---

Mrs. Betty Williams: Can my hon. Friend give me one good reason why we cannot have a piece of legislation in this country similar to the ones that have proved themselves in countries such as Sweden for many years?

Julie Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have heard today about the examples of other countries that have gone forward in this way, and we should do so as well. I am dismayed that the Government are not going to give Members a free vote on this important issue of conscience. I hope that, by the time we reach Report and Third Reading, they will at least agree that we should be able to exercise our conscience on an issue on which we would traditionally expect to have a free vote. I feel strongly that we should have a free vote, and I hope that the Government will reconsider this issue and think about their duty to children, the most vulnerable members of our society, and get rid of the defence of reasonable chastisement.

9.32 pm

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): I very much welcome the Bill, and I just want to make a few remarks on one specific point relating to housing on which it is unclear. Clause 7(2)(a) to (e) contains five categories that are supposed to cover all the needs of a child. There is specific reference to health and education, but no explicit reference to housing. It is assumed that the Children Act 1989 contains an obligation on social services to ensure that the housing needs of children are met, but this has recently been interpreted by the courts as ensuring that the housing needs of children in an area are met generally, rather than ensuring that the specific needs of an individual child are met. That is a whole different ball game. Homeless families are therefore told that they can go to social services, but that their children might be taken into care. This virtually takes us back to
 
13 Sept 2004 : Column 1078
 
"Cathy Come Home", and it illustrates the need to tackle homelessness, to keep families together and to house children with their parents when that is appropriate for them.

The importance of housing for children was well recognised in "Every Child Matters", in which homelessness was identified as the factor second most closely associated with poor outcomes for children. Unfortunately, this recognition was not carried through to the various structures and procedures needed to overcome the risks involved. The Green Paper was not explicit about that; nor is the Bill. That will leave a major gap in the services needed to protect the welfare of children. I have discussed this a number of times with my right hon. Friend the Minister, along with some of the cases that I have dealt with in my constituency that have resulted in children living in appalling conditions, including that of a woman with three small children who was the victim of domestic violence. She was rejected for housing, declared intentionally homeless and has had to live in two tiny rooms in a refuge for more than 15 months.

There is clear evidence that the number of families being turned down for housing on the grounds of being intentionally homeless is on the increase. Intentionality was cited as a reason for refusing housing in 5,000 cases in 1997–98. In March this year, the figure leapt to 13,000, and in my region, the figures almost trebled from 250 to 700 over the same period. Clearly, something needs to happen for families to be refused such housing, be it antisocial behaviour or rent arrears. There is a clear desire not to drive a coach and horses through local authorities' housing powers, but the fact is that those families do not go away, and some way must be found to protect children from the consequences of their parents' homelessness, other than taking them into care.

I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to consider three issues. First, will she make sure that priority is given to homelessness as a risk to the well-being of children; that "Every Child Matters" is made a reality in the legislation; and that she considers some of the proposals to do that, including those that have come forward from Shelter? Secondly, will she work with colleagues across government to ensure that there is provision, possibly in the form of special accommodation, and possibly through support services, to enable antisocial families to rehabilitate themselves and sustain independent tenancies, as in the special projects in Dundee, Manchester and north Wales? Thirdly, will she make sure that the possibly unintended consequences for children of other aspects of Government policy are fully understood, so that if more families are being declared intentionally homeless, or evicted from their accommodation, careful consideration is given to what happens to the children? Perhaps when there are two parents in the family, and when one parent works, they have more options. It seems likely, however, that single parents, who have less income and fewer options, will end up in a complete housing dead end, with devastating consequences for their children.

The provision of decent-quality, secure housing is one of the basics for the welfare of children. In many of the appalling child abuse scandals that we have seen, insecure housing has been a factor. As I said, the role of housing is well recognised in the Green Paper, but many children still do not have the housing protection that
 
13 Sept 2004 : Column 1079
 
they need, unless they are taken away from their parents and placed in care, when the outcomes for them are often worse. The legislation will not introduce the measures that are needed to get to grips with that, and I ask my right hon. Friend to make sure that the opportunities provided by this legislation are taken to put that right for children.

9.37 pm

Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): This has been a good-natured and amicable debate, most unusually. We have a general consensus that, as the Minister said at the beginning of her remarks, every child matters. We all agree on that, and it has been instructive to listen to contributions from both sides of the House this evening. I pay tribute to Lord Laming, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnado's, Women's Aid and many other excellent voluntary organisations, whose work, not only recently but for a long time, has informed our debate. We welcome all the help and support that they gave us on practical matters.

We agree with the two principles that the Minister expressed in her speech—the importance of putting children first and the essential necessity of early intervention. Our arguments have been constructive and designed to improve the Bill, which I hope that the Minister will appreciate. I have never doubted that her intentions are good. As we examine the practicalities, however, we will suggest some better ways of proceeding, all with the very best of intentions, and putting every child first.

The hon. Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and various other Members have given us the benefit of their valuable experience in Wales, which already has a Children's Commissioner. I am certain that we will all pay attention to their contributions when we discuss these matters in Committee.

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is watching you!

Mrs. Laing: I do not care if he is. That is all right with me.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) made wide-ranging points about many aspects of children's lives, but I should say to her that it is essential for us now to concentrate on the key aims that the Bill can achieve. We must not dilute it by looking too widely.

Not for the first time, the hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) spoke at length about Sure Start. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford will be disappointed to hear me say that he is absolutely right. Many aspects of Sure Start are working well, and we will build on them when we return to government.

Jonathan Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning my remarks about Sure Start. I have challenged her on past occasions by asking why, given her praise for Sure Start—which I welcome—she did not vote for the money that pays for it.

Mrs. Laing: We have guaranteed the funding of Sure Start. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be
 
13 Sept 2004 : Column 1080
 
disappointed to hear me say that, because he wants to paint me as the wicked witch who does not care about children, but I am afraid that I do care about them. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I hope I am not disappointing my hon. Friends.

The hon. Member for Wakefield will, I hope, forgive me for having left the Chamber during his speech. Just as he was saying—quite rightly—that the most important influence on a child's development was his or her home life with his or her parents, I realised that it was 3 minutes to 7 and that my own three-year-old son was about to go to bed, which he could not happily do until I had phoned to say good night. I hope I shall be forgiven for my absence from the Chamber for what I consider to be my most important duty.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is right to defend clause 2 in its present form. To be effective, a commissioner must be independent, responsible not to a politically partisan Secretary of State but to Parliament.

Both my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) spoke about the database. I share my hon. Friend's concern. If a database is overloaded with the names of some 11 million children, the vast majority of whom are not at risk, it is likely that the relevant names of those who actually are at risk will be overlooked. It is a bit like trying to find the relevant e-mails among all the spam that comes to all of us every day. I hope that "spam" is parliamentary language, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) made his usual thoughtful speech. I pay tribute to him for his many years' experience in this area. Amazingly, I agree with him on two important points. The first rule for an MP should indeed be to ask himself, "Is what we are about to do good enough for my own child?" The answer to that question must always be yes, if the measure deserves to be passed by the House. I also agree that this is the most important Bill that the House will consider this week. That is not what the media will say—they prefer foxhunting—but those of us who are here this evening know that it is on what happens to families and children that the future of our society depends, not on the sporting habits of part of the population.

The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) is right about separated parents. The welfare of a child is usually best served by the maintaining of contact with both parents. Only in unusual circumstances—where criminal or unreasonable behaviour has occurred—is that not the case. I take issue with the Minister when she says that it is not possible to have a rebuttable presumption of equal parenting while also putting the child first. Of course it is possible to do both those things—indeed, we must do so in order to preserve the coherence and importance of families. In fact, is not only possible; it is also right.

The Minister's mistake is that she is concerned with rights—with the view, "This is mine; this is what I want"—rather than with duties and responsibilities. Rights exist only if there are corresponding duties and responsibilities to give those rights. Parents have responsibilities to their children before they have rights
 
13 Sept 2004 : Column 1081
 
over them. This is about not a conflict of rights, but a sharing of responsibilities that we should try to achieve for future generations.

---