions towards care leavers will not amount to any real tangible changes for children leaving care. The national offer for care leavers that I am proposing will ensure that the maximum sanction for care leavers under the age of 25 will be four weeks, in line with the current sanction regime for 16 and 17-year-olds. It will allow working care leavers under the age of 25 to claim working tax credit. It will extend the higher rate of the local housing allowance single room rate to care leavers up to the age of 25, delaying the transition to the lower shared accommodation rate that applies at 22 years. It will also amend the council tax regulations to exempt care leavers from that tax until the age of 25.

The Government’s document, “Keep On Caring”, which was published in July, states:

“Most care leavers who spoke to us talked about the problems they had making ends meet. Paying rent, Council Tax, household bills and transport costs meant that many care leavers had difficulty managing their finances and they had often experienced debt and arrears.”

Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown that more than half of young people leaving care have difficulty managing their budgets and avoiding debt. Yet almost half of local authorities in England fail to offer adequate financial support and advice for care leavers. If local authorities are not able to help when a young care leaver needs help, where on earth are they supposed to go? Unlike many of us in this room, they have never had the option of turning to their parents, wider family, or family friends. Often, if the local authority does not help them, nobody does.

The way that the Government have applied sanctions has had a devastating effect on not only the sick and disabled, but care leavers. Between October 2013 and September 2015, 4,000 sanctions were imposed on care leavers. They are more likely to receive sanctions, and less likely to know where to go or how to appeal a decision made against them.

--- Later in debate ---

I am pleased that several local authorities, such as Birmingham City Council, City of Wolverhampton Council and others have introduced a council tax exemption for care leavers. I hope that other local authorities will follow their lead, but it is no good the Government asking local authorities to consider or explore the possibility of exempting care leavers from council tax when those authorities face further cuts from central Government.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I have the privilege of serving on the Homelessness Reduction Bill Committee, which meets for the fourth time tomorrow. That measure is a private Member’s Bill, as the hon. Lady will know, but it has Government backing. Care leavers are a prescribed group within that Bill, and will be specifically looked after in relation to homelessness advice. The Bill states:

“The service must be designed to meet the needs of persons in the authority’s district including…care leavers.”

Surely the hon. Lady welcomes that, and the fact that the Government are supporting that Bill?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for my amendment. I hope that he will vote with us. I am proposing a comprehensive package of support for care leavers, and this Bill is exactly the right measure for that. We should not have piecemeal legislation for care leavers; the package should be in this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

It was on the tip of my tongue. The hon. Lady put it very well when she argued that our benefits system, especially when dealing with young people, is designed on the principle that even if they do not live at home, they probably have a home relationship on which they are able to draw; that they can draw not only on financial support, but on support to be able to budget and to manage at that point in life when we start to get our own rent and bills. That group of young people do not have such support as a background, so we have to make specific arrangements for them. That is what the amendment would do.

As I said to the hon. Member for North Dorset, in places we do not do that, which costs us more as a result, so again I ask the Minister to do something, even if not in this legislation. I completely take the point of the other hon. Gentleman for—I am doing terribly this morning at remembering constituency names—

[Michael Tomlinson]

Mid Dorset and North Poole.

[Stella Creasy]

How could I forget Mid Dorset! What a wonderful community. The hon. Gentleman will have seen even in Mid Dorset, as I see in Walthamstow, young people struggling to make sense of what rights and entitlements they have as they take that first step. They struggle even when they have their mum and dad with them to help, yet we are talking about young people who do not have that support. He is right to point to the Homelessness Reduction Bill as having such provision, but his case is to marry that with what we do in this Bill—that is exactly what the amendment would do. It simply states that we have to continue thinking about that group of young people needing a particular level of support because we can see their problems. The two are not contradictory; in fact, they are complementary.

I ask the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole to think about that. Perhaps in the lunch break he will make the case to the Minister that we should be looking at the financial support we give to our young people. The evidence tells us that our benefits system is not working for them, which is costing us money, and it is not joining up with other pieces of legislation. As a result, very vulnerable young people are being left at risk.

There are ways in which we can save money in the system and get a better outcome. The amendments are trying to get us there. I think that Government Members share the same objective. The question is this: if they will not accept the amendments on those three core principles, what would the standards be beyond which we will never let a young person fall? If we accept that a younger person is vulnerable, how do we ensure that we do not discriminate against them on the basis of nationality? How are we addressing the clear and obvious problems that our young people in care have with financial management, which manifests in how they deal with the benefits system, and comes from not having the safety net of mum and dad?

Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 15th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

We believe that clause 9 should be deleted from the Bill, because under its provisions prospective adopters could be prioritised over relatives or other carers. That completely contradicts the Children Act 1989. It could lead to children being prematurely placed with prospective adopters even before the conclusion of court proceedings, in order to build a relationship with prospective adopters that is then used to undermine the child’s prospect of going back to his or her birth family, extended family members or friends, who love the child and have been trying to do their best to keep them in their care.

A premature placement with prospective adopters could prejudge the outcome of legal proceedings, causing unnecessary pain and distress to all concerned. It diminishes a child’s right to a family life, risks the early separation of siblings, and inflicts trauma and grief on children and their primary carer, who more often than not is their mother, as well as on other loving family members, especially grandparents.

The clause is a prime example of the Government’s obsession with adoption to the detriment of all other forms of care. The time and money that the Department has spent on adoption is staggering, with more than 20 policy changes since 2010. Back in 2012, the former Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), said:

“I firmly believe more children should be taken into care more quickly…I want social workers to be more assertive with dysfunctional parents, courts to be less indulgent of poor parents, and the care system to expand to deal with the consequences.”

And Lord Nash said in the other place, in the proceedings on this Bill, that

“the Government are strongly pro-adoption.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 June 2016; Vol. 773, c. 1114.]

What the Government should be doing is strongly advocating whatever care is right for each and every individual child, and not what they believe is right.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the evidence shows that long-term stability is obviously important, and that part of that includes the option of adopting? It is not just adoption that is being promoted; that is but one string to the bow for the Government’s weaponry, if you like, although “weaponry” is the wrong word. Can she not see that adoption is just one part of the Government’s approach—albeit an important part—and that evidence also supports this approach?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. However, the clause singles out adoption for special attention; the issue needs to be looked at in the wider context of overall Government policy relating to children in care and plans for permanence.

Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 15th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I hope that everybody had an excellent lunch and was able to think about the question that I posed before lunch, which is at the heart of the amendments. How did we get to a place where two young men felt there was so little hope in the world that they would rather kill themselves than go on? The two young men are refugees from Afghanistan, who had been escaping the Taliban. Both of them had been victims of gangs, had ended up in Calais and had willingly got on buses to go to child protection centres around France, having been told through a leaflet that they were one step closer to getting to Britain.

The amendments speak to that question and reflect the Government’s statement of 1 November, which committed to safeguarding refugee children in Europe—not just those who end up on our shores. Many of us may have dealt with children who have arrived in Britain, perhaps through illegal routes. Today, we are talking about how the safeguarding legislation that the Government will bring in by 1 May will reflect that commitment to safe routes and address legally working with those young people.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Stella Creasy]

I will happily give way, because I was reading over lunch of the support and commitment of the hon. Gentleman when it comes to helping refugees. I am sure he is going to speak in support of the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

The hon. Lady is wrong: I am not going to support the amendment. She mentioned the ministerial statement of 1 November. Before we adjourned for lunch, she was right to give credit to the Government for the steps that they have already taken. She was right to do that because the Government have taken great steps. Does she not take comfort from that ministerial statement? Does that not cover the points she is seeking to address?

[Stella Creasy]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is here this afternoon because I will explain exactly why I am concerned that the actions of the Home Office directly undermine that statement. Those of us who were involved in drafting the second Dubs amendment to ask the Government to extend safeguarding—as I think the hon. Gentleman is agreeing is the right thing to do for these young people—were very disappointed to see, not seven days later, guidance coming out from the Home Office that we consider directly undermines that commitment. I hope I can explain to the hon. Gentleman why. I hope I can also persuade him that, if—as he has said publicly—the situation in Syria challenges him, those concerns about young people should not be defined by nationality; they should be defined by need.

We are talking about the most vulnerable young people in our world. They have come, whether legally or illegally, to Europe in need of assistance. This is about how we, as Britain, play our part to help and support them. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman—

[Michael Tomlinson]

And others.

[Stella Creasy]

Particularly the hon. Gentleman. I understand and agree with his statement that he was deeply challenged by the situation in Syria.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The hon. Lady is being very gracious in giving way to me twice in a matter of as many minutes. She will recognise that there is great compassion on both sides of the divide on this very point. She and her party do not hold the preserve of compassion, as she is recognising in her very generous and gracious speech. She can surely recognise the honest and honourable motives on this side of the House as well as on her side when it comes to this issue.

[Stella Creasy]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had left early to get ahead in the lunch queue so he did not hear me saying before lunch that I absolutely commend what has happened so far. The amendments simply reinforce that. I have not yet heard a good argument from the hon. Gentleman—I am hoping to hear one from him—on why he would not want to ensure that we treat all young refugees equally and fairly, which is what the amendment would do. Let me explain why.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the situation in Syria. Let me give him some testimony from a young man from Sudan, who said, when asked why he left Sudan:

“There is war in Sudan. Lots of my family have been killed over the years. My mother was killed when I was a baby. I have been running away from the Sudanese government since I was 7 years old…In Sudan, the government pay people to kill and rape innocent people so that it does not look like they are doing it.”

That young man ended up in the Calais refugee camp. There were an estimated 2,000 unaccompanied children in that camp by the end—the kind of children who the Dubs amendment, which had support across the House, was designed to cover. As I said earlier, this is not about Britain taking every single one of those children but about how we do our fair share and ensure that we treat all children equally when we commit to safeguarding them, as the Minister did in his statement on 1 November.

That young man ended up in Calais. He then went to a child refugee centre, on the basis that he was told he would be treated fairly and given the opportunity to come to Britain. He said:

“When I heard Calais will be destroyed, we were told so many different things from the UK and the French government. We were told that all the minors will go to England. But now we are scared we will be refused by the UK. I find this so strange as we are only 1000 minors. This is nothing for a country like England…If the UK government does not hear or understand well we are telling them now: we left our country because we are dying and now once again we are dying as we hope to make it to the UK.”

His story is not unique. There are stories of Oromo children from Ethiopia and children from Afghanistan being threatened with persecution. Yes, the situation in Syria is deeply troubling, but children are caught up in conflicts in many areas around the world. Those children are running, and many of them—90,000, as we heard earlier—have ended up in Europe. The question is: what do we do to help? How do we ensure that we treat those children fairly?

Amendments 16 and 17 are important, because last Friday the Government ended the fast-track transfer scheme for the children who were in the Calais “jungle”. Although that camp has been destroyed and the children evicted, the issue of what happens to them next has not gone away. Although 750 children have come to the UK, I am sorry to report to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole that the majority of them are Dublin children—children who would have had the right to come here anyway.

The thing stopping us from helping those children, who have no one else in the world, is the guidance that says how we decide what is in their best interests. The problem that we have—