You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Daily Hansard - Debate
Previous Section Index Home Page

2 Jun 2009 : Column 239

Chris Huhne: Will the Minister concede that while the e-Border scheme is crucial to ensuring that there are no visa overstayers, it is entirely unnecessary to proceed to collect all the other information about our citizens’ travel plans as part of ensuring that our immigration control works? It simply is not.

Mr. Woolas: I have already urged the hon. Gentleman to think this through. First, we cannot operate in isolation from other countries. We cannot say to the Americans, “We want all your information, but we will not give you any of ours”; it does not work like that. Secondly, if one is keeping a register of people entering and leaving the country, one has to count the British people who are leaving as well, in order to identify where there may be false or fraudulent use of documents, for example, or dual citizenship, or a plethora of other such eventualities. In addition, there are the benefits in terms of crime and security; that point has already been made. Already, 2,900 people have been arrested as a result of e-Borders, many of them for serious crimes including murder and rape, simply because we have that counting in and counting out system.

Chris Grayling: May I press the Minister on the point about other countries? First, any other country is free to decide what to do—or what not to do—in terms of tracking people coming across its own borders. Secondly, and more importantly, is he actually suggesting that data about the movement of British citizens into and out of the United Kingdom will be shared with the Americans?

Mr. Woolas: Through ignorance rather than deliberately I suspect, the hon. Gentleman is confusing the two issues of the passenger transport data and the e-Borders system. I invite him—I make this invitation public—to come to the control centre at Heathrow and see for himself the benefits of that system. I am not a betting man, but my bet would be that when he has seen it— [Interruption.] I bet I would win it. My bet is that when he has seen it, he will drop his opportunistic opposition to it, which is based on his wrong belief that this is somehow an infringement of people’s civil liberties.

The point about co-operation is extremely serious. We cannot say to the Americans and others that we will not give them our passenger data when we expect to know who is coming from their country to ours. That does not take into account the way the crime gangs work.

Chris Huhne rose—

Mr. Woolas: I shall give way again, but I have been urged to conclude by everybody in the House, so I shall then do so.

Chris Huhne: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Many Members will be reassured if we can have some more clarity on this issue, however. Under the e-Borders scheme, the Minister is proposing that the travel plans of ordinary British citizens going to and from this country will be stored on a database. Will that be made available to the Americans, or not?

Mr. Woolas: Those data will not. They are already collated—they have been for some time. If the hon. Gentleman reads the briefings that are available, he will
2 Jun 2009 : Column 240
come to understand the difference between the passenger data and the e-Borders system. I open the invitation to him to come and look at that.

I believe I have answered every specific question, and also the general points.

Jeremy Corbyn rose—

Mr. Woolas: If I have not answered my hon. Friend’s point, I shall try to do so now.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister for giving way. He will have heard my interventions on the issue of the Chagos islanders and the anomaly in the 2002 law, which is specific to a smallish number of people. The matter was discussed in the Lords. Is he prepared to accept an appropriate amendment in Committee to try to resolve this anomaly and give these people what Parliament wished them to have in the initial legislation?

Mr. Woolas: At the moment, the policy of the Government is not to do so. I believe the Committee will wish to look at that issue, and, as my hon. Friend rightly says, there is also the debate from the other place, which I have studied.

Chris Huhne: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Woolas: No; I said that I would not give way again. I believe I have answered all the questions that have been asked.

I believe that this short Bill is a fair Bill. I also believe that there is consensus on it. The debates on it have raised some specific points that I hope we can iron out in Committee if the Bill is passed this evening, and I certainly intend to build on the consensus on it. In answer to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), it is certainly the case that, based on the good work he has done in scrutinising and simplifying the Bill—which ran to, I think, 350 clauses—we will come back and provide the final piece of the jigsaw in terms of the border controls that this country wants. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [ Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7) ) ,


2 Jun 2009 : Column 241

Question agreed to.

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [ Lords] (money)

Queen’s Recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)) ,

Question agreed to.

BORDERS, CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION BILL [ LORDS] (WAYS AND MEANS)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)) ,

Question agreed to.


2 Jun 2009 : Column 242

Family Benefits (Absent Teenage Fathers)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Mr. Ian Austin.)

8.6 pm

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) (Lab): My constituency has the highest teenage pregnancy rates in western Europe, and we in Nottingham are doing things to address that—for instance, by having created the teenage pregnancy taskforce, which I have the privilege of chairing.

All too often, there is an unspoken assumption that girls alone should take responsibility for avoiding unwanted pregnancy and for caring for the baby if they fail. A recent Bristol university study shows that when both the parents of a new baby are under 17, only 2 per cent. of fathers are still involved with the baby nine months after the birth. Recent research by Dr. Peter Gates suggested that most teenage mothers in Nottingham were raising their child on their own, and that relationships between teenage parents were generally unstable. This is a tragedy.

The evidence suggests that love, nurture and support from an involved young father in the brain-building early years of nought to five gives a baby much better life chances. Yet teenage fathers are themselves children. That is the central dilemma for social policy generally and the benefits system in particular. That dilemma is complicated by the dispersal of responsibilities and powers between Government Departments and agencies, especially the divide between the Department for Work and Pensions, dealing with benefits and enforcement, and the Department for Children, Schools and Families, dealing with wider policy. Perhaps even the Department for Culture, Media and Sport could think through how it could tackle the drip-feed of laddish TV and testosterone-filled films, and help promote a more respectful culture of manhood and fatherhood to give role models for young males in our society.

We need to ensure that the complex system of policy, payments and penalties gives clear encouragement to teen fathers to do the best they can for their children, not only financially but emotionally. The new Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission has the opportunity to make this agenda its own. I have had the good fortune to speak to a number of its senior people, and it is clear that it does not want to be just an enforcement agency focusing on recalcitrant fathers. Those people want to go further; they see a policy role in trying to pre-empt the problems before they begin.

Let me now take a look at the current benefits system—and compliment the Minister on the work she has done in this area during her spell at the DWP. Contrary to the stereotype, many young fathers want to be involved with their children, but some are held back by confusion or anxiety about the benefits system and its financial implications. Does the Minister think that it is true that teen parents can get more benefit separately than together, thus discouraging the creation and continuation of family units? I would like to know whether that popular perception is true. If it is not true, we need to get that message into the areas that I, like a number of colleagues in the Chamber tonight, represent.

Many young fathers also complain that the benefits system is complicated and financially burdensome. The new Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission
2 Jun 2009 : Column 243
now encourages parents to agree child maintenance arrangements directly with each other. That sounds good for people of good education—it is a sensible way to proceed, and many middle class people would use it to make good arrangements—but it is not necessarily that easy for poorer and less articulate parents, especially in areas where personal intimidation is often a way of resolving personal issues. I hope that the Minister will tell me, perhaps in writing, about the Government’s plans to help that group of people—those on a lower socio-economic scale—to make the maintenance arrangements and to make them stick.

We also need to find a place for young fathers who have no chance of making payments. Our system does not yet provide the social and emotional basis for such fathers to make informed decisions, nor does it give them a set of clear incentives to stay involved with their children, even when they desperately want to. This is not just about the crudities of the benefits system; it is about the subtleties of ensuring that the right perception and opportunity exist for young teenage fathers, who often want to make a go of a relationship and raise a child in the right way.

The Government have made fantastic progress in recent times, and I am particularly delighted that they intend to allow, in the very near future, all young mothers to keep any financial maintenance from their child’s father without losing any benefits. That is a long overdue, welcome and important step forward, on which I congratulate the Minister. It will deny absentee fathers the excuse, which many use, to refuse a contribution because, as they put it, “The social will only take it away.” Apart from relieving family poverty, the change will also provide an opportunity for fathers to make a real difference if they wish to. Will the Minister let us know, either now or in writing to me, what research is being done by the new CMEC on how best to encourage non-resident parents, who are overwhelmingly fathers, to pay maintenance in those new circumstances? The Government have created an opportunity, and I hope that it will be seized upon.

We also need to keep the benefits system as simple as possible. Young low-income parents have to negotiate a labyrinth of websites and leaflets. Will the Minister examine the possibility of a pilot for a one-stop office for young fathers, which could offer advice and support, as well as a medium through which to make maintenance payments? We could try that in one or two areas. Very often the parents of young mothers and fathers encourage absenteeism by the father. The perception that it is always the girl in the relationship who is the wronged party may not always be true; it may well be that the teenage boy would like to play a more significant part but is driven away by the mother herself, or by relatives and the hostility that the young person encounters. By refusing access and by blatant hostility, threats and infighting, such people can deny young fathers the chance to win the trust and respect not only of the family but of the child itself.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the downsides of the separation of the payment through the Child Support Agency from the legal process is that there is always frustration
2 Jun 2009 : Column 244
when someone is making a contribution, but that does not mean that they get any more rights of access to their children? It is unfair if somebody has made an attempt to pay to bring up their child, yet is just as likely not to see their child as someone who has flagrantly disregarded the need to make a contribution.

Mr. Allen: I shall touch briefly on contact later, but my hon. Friend’s remarks underline the need to bring the Ministry of Justice and other Departments to the party and ensure that we are not working in silos. All the parts have to work together, and as I know how difficult that can be at the local level, I can only imagine how difficult that might be in Whitehall, if the Minister were to set herself that task. There would be some tremendous dividends if we were to go along the lines that he suggests.

I wish to finish my remarks about the one-stop shop by saying that that could be a way in which young fathers could develop the self-esteem to build relationships and to have a meaningful dialogue with their child’s hostile grandparents.

There is another wrinkle in the benefits system for many fathers. They claim that maintenance payments are too high, and that failure to keep up with them leads to the breakdown of relationships with their children. Obviously, that problem is more acute for young fathers with a very low earning capacity. Full-time work may not be an option, especially if they are still in education. Through peer mentoring by other, successful young fathers, and through having vocational training, young fathers could be prepared for the world of work and for their parental responsibilities in a much better way.

The Care to Learn scheme, which pays up to £160 per child per week for teens’ child care and travel, is welcome. That and similar programmes could also give young fathers on benefits the chance to learn a skill and the chance to move forward and get a steady income coming into their house. Let us suppose that by taking part in such programmes young fathers secured a weekly addition of £5 or £10 to the mother’s benefit, without affecting her other entitlements. What a change that might be able to bring about: it would give young fathers not only skill and experience, but self-worth and the chance to demonstrate their sense of responsibility to their child.

Alternatively, a community programme pilot could provide waged positions with training and support and an automatic contribution to the mother as a maintenance payment. I hope very much that the CMEC will be allowed to let its imagination run into policy areas and to provide some of these new ideas that will begin to unite some of the families that we are talking about, and that that will allow those young children to have a mother and father in the same household. What more does the Minister feel can be done to incentivise young fathers to combine education with part-time work and maintaining the fullest possible involvement with their children?

Next Section Index Home Page