Modern Slavery Bill

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Jim Cunningham

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

I understand what the Minister is saying, but let me explain why I think the Government’s approach is problematic. The Government’s amendments would mean that a domestic worker will have to take the risk of presenting to the authorities to gain the determination of being a victim of trafficking. The domestic worker would have to do so without legal advice, as legal aid would be granted only once referral is made. Secondly, they provide for no immigration enforcement action to be taken against domestic workers, should they breach immigration conditions, again only if they are found to be a victim of trafficking or slavery. That will do nothing to allay the genuine fears of domestic workers that, if they put their heads above the parapet to seek assistance, they could face deportation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) has made it very clear how the criminal justice system might treat victims in that situation. Indeed, they would face deportation if they decide they do not wish to go through the NRM, which should be their right. Therefore, far from achieving the desired result the Minister seeks to outline, the amendment risks achieving the absolute opposite: stopping victims coming forward and reducing the chances of prosecutions.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

If my hon. Friend were to consider, for example, normal industrial relations, it takes a lot for somebody—an individual who is an ordinary citizen of this country—to come forward and make a complaint about an employer. It must be 10 times worse for somebody whose immigration conditions are tied to an employer to come forward. The Minister may understand that point, but she is not addressing it adequately.

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend makes the point very powerfully: there is enormous pressure on victims not to come forward. The Government’s position is indicative of their whole approach. It puts the responsibility on victims to come forward to secure prosecutions to end trafficking. Unlike Lords amendment 72, which places the emphasis on how best to protect victims, the Government are instead trying, with their amendments, to refocus on the need for victims to do the authorities’ work for them. It almost suggests the victims are guilty of something if they do not want to take this enormous risk. The Minister is shaking her head, but the Government’s approach does not take account of why victims are scared to come forward, nor does it recognise that trafficked people are frequently trapped in a trafficking situation because of a fear—real or perceived—of authorities. Traffickers prey on that fear to hold victims in exploitative situations.

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Jim Cunningham

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), whose very thoughtful and incisive speech drew on both her own rich experience and the Select Committee’s excellent report.

In the September recess each year, I organise a series of consultation meetings across my constituency. The one I enjoy most is that with young people. It is organised with a range of youth groups, such as Members of the Youth Parliament, and brings together a good number of young people aged from 18 to their early 20s. It is really sparky and lively, and they pull no punches in raising issues. When I ask them what are the top priorities that I, as their Member of Parliament, ought to take up on their behalf, it has been very striking just how high mental provision has come in the past couple of years. That would not have been the case when I was young.

The fact that young people themselves put such a high priority on mental health as an issue should send us a very clear warning signal. That does not only apply in Sheffield. Following ballots of tens of thousands of young people across the country, the Youth Parliament has made mental health one of its two priority campaigns this year. If it is so important for young people and they are pressing us on the issue, we should be deeply concerned.

In advance of today’s debate, I have been in contact with three of the groups I work with in Sheffield: CHILYPEP —the Children and Young People’s Empowerment Project; Young Healthwatch; and STAMP—Support, Think, Act, Motivate, Participate—which is a group of 14 to 25-year-olds who have come together with the specific objective of improving mental health support for other young people. They are concerned about the current state of provision, or what they would describe as the lack of provision, and they fear for the future and the impact of cuts on an already desperately inadequate service.

The groups have identified three key problems. The first is that reductions in funding are taking place at a time of increasing need. The second, which very much echoes the points made by the hon. Lady and the report, is about the lack of early intervention. The STAMP young people’s manifesto states:

“Act now, tomorrow could be too late!”

That indicates the severity of what we are talking about. The third is that young people are abandoned at 16.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

On the issue of resources, budget cuts have been inflicted on local authorities, such as Coventry. Some of them have had to find about £3 million or £4 million, which is an extra burden. The Government hope that local authorities can somehow resolve that situation, and then they wonder why they have problems with young people.

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Such a matter is close to my heart in Sheffield, where funding from central Government will halve over the lifetime of this Parliament. That is putting an enormous strain on all the related services and support for young people that can play a broader role in alleviating some of the difficulties. In Sheffield, we are very conscious that our position is in sharp contrast to that in wealthier parts of the country.

The first point is about cuts at a time of increasing need. We know that budget cuts to front-line services are difficult and can be devastating at any time, but cuts to child and adolescent mental health services are being made at a time of increasing need. From 2011-12 to 2013-14, Sheffield CAMHS saw a 36% increase in referrals, and a 57% increase in initial appointments. If we are serious about reducing stigma, talking openly about mental health problems—we have made enormous advances in doing that—and having parity of esteem, we should welcome those referrals. However, that demand comes against the background of what has effectively been a 4% budget cut, disguised as a requirement to drive efficiency savings. That has had severe consequences for the level of support that young people are receiving. There has been a stark increase in waiting times.