Children and Social Work Bill [Lords]

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and David Burrowes

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I wish to speak to the amendments in my name to new clauses 13 and 14. Let me say in passing that new clauses 12 and 11, on universal credit and local housing allowance, both have our full support. On new clause 4, while we sympathise with the sentiment behind it, the method of progression is not the correct one, and we could not give the new clause our support.

Let me turn to new clauses 12 to 14 and to my two amendments. New clause 13 would put the strategy for the safeguarding of unaccompanied refugee children on a statutory footing, and that has our support. Given that many of the laws and services that will be involved are devolved, I have suggested that the new clause be amended to require consultation with the devolved Administrations before the strategy is published.

New clauses 12 and 14 require assessment of the capacity to provide safeguarding and welfare services, including to unaccompanied child refugees. I welcome the cross-party support new clause 14 has attracted, and the Scottish National party fully intends to give it our support. My small amendment to it simply borrows the wording of new clause 12 in relation to the devolved Administrations. It is appropriate to include the devolved Administrations, because, as we have heard, the key driver behind new clause 14 is to force the Government to rethink their move to wind the Dubs scheme down. This was a UK-wide scheme, and Scotland was and is absolutely willing to play its part in it.

With the rationale for closing Dubs falling to pieces, the Government have belatedly come to the Dispatch Box to make a concession. However, in making that concession, they have actually made the case for new clause 14, rather than giving an explanation of why we should reject it, so I see no reason why we should not proceed with it. If it comes to a vote, the SNP will absolutely support new clause 14, whether amended or not.

[Mr Burrowes]

I rise to support many of the proposals, not least those in my name, which the Minister has supported from the Dispatch Box.

On new clause 7, statutory guidance will spread good practice, which is all too limited in relation to those who need therapeutic support, such as those who are at risk—not least those who have come from a care background—of repeat pregnancies. There is a duty of care in this Bill not only to children but to vulnerable adults, and I appreciate that that will now come within statutory guidance, so I will not need to press the new clause. However, I pay particular tribute to the Family Rights Group and the other organisations supporting it.

I very much support new clause 15, and our earlier new clauses 5 and 6 paved the way towards it. The thrust of it is very welcome. We should recognise the support from all sides of the argument. Previously, there was a stalemate, and we were looking simply at when we would make sex education compulsory. Now, we are focused on relationships and building the resilience in relationships that vulnerable children—particularly those who do not have any sight or sound of healthy relationships—do not have. I welcome that and the reassurance on age-appropriateness and the religious background of pupils.

The Government’s position on new clause 14 is welcome in focusing on safeguarding. This is not a re-run of Dubs or of those earlier arguments. This is about safeguarding. Whether we are talking about children in the UK or children coming from abroad, all children need safeguarding, and I welcome the commitment that has been made on that. However, as a result of this debate, the Government need to be more transparent about keeping the Dubs process open, so that we can do all we can for children here and elsewhere.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and David Burrowes

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I will be as quick as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker. Like my colleagues, I support the Second Reading of this Bill, but not without a degree of hesitation and of sympathy for the arguments contained in the reasoned amendment. As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I would like to thank all those who submitted written evidence or gave oral evidence to our short inquiry, and the staff and the former patient of the Club Drug clinic we visited for their constructive and thoughtful criticisms of the Bill. It is fair to say that there was broad, but not unanimous, support for the overarching aims and approach of the legislation.

As the Minister said at the outset, the strategy proposed also had backing from a Scottish Government expert review group and from a report by the Welsh Assembly Health and Social Care Committee. Given that consensus, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) that it is surprising and a little frustrating—

[Mr Burrowes]

I believe the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee wanted to make it clear that we know people are waiting for our report and it will be out on Friday in all good shops—and, no doubt, in the Vote Office.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Absolutely. I do not intend to give away any of our conclusions or the recommendations we are going to be making in that report. I am merely referring to evidence that was given in oral sessions or in the written evidence which is freely available.

It is frustrating that we are so far into the legislative process and yet some fundamental questions are still to be resolved. Of course, nothing could be more fundamental than the definition of “psychoactive substance” itself. Addressing that will be the first and most important task of the Public Bill Committee, and it will have to assess whether the definition currently proposed is preferable to that put forward by the ACMD.

A second fundamental problem was highlighted by the evidence provided by both Police Scotland and the Scottish Government on how the current definition of a “psychoactive substance” will require evidence from qualified experts with experience of working with NPSs in order to be able to identify the substance and prove its psychoactivity. Establishing that knowledge base against the background of the fast-paced evolution of psychoactive substances would be difficult, and a constant requirement for expert evidence in court would be very costly. Some of the contradictory reports from Ireland suggest similar problems, and again serious scrutiny of these issues is still required.

Perhaps the most important thing to say about this legislation—we have appreciated this during our inquiry—is, as another hon. Member said, that we cannot see this Bill as a silver bullet. Of far more significance will be the strategies that must be put in place to prevent harm through education and awareness raising, and to intervene where individuals are at risk—that includes the risk that some, but far from all, psychoactive substance users will move to controlled substances or to unregulated dealers. We also need to reduce harm. It is only fair to say that there is a huge distance to travel before we can say that this is being done as well as it must be done. Perhaps in Committee we will be able to consider making information on these matters an express part of the review requirement under clause 57.

In short, this Bill is not a silver bullet—indeed, we could shoot ourselves in the foot if we are not careful to get this right. If the Bill is scrutinised carefully and amended in the light of the evidence, it could be a useful first step in tackling the dangers that many Members have spoken about and that are posed by new psychoactive substances, but the Government need to address the legitimate questions that have been asked tonight. They include questions about the definition, the problems with clause 8, the issue of purchasing for friends, the contradictory evidence from Ireland and the potential for displacement. I wish the Bill Committee well in sorting it all out.