Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Buckland and Gregory Campbell

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman refers to miscarriages of justice. The prison system is there to deal with the prisoners in front of it, whatever might have happened with the case or proceedings they were involved with. However, he is absolutely right to talk about the need for housing. I am particularly interested in the £6.4 million initiative from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is working with Bristol, Leeds and Pentonville prisons to support released prisoners into accommodation. I am sad to say that there is a correlation between the lack of secure accommodation and the return to offending.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the Minister acknowledge that this sort of practice has been going on for some years in prisons such as Magilligan Prison in my constituency and that it is replicated in other prisons? Does he agree that the practice should be shared right across the United Kingdom and that it will, we hope, lead to a reduction in reoffending rates?

[Robert Buckland]

I am interested to hear the example that the right hon. Gentleman gives in the Northern Irish prison that he represents. The through-the-gate service, which deals with employment, housing and benefit support, is crucial if we are to reduce reoffending, and the Government are investing an extra £22 million a year in prisons in England and Wales. I am working actively with my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to improve early access to universal credit.

Northern Ireland Backstop

Debate between Robert Buckland and Gregory Campbell

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Will the Solicitor General tell us whether the Government have made it clear to the European Union in negotiations that its insistence on the backstop will prove the most expensive financial and political wrongdoing of the past 60 years? There cannot be a hard border because of the complexity of the border on the island of Ireland.

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Gentleman, with his deep knowledge of the border, speaks absolute truth when he talks about its complexity. May I assure him that this Government are dedicated to making sure that the backstop is fully understood and that we understand the importance of making sure that this House can coalesce around a deal that will be acceptable? I think that that is now very much understood in the corridors of Brussels.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Buckland and Gregory Campbell

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

With regard to the specifics, that matter needs to be considered carefully, and I will take that away with me. However, on the general principles laid out in that report, there is no doubt whatever that this Government remain fully committed to making sure that FGM is properly explained, properly challenged and properly dealt with, whether that is by prosecution, awareness in the community or other preventive measures.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

What steps are the Government taking to ensure that, in communities where, on occasions, a blind eye is turned to this obscenity, people understand that the law will be upheld and that the 130,000-odd young females who are affected will be protected in future, as this will affect others?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Gentleman is right to reiterate that community engagement and community involvement will be key in making more progress on this area. I am glad to see that, certainly in England, the Department for Education has £2.25 million of funding to invest in awareness of and education about this issue, and I think that will also have a beneficial effect.

Speech, Language and Communication Education

Debate between Robert Buckland and Gregory Campbell

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Buckland]

I entirely agree; indeed, I would go further. In Swindon, we are training staff in early years settings and children’s centres. We are training our health visitors in the skill of early identification and in the support strategies that can be put in place there and then. Despite the fact that Swindon’s child population is rapidly increasing—our population generally is increasing, and we expect it to grow from 209,000 last year to 240,000 in the next 15 years—the need for specialist referrals is staying stable. That is clearly important, because we are saving valuable resources by putting in early support to prevent issues from becoming acute and prevent the need for more specialist referrals. That is good for the child, good for the family and good for the provision of local services, at a time when resources are increasingly tight.

In that context, I am glad to commend my local authority for being flexible about the use of health and education funding, so that there is a link speech and language therapist in each mainstream school—in other words, the artificial division between sources of funding for health and education has been broken down, there is proper joint commissioning and people are intermeshed, rather than just working side by side. For example, speech and language therapists have been TUPE-ed over to the local authority, and there is a genuine coming together of services around the child. That must increasingly be the way forward for local authorities.

Let me deal briefly with the Children and Families Bill. In recent weeks and months, we have had much debate about it—I see that the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), the shadow spokesperson, is in her place, and she joined in much of that debate in Committee and on Report last week—so I do not want to go over old ground. However, from the point of view of speech and language communication, it is important to deal with some of the concerns that remain, despite the general welcome for the Bill, and the warm welcome for the approach taken throughout Bill proceedings by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who has responsibility for children and families, and for his engagement with the sector, as well as with families, children and young people who have an interest in, and passion for, this issue.

We have talked about early identification not only at pre-school level, but at the first opportunity, when the problem is identified. There are still concerns about how the Bill will ensure that the identification mechanisms will work across all phases of education. There needs to be clearer guidance across health, education and social care about how speech, language and communication needs are identified. Paragraph 11(a) of schedule 1 in the draft regulations in the indicative code of practice makes it clear that local offers must set out what speech and language therapy provision is available. That is welcome, but it would be helpful to have further clarity about how the draft regulations would ensure that those responsible for the quality and delivery of services can be held to account. The Minister has indicated that those are draft regulations and that there will be a full consultation later in the year, but today is a golden opportunity to highlight some of the work that needs to be done.

I have made the point many times to the Minister that it would be helpful to have a common framework in which local authorities could be guided to construct their offer. That would help us to have a consistency of approach to speech and language therapy. I am not asking for uniformity, but simply for a common framework within which local authorities can be guided towards best practice.

I welcome the Minister’s comments that children and young people with SEN who would not be eligible for a full education, health and care plan will continue to be tracked under the new framework, but further reassurances as to how that will function in practice would be welcome. We must avoid any compromise over the identification of the need. The imposition of a duty on health providers, which was the subject of an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Minister, was good news. That clearly reinforces the existing commitment in the Bill to impose a duty jointly to commission services. We had a long argument about the phrase “wholly or mainly”, and my hon. Friend the Minister is familiar with the issue. Until now, speech, language and communication needs have been identified as educational needs, and we hope that that will remain the case, and that it will be clear.

I welcome the declaration that communication and interaction are a primary need, in the draft code of practice, but there are concerns that the role of schools in SEN provision remains at the edge of the Bill; there is not a huge amount of detail about what responsibilities schools will have. That is important, bearing in mind the welcome move to the creation of academies and free schools, and the unintended consequence that that may have on long-term provision of speech and language therapy services locally. There is a tension, is there not, between the need to employ therapists on a medium or long-term basis and the short-term spending priorities of schools that must spend to budgets? Some further clarity about how academies can work collaboratively to commission services would be extremely helpful. It would regrettable if, through the welcome and admirable ethos of the new academy structure, we lost some of the long and medium-term thinking that is necessary in the commissioning of services from speech and language therapists.

My hon. Friend the Minister will, I know, update us on progress as much as he can, but I want to mention a couple of issues that I hope he will deal with. Early identification is the key to improving educational outcomes for children and young people with speech, language and communication needs, so will the Government introduce clear guidance to all health, education and social care providers on identifying those needs, to ensure that the needs of those we are dealing with—10% of the cohort—are met?

The creation of childminder agencies comes under part 4 of the Bill, but is relevant to the debate. I would welcome some clarity about how children with speech, language and communication needs will be identified and receive the support they need—particularly with respect to early years non-maintained settings.

Training has come up in some interventions, and I have already made a realistic acknowledgement of the limitations of resources. It is clear that staff knowledge of speech, language and communication needs is crucial for parents and young people with those issues. Currently, the universal work force has limited knowledge of speech, language and communication issues, and low confidence in identifying and supporting children with those difficulties—particularly hidden difficulties. However, historically, staff knowledge of speech, language and communication needs has been worryingly low.

That was demonstrated by research undertaken by Ofsted on the skills and knowledge of qualifying teachers, which identified that fewer than half had good or better skills, and concluded that

“not enough new teachers had consistent high-quality training during initial teacher education and induction to ensure that they developed good teaching skills, underpinned by a deep understanding of language development and the acquisition of literacy skills.”

Additionally, the research showed that 32%

“did not have sufficiently in-depth training in assessing pupils’ skills and knowledge in language and literacy to be able to use their judgements effectively”

for the planning of lessons and the provision of extra help. Evidence also shows that many early years staff feel inadequately equipped to help children with language delay, with more than 60% of teachers reporting that they lacked confidence in their ability to meet children’s language needs. Those are 2012 figures, so they are relevant and important. I should be grateful for further clarity about how teachers’ knowledge of speech, language and communication needs, and that of the wider education work force, is developing.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I join in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on obtaining the debate. Does he agree that UK devolution presents a double-edged sword when it comes to these difficult issues, in that the devolved institutions and the Westminster Parliament progress at varying speeds, but that we could benefit from best practice in the communication and cross-fertilisation of ideas and projects across the United Kingdom? That could only enhance the way we deal with the issues.

[Mr Buckland]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and hope that the work of the communication council will include consideration of the devolved nations, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

I want briefly to consider low-incidence, high-cost specialist need, and approaches that can help with communications. One such approach is augmentative and alternative communication. It is estimated that about 0.5% of the population may need that approach at some point in their lives: that is about 260,000 children and adults. In addition, it is estimated that 0.05% of the population need access to regional specialised augmentative and alternative communication services, and communication aids. I am talking about the sort of technology that you may have seen, Mr Dobbin, when meeting speech and language therapists. It would include iPads, and apps developed to assist with communication. I have had a go at some of them; they are incredible, and, frankly, rather fun to use, to begin with. They are a great tool for young people, who are extremely adept at using the touch technology that is now available. The technology is evolving all the time, of course, and the problem for local commissioners is that often they make expensive decisions that quickly become obsolete. We must address that, and I would welcome support for local health and wellbeing boards to deal with such problems.

Disability Hate Crime

Debate between Robert Buckland and Gregory Campbell

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is an honour and a pleasure to take part in this debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and congratulate her on securing it. I was present in the main Chamber when she managed to secure the important concession from the Lord Chancellor on schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. I pay tribute to her and to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for their work. They will be glad to know that, as well as the Members present, those in another place, particularly Lord Touhig, have played a key part in changing the Government’s mind. We met the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), only some 10 days prior to that concession, to press the case on schedule 21, and I am delighted that the Government have moved so swiftly to regularise the position.

That, of course, gives rise to the question: why not move in other areas? Why not regularise the law so that disability hate crime is treated in the same way as an aggravated offence, as is the case with race or religion? That would require an amendment to primary legislation, and yes, I know it would be a big step, but it would be an important one. If we are making concessions elsewhere, we should regularise the law in that area as well. We treat equalities as a single concept now and we have an Equality and Human Rights Commission.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Surely moving beyond schedule 21 means that, as a society, we should ensure that we do not seem to treat disabled people as a people apart, almost saying that different attitudes, legislation and approaches are required for them. The more we treat disabled people like those of us who are not disabled, the more likely society as a whole is to follow that example and move away from treating them as almost subnormal or abnormal.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for dealing with a point that I was about to address and that has been alluded to by other Members. The focus needs to be shifted away from always analysing a case’s evidence by looking at the victim, and towards the wrongdoing and what the offender has done. That welcome shift of emphasis was displayed in guidance issued by the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecutors in England and Wales in March 2010. It is similar to the shift in focus that occurred some years ago in relation to domestic violence. People used to ask of the victim, “Why did she stay with him?”, instead of focusing on the behaviour of the perpetrator, which, I am glad to say, is what is now happening in cases of domestic abuse. The same must happen in relation to disability.

The danger we face in focusing on the victim and their behaviour is that in assuming that all disabled people are vulnerable just because of their disability, we start asking dangerous questions, such as, “Why don’t they avoid these situations? Why do disabled people put themselves in that position in the first place?” By asking those dangerous questions, we are at risk of driving disabled people back into their homes and into institutions, and away from mainstream society. That is wrong and I hope that today’s debate will give a clear message to the Government that we must avoid it. We are in danger of being as bad as the people in ages past who used to apply the dunce’s cap to disabled people in the classroom.

Such attitudes lead to other dangerous assumptions, such as that of some involved in the criminal justice system that disabled people are somehow unreliable or incredible witnesses, simply because of their disability. That is another dangerous and fatal assumption, which, I am afraid, has played far too great a part in the criminal justice system and has prejudiced and stopped cases involving disabled people. It has ended in miscarriages of justice involving disabled people.

I have mentioned the guidance, which was welcome. It followed a speech made by Lord Macdonald when he was Director of Public Prosecutions, which I think helped to clarify the CPS’s position and its understanding of disability. I welcomed his comments about the concept of hate. We have to be careful when using the word “hate”; we must make clear what it covers. The danger with the word is that hate is an extreme concept, so we think that there cannot be many people in our society capable of it. The definition, however, is a wider one, and includes hostility or prejudice. What does that mean? There are other words for hostility, such as unfriendliness, antagonism, meanness and sheer ignorance. That is particularly important when we consider that many acts are perpetrated over a long period. We have heard about many sad cases, both today and elsewhere, that involve the victims of a crime finally suffering the last straw that broke the camel’s back. It is important to remember that “hate” has a wide definition and involves a whole section of attitudes that I believe are bred from ignorance and sheer lack of understanding of the needs of disabled people. That leads to offences that take place on many levels; low-level offences can cause so much misery to the lives of disabled people.

We have been rightly reminded of the provisions of section 146 of the 2003 Act. To be fair to the drafters of that welcome provision, it says that the court “must” treat the fact that the offence was committed in an aggravating way when the offender, immediately at the time of the offence, or before or after it, demonstrated hostility based on the disability or presumed disability of the victim. The provisions are there; they are mandatory. The problem is with the previous stage, because there must be evidence of hostility beforehand, which is where the work of prosecutors becomes extremely important.

The guidelines include a welcome set of considerations that all prosecutors should consider when reviewing cases involving disability. They are the sort of factors that we have discussed today, such as previous incidents involving the victim and the offender. Are the incidents escalating in severity or frequency? Is the targeting becoming systematic and regular, rather than opportunistic offending? On the status of the offender, we have heard about so-called “friends” who befriend people and then manipulate the circumstances. A lot of proper questions are being asked in the guidelines. The key now is to ensure that in every case, those considerations are applied, looked at and checked in each case file.

Key actions could be taken now to help both prosecutors and sentencers. For example, section 146 should be flagged up as a consideration in every case file, so that when prosecutors assess and prepare the evidence, any sentencer is aware of it. In open court, the prosecuting solicitor or barrister should remind the court of their powers under section 146. Such nuts-and-bolts practical measures could see the sort of increase in the use of section 146 that was rightly referred to by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), and which we all want to happen.

Court practitioners and judges need more training on disability issues, most notably the use of section 146. The key point that I found, depressingly, time and time again is that the equation between disability and reliability has to be broken. We have to break that link in the hearts and minds of those involved in the system.