Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery

Sarah Dines Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

I shall do my best. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for securing this debate. As he made abundantly clear, he has a long-standing interest in this issue and has done a lot of work on it over the past decade. I welcome this opportunity to respond, and I will address as many of the points that he and others made as I can in this reduced time.

First and foremost, I want to express my total disgust at cases of modern slavery and human trafficking. The Government are steadfast in our determination to prevent these heinous crimes from happening, to support genuine victims and to bring perpetrators to justice. This is an ever-evolving threat, and our policy levers need to keep pace with changing trends.

I pay tribute to the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and the former Member of this House, Anthony Steen. I second the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, who thanked my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead for all her work on the landmark Modern Slavery Act, and Anthony Steen, who was one of the early advocates in this field and is now the chair of the Human Trafficking Foundation. I thank them and all others who have contributed to our efforts in this space.

The former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), worked very hard on this issue for three and a half years. I recall that in one of the first meetings I had with her when I was a new MP, she talked about upstream work and about looking internationally. Her work in this field required foresight and effort. We must not forget to thank those who have worked hard on this issue.

I was going to outline in detail the difference between human trafficking and people smuggling, but I do not need to because my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough did that most eloquently—I will save half a minute by skipping over that page. Instead, I will talk about the progress that has been made on prosecutions. Many Members have emphasised the need to increase prosecutions. It is shocking that there were only 188 live operations in 2016, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham will recall. That rose to 3,724 live investigations in February 2023. The Government have made real progress, and we continue to be committed to improving the criminal justice response to modern slavery and to ensuring that law enforcement has the right tools and capability to identify victims and tackle offenders.

Prosecutions have increased since the MSA came into force, other than in 2020 when there was a decrease due to courts closing during the covid pandemic. In 2021, the Government prosecuted 466 individuals for modern slavery crimes, with a conviction rate of more than 70%. Those with an interest in criminal justice will know that that is high. The Government have granted more than £1.3 million of funding to the Modern Slavery and Organised Immigration Crime unit, which operates out of Devon and Cornwall police, and have supported the development of national infrastructure to bring consistency across forces. There has also been a significant increase in activity since the Modern Slavery Act came into force, leading to better identification, information and evidence, and an increase in live investigations, prosecutions and, importantly, convictions.

Notwithstanding that success, there is a great deal more to do. The Government recognise that there are still challenges in the criminal justice system, which is why we are continuing to do more with law enforcement generally and the Crown Prosecution Service, including identifying ways of supporting victims to engage with prosecutions to help bring the exploiter to justice.

In addition, the Human Trafficking Foundation’s lived experience advisory panel will work with the Modern Slavery and Organised Immigration Crime unit. I hope that this collaboration will help to enhance guidance and ensure that the police take account of victim and survivor experience. I am grateful to Justice and Care for its work in this field, and to the victim navigators. We welcome their use by law enforcement agencies across the UK.

It is hoped and expected, through intense preparation, that the Online Safety Bill will assist in this area. The Government will add section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act to the list of priority offences in the Bill. That section makes it an offence to arrange or facilitate the travel of another person, including through recruitment, with a view to their exploitation.

Right hon. and hon. Members said that sentencing needs to be looked at and raised concerns about the low level of sentences handed down by courts relative to other offences. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 gives law enforcement agencies the tools to tackle modern slavery, including a maximum life sentence for perpetrators and enhanced protection for victims, and following consultation in August 2021, the Sentencing Council published new sentencing guidelines for those convicted of modern slavery in England and Wales, but further progress is needed. Judges and magistrates now have clear dedicated guidelines when sentencing adult offenders who are guilty of offences under the 2015 Act, including slavery, servitude, forced or compulsory labour and trafficking for the purposes of exploitation. The new guidelines came into effect in October 2021 and aim to promote consistency of approach, improve the general area and help the courts to pass appropriate sentences when dealing with modern slavery offences.

[Sarah Champion]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miss Dines]

I will make a little progress. I will mention at this point that I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Champion—[Interruption.] Sorry, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—I will be reminded about that later by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford). The hon. Lady has done some hard work on this subject, and I took a clear note of what she said. I will give way to her briefly, but there really is not much time.

[Sarah Champion]

The focus on sentencing is very welcome, but is the Minister also focusing on the pull factor? Women coming over tend to be sexually exploited, and men are going into, for example, cannabis farms. If we could be tougher and put legislation around the pull factor, rather than just dealing with the outcomes, that would be really helpful in preventing this awful crime.

[Miss Dines]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is exactly about the pull factor, and not necessarily just because of gender-specific professions or exploitation, such as cannabis farms or the sexual arena. We must be careful about the pull factor; when he was giving evidence yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the pull factor is a big factor and we must be careful. When concerns are expressed about changing the present regime, as has been elucidated over the past two days in the main Chamber, we must be cautious because, as the Prime Minister said, we do not want to create a pull factor, whether it is for children or a particular class or group of individuals who may be running the criminal activities or being exploited in the way that the hon. Lady said. That is really important.

I know that cuckooing is close to the hearts of several Members who have spoken today, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). The Government fully recognise the exploitation and degradation associated with that pernicious practice and are determined to tackle it. The Home Office-funded National County Lines Co-ordination Centre has identified all national law enforcement initiatives designed to tackle cuckooing, and the Government are actively considering whether new legislation is needed. It is an important item under consideration, because it is a most dreadful crime. We really need to protect the most vulnerable in our society. The Government’s recently issued antisocial behaviour action plan will engage stakeholders, and I am hopeful that there will be a new criminal offence in this area.

I know that hon. Members also feel keenly about victim support. The United Kingdom continues to meet its obligations to support victims of modern slavery as a signatory of the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, or ECAT. The support given by this Government is unparalleled, and indeed a world leader, valued at over £300 million over a five-year period. As we all know, the Home Office funds the modern slavery victim care contract, which supports victims in England and Wales to give them access to vital support they need to assist with their recovery. That includes, as has been mentioned today, access to safehouse accommodation, financial support and a dedicated support worker.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the national referral mechanism effectively supports both victims to recover and the prosecution of their exploiters. Statistics show that the better someone is supported, the more likely they are to give evidence and bring their exploiter to justice through the Crown. We made it clear in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022—as a former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham, is keenly aware of this—that where a public authority, such as the police, is pursuing an investigation or criminal proceedings, confirmed victims who co-operate and need to remain in the UK in order to do so will be granted temporary permission to stay for as long as they are required to be in the UK to support the investigation.

I will turn briefly—I have only three minutes left—to child victims. Concern has been voiced that adults get better care, and there appears to be some evidence of that and of care being patchy across the country. That must be addressed by local authorities, other stakeholders and mental health services. As the safeguarding Minister, I am concerned if young people are less effectively protected when they are in the care of the state. Sometimes children are less protected than adults and that cannot be allowed to continue. The Government are working very hard and other options are being considered.

The Government have, to their credit, rolled out independent child trafficking guardians to two thirds of local authorities in England and Wales, but more needs to be done. Those guardians are an effective and additional source of advice for trafficked children, and they can advocate on the children’s behalf. We know from the debate that that approach has been successful. A staggered approach to roll-out has been adopted, with robust built-in evaluations along the way to make sure the service meets the demands of vulnerable children. That must evolve to do better.

We will continue to review how the needs of individual children are best met through the programme. We must not allow children to be taken away from a place of safety—a children’s home or a foster placement—to be abused and then brought back in. That simply cannot be tolerated. Local authorities must work harder and in close co-operation with the police. Across the country, there must be no area—ethnic or geographical—where standards are not good. We will work harder to protect child victims.

In the debate, right hon. and hon. Members said clearly that a commissioner must be appointed. The Home Secretary recognises the importance of the role of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and has launched a new open competition to recruit for the role. The advert for the role went live last month and the advertising has just concluded. The process is going as quickly as possible. It is hoped that all necessary steps will be taken in a short period and that the best person for the role will be recruited. There will be news very soon. The position has improved from a few months ago when there was not even a competition. I can reassure the House that there is movement in that area.

In our modern slavery strategy, we are still regarded as a world leader. The Illegal Migration Bill is essential to make sure that our borders are properly protected and that criminal gangs do not bring people into exploitation. There is a need for reform. I need to wind up, so I cannot say as much as I wanted to, but I will say that there will be protection, and vulnerable people will not be removed unless the disqualifications under the Nationality and Borders Act apply. I am able to commit to a meeting, as hon. Members asked.

The points raised by my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) were addressed in yesterday’s debate by the Minister for Immigration, who stated that there is evidence that, unfortunately, the Modern Slavery Act has enabled some false applications. The 3,500 referrals envisaged on the passing of the Act have risen to 17,000 referrals and there is evidence of abuse of the system. In 2021, 73% of people who arrived on small boats and were detained for removal made modern slavery claims, so more needs to be done, but I can commit to ensure that genuine victims are discussed in a meeting with the Immigration Minister and interested parties.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Peter Bone has less than one minute to wind up.

Strip Searching of Children

Sarah Dines Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the strip searching of children.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for this important question. I also offer my thanks to the Children’s Commissioner for her report: it raises a number of concerns, which we take extremely seriously. The Government are, of course, considering the findings fully, and we expect the police to do so too. This is an important and emotive topic and, as with all areas of policing, it is right that we shine a light on practices and policies to understand where improvements can be made—and they invariably can.

Strip search is one of the most intrusive powers available to the police. No one should be strip searched on the basis of their race or ethnicity. Any use of strip search should be carried out in accordance with the law and with full regard for the welfare and dignity of the individual who is being searched, particularly if that individual is a child. If police judge it operationally necessary to strip search a child, they must do so in the presence of the child’s appropriate adult unless there is an urgent risk of serious harm or the child specifically requests otherwise and the appropriate adult agrees.

As the House is aware, it is the role of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to investigate serious matters involving the police. As one would expect, the IOPC is currently investigating cases of children being strip searched, including the case of Child Q. As part of those investigations, it will review existing legislation, guidance and policies. It is therefore only right that we await the IOPC’s findings in relation to Child Q so that any resulting actions and lessons can be applied with joined-up thinking across the law enforcement system.

It is for the police to perform their critical functions effectively. However, for them to do so, public confidence is vital. Our model of policing, as we all agree, depends on that consent. That is why we have made it a priority to ensure that forces meet the highest possible standards. Where improvements are needed, I will be unapologetic, as will the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, in demanding that changes are made.

[Munira Wilson]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I am disappointed not to see either the Home Secretary or the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire responding to it.

The report published by the Children’s Commissioner yesterday is truly shocking. Children as young as eight have been strip searched, more than half of searches took place without an appropriate adult present, and 1% of strip searches were conducted within public view. Last year, I questioned Ministers about the Child Q scandal, in which a 15-year-old girl was strip searched at school, while on her period, without an appropriate adult present. The then Minister for Crime and Policing, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), said that if there was “a systemic problem”, the Government would

“act on it accordingly.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 29.]

This report makes it crystal clear that we do have a systemic problem. It is clear that nothing has changed since Child Q. One teenager told the commissioner that

“every time I’ve been strip searched, it very much feels like a tactic used on purpose to humiliate me.”

No child should be profiled for a strip search because of their ethnicity. No child should be strip searched in view of the public. No child should be strip searched without an appropriate adult present.

The Government say that the IOPC is investigating and that we must await its findings. I say to the Minister that we have enough evidence already, so I ask her the following questions. Will she write to all chief constables to make clear the importance of adhering to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codes of practice? Will she implement the commissioner’s recommendations to amend codes A and C so that an appropriate adult is always present, save in the most exceptional circumstances? Will the Government explicitly rule out performing strip searches in schools?

The guidance is not being followed routinely around the country. We need immediate action before another child is strip searched in such humiliating, traumatising circumstances again. No child can afford to wait.

[Miss Dines]

I thank the hon. Lady for her submissions. It is important to note that while very occasionally a child as young as eight has been strip searched—[Interruption.] May I just clarify this? It is important to note that 95% of searches carried out are of males and 75% are of 16 to 17-year-olds, and that something illegal is found in about half the cases.

On the request for the Home Secretary to write to all chief constables about the possible upgrading or reconsideration of Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes A and C, that is being considered very seriously. Strip searches in schools will also be considered seriously. The report was received only very recently, but it is being looked at very earnestly and quickly. Three of its recommendations appertain directly to the Home Office, and they too are being looked at very seriously.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I am pleased to hear that the Minister is taking the report as seriously as she obviously is. It is clear that police forces need to do significant work in respect of the alarming levels of non-compliance with existing guidelines on strip searches. However, the Minister will be aware that there is no boundary to the evil that these gangs will perpetrate, and that if we create no-go areas or particular demographics where the police are restricted in some way in their searches, we immediately expose those demographics to exploitation by gangs. She will know that, for example, one of the reasons why county line gangs use teenagers so much is that the police cannot recruit them as informants. As a result, they are seen as easily exploitable by those gangs. While the Minister does her work to ensure that when strip searches are performed on minors that is done within the guidelines, will she ensure that she does not unwittingly expose very young children, in particular, to even more exploitation than they are currently exposed to?

[Miss Dines]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. There are serious and important safeguarding reasons behind this, which is why it is important that the PACE codes are adhered to. Young people are often exploited by criminal gangs who recruit them to transport drugs in intimate body cavities, and we need to identify and stop that. It is shocking that about half the children who are searched have such illegal substances on them, often because of those criminal gangs. Stopping that will require a mixture of policing and safeguarding, and we need to get the balance right. Like my right hon. Friend, I am very keen to ensure that the police are doing what they should be doing, because no one wants them to go beyond what is unlawful.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

We all accept that in certain extreme circumstances it will be necessary to search children, and this discussion does not question that. The findings of the Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, on the strip search of children are shocking, and I pay tribute to her. One child who was strip searched aged 13 is quoted as saying:

“They told me to get naked. They told me to bend over… I think there were about three officers present. So, I’ve got three fully grown blokes staring at my bollocks”.

I repeat that that child was 13.

Let us be clear about what the law allows a strip search to entail. The report states that

“searching officers may make physical contact with…orifices. Searching officers can physically manipulate intimate body parts, including the penis or buttocks”.

That is very intrusive. However, Dame Rachel found that 53% of searches of children did not include an appropriate adult, in 45% of cases the venue was not even recorded, 2% of searches took place in a public or commercial setting, and 1% took place in public view. The report also identified very high levels of disproportionality, with black children up to six times more likely to be strip searched. This is not just a problem with the Met; other forces conducted proportionally more strip searches of children.

Child Q was strip searched in December 2020, and a report on the search was published in March 2022. That was a year ago. I stood in the House and told the then Minister that the guidance in the authorised professional practice of the College of Policing on strip searching children and Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes A and C were not clear enough, but nothing has been done. Dame Rachel has said exactly the same in her report one year on. Why did the Government not act a year ago? Why have we allowed hundreds more children to be strip searched without proper protection? Yet again, the Conservatives’ hands-off approach is under-mining confidence in policing and the safeguarding of our young people.

I appreciate that this report is new and that the Minister is new and she will take some time to consider the recommendations, but the fundamental review of PACE called for by the Children’s Commissioner is in the Minister’s gift and we have been calling for it for a year. Will the Minister commit to it today? If not, will she at least give us a timescale on when she will come back with how she plans to act?

I hope the Minister will condemn the response of the Government Minister in the other place yesterday in a debate on the same subject, who simply said:

“I assume that they have very good reasons to do this; otherwise, they would not conduct these searches.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 March 2023; Vol. 829, c. 17.]

That complacency and that optimism bias fly in the face of Dame Rachel’s findings. Does the Minister accept that there is any problem at all? We need to see change, and the Minister can make it now.

[Miss Dines]

The Government and I very much welcome this report. There is, of course, opportunity for change and improvement, and we must do better for our children, but I do not accept the general proposition that the Government are doing nothing, as the hon. Lady suggests. That is simply not the case.

There has been ground-leading engagement recently. Since the case of Child Q came to light, the Home Office has engaged widely with stakeholders including the National Police Chiefs’ Council, custody leads and stop and search leads. The College of Policing is making improvements. His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, the Police Federation, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and wider civil society organisations have been engaged by the police. There is movement in this space. Members on this side of the House take it very seriously. We want to safeguard our children from the criminal gangs.

The hon. Lady mentioned PACE. We are committed to looking at that. One of the core recommendations that bites against the Home Office is for the proper reconsideration of PACE to see if it is appropriate, and that will be done. I give a commitment to consider that recommendation carefully.

In relation to data, we have moved significantly in the last three years in that regard. We have increased our custody data collection to allow people who are looking at this to have more cognisance of the research that can be done to improve things, for example by knowing more information about the age, ethnicity or gender of somebody who is to be searched. This information is crucial. We cannot just jump to conclusions; this needs to be evidence-based. I am pleased that the Government are working on data.

This Government believe in scrutiny. As we set out in the “Inclusive Britain” report, the Government and policing partners will create a new national framework for how our police powers, such as stop and search, are scrutinised at local level. There are also protective measures to protect children and sometimes, it has to be said, to protect police officers. There is an increase in the use of body-worn videos to explore the sharing of body-worn video footage with local scrutiny panels—[Interruption.] Opposition Members seem to find this hilarious, but I think it is really important that local scrutiny bodies are able to see what is happening on the ground. The Home Office is supporting the Ministry of Justice, which is working really hard with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to develop these scrutiny panels so that the use of stop and search can be examined more, with the aim of addressing the difference in the experience of ethnic minority children and adults in police custody. This is really important work.

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

I, too, was worried and concerned about some of the things in the report, but I am pleased that the Home Office is taking steps and taking it incredibly seriously. In my constituency over recent weeks, I have seen an absolute increase in gangs operating, with children being exploited, and it is causing trouble on our high streets. It is essential that Kent police continue to have these powers to stop and search. My constituency and the people in it mean a lot to me, and therefore, despite the moans and groans from the other side of the House, stop and search is an essential tool, as is the ability of police officers to search for weapons and illegal substances. Will the Minister confirm that that will continue, and that we will take the findings of the report seriously?

[Miss Dines]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know she works incredibly hard on this issue in her constituency. There are important reasons why strip search has to be used on some occasions. It is a tool that must be used proportionately, and it has to be in the police’s armoury when dealing with criminal gangs. This is a safeguarding issue, too, and not only a pure policing issue. We need to protect our young people from these criminal gangs, and it is only right that we remember that the police find something in about half of the cases. The police must act lawfully, but we should not stop them using these powers.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Children’s Commissioner has uncovered the shocking absence of a working system of safeguards across multiple police forces. There is no scrutiny by senior police officers to ensure that basic protections for children are being met, and a complete disregard for the potential trauma of strip searching vulnerable children.

Again, just one week after the Casey review, we see that police forces have systemic problems with transparency, scrutiny and non-compliance with the rules. Given that even experienced officers are not following basic safeguards, what will the Minister do to ensure that the huge influx of new, inexperienced officers brought in under the uplift programme—often supervised by sergeants with very limited experience—are properly trained and understand their basic duty to protect and safeguard children?

[Miss Dines]

The right hon. Lady raises an important issue. As I have previously said at the Dispatch Box, the education and training of police officers is vital and more needs to be done. That is why the Government are engaging with the College of Policing to improve education in this regard.

Obviously, there is also local mentoring, but the right hon. Lady is right that better scrutiny is needed, which is why the Government are leading the push for better scrutiny of police forces by local groups. The Government are working hard in this area, and it is about time Opposition Members accepted the force of the Government’s work, some of it groundbreaking, to protect our children and the public from the criminal gangs who exploit children.

[Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)]

We have an outstanding police force in north Lincolnshire, and Humberside Police is widely recognised as the best force in the country. I recognise there is a small, limited set of circumstances in which these searches may be necessary, but we have to find a balance between allowing the police to do their job and protecting children. What can we do to ensure that, from today, any child who finds themselves in a situation in which they are to be strip searched by the police is able, if they wish, to have an appropriate adult present?

[Miss Dines]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Of course, PACE code C says there must be an appropriate adult present unless the specific exceptions I set out earlier are met. The PACE powers are quite onerous, and it is right that, when the state does something so intrusive to a child, or indeed an adult, the PACE code must be adhered to. Where the Children’s Commissioner has found the police wanting, there needs to be improvement, and the Government do not shy away from that. There needs to be proper protection for our children. PACE must be adhered to, and it will be reviewed.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this urgent question. The findings of this report are damning and deeply concerning. The case of Child Q shone a light on this abhorrent practice of the widespread use of strip searches on children as young as eight, with issues around safeguarding, child protection, racial disproportionality and, more importantly, the adultification of young children and the poor quality of data. We know the trauma of this practice will have a long-term effect on children’s mental health, so what are this Government doing to protect and safeguard the mental health of children? Why on earth is the Minister not accepting these recommendations now?

[Miss Dines]

It would be alarming if a Government accepted recommendations within hours of a report; we need there to be proper understanding and consideration. After looking at the three basic recommendations, I am concerned that Opposition Members seek to inflame local policing by emphasising, for example, the strip and search of an eight-year-old, when there have been in excess of 2,500 such strip searches—most of which were of people over the age of 16. It is not right for the Labour party to inflame local policing by misquoting or misrepresenting what is going on. I reiterate that 75% of those searched are 16 or 17, and about half are found with illegal substances or weapons on them.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

The shocking strip search of Child Q happened in 2020 and came to public attention a year ago. It is not acceptable for the Government to hide behind the Independent Office for Police Conduct investigation in order to justify a lack of action on the routine breaching of existing guidance, and it is not acceptable for the Minister to downplay or excuse the routine breaching of existing guidance as she has done today. Sixteen and 17-year-olds are still children. Why has there been such a disgraceful lack of urgency and action on this issue, and when will the Minister be able to guarantee that children will always be treated as children by the police, with the full application of statutory safeguarding duties?

[Miss Dines]

With the greatest of respect, I do not accept that I have downplayed the seriousness of this issue; it is very serious. The Government received the report on Monday. Today is Tuesday. Proper consideration is the basis of good government; there is no need for knee-jerk reactions. The Government are working very hard and will continue to do so. It would be damaging to jump in on the Child Q situation before the IOPC report, as due processes need to be adhered to, but there are concerning warning signs and the Government take the matter very seriously.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

What is the Minister doing to address adultification bias in our police and justice system, by which black children are systematically treated as adults and thus denied the basic protections to which they have a right, as we see in the report? Or will she dismiss it as more woke nonsense in order to hide her Government’s fundamental failure of leadership on this question?

[Miss Dines]

With respect, I have not used the word “wokeification”—[Interruption.] I will be corrected if I have. The adultification of any child, regardless of colour or sex, is not acceptable. That is why we have code C of PACE to protect and safeguard children. It is not right or acceptable that any person—child or adult—is strip searched because of their ethnicity, and adultification is not appropriate. The police should not be making children feel like they are adults. There are rules: there should be an appropriate adult present, and the process should be done in an appropriate way. The police must be called out when they are not doing this properly, but they also need to be able to get on with their job when they are acting lawfully.

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is no wonder that a report by Crest Advisory found that just 36% of black children trust the police, compared to 75% of white children. Black children know full well that they are not receiving fair treatment, and we must be able to hold the police to account for that. When will the Government commit to compelling police forces to report annually on the strip searching of children, including information on ethnicity?

[Miss Dines]

As I mentioned, collecting data is fundamental. Initially, that will be on a voluntary basis, but the Government are working with forces and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to improve data collection in future years. Such information will be part of our annual statistical bulletin. It is important that we have proper evidence and data, so the hon. Lady is right to want that. The Government are committed to improving this provision in discussion with the NPCC.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Minister has made it clear that, if the police are to have these powers, they must be used proportionately and within the guidelines, but it is as obvious as a galloping horse that they are not being used proportionately and they are not being used within the guidelines. The statistics that have been produced with regard to Northern Ireland show that in 2021—whenever we had a period of devolution—there were 27 searches of children, and in only one case was there an appropriate adult accompanying that child. The justice system in Northern Ireland allowed that atrocious set of circumstances to pertain. Between 2021 and 2022, there were 53 searches of children, and only three items were found: in one case, a mobile phone; and in two instances, drugs. The Minister can say, “If you have devolution of these issues in Northern Ireland, it can all be swept under the carpet.” It cannot. This House and the Department are responsible now. What will the Minister do about it?

[Miss Dines]

If the Northern Ireland statistics put forward by the hon. Gentleman are accurate—I am sure they are, as he has done the research—they are shocking and concerning. I am therefore very happy to say that, in the absence of the Assembly, I will speak to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to see what more can be done. These are draconian powers; the police need them in circumstances and in some circumstances they should not be used, but there needs to be a proper balance. I am very happy to undertake to speak to the Secretary of State about this issue.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I try not to get personal—to keep things professional—but my daughter is eight years old. To think that she could have been strip searched and I, her parent, would not have been informed! I think about all the other parents and carers whose children this has happened to, on what seems to be a regular basis.

Following the news about Child Q, I and my two other Lambeth colleagues—my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes)—wrote to our local police, because we found that our borough had the highest rate of multiple searches of intimate parts, or strip searches. This is traumatising for the young people involved.

I would like the Minister to read an important book called “Girlhood Unfiltered” by Ebinehita Iyere, which details the trauma that these young girls are going through and says that, for the young people being subjected to the experience, it is not a new one; this has been going on for many years, and the data and investigation are only highlighting the scale of the problem. Respectfully, when will the Minister and this Government outlaw this abhorrent practice on our young children, and treat them like young children?

[Miss Dines]

Children must be safeguarded, and treated fairly and lawfully, which is why it is important to have a full view of what is happening. It is important to look at the statistics in context. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, a child should not be strip searched without an appropriate adult and without a parent being informed. That is the law and those are the rules, and the police must abide by them. When they do not, they quite rightly must be held to account. Again, when it comes to the statistics, I implore the Opposition to have some perspective: most of those searched are 16 to 17 years old. When they are younger, there needs to be a high level of exceptionality, and when the police get it wrong they must be called out, which is why I take the report very seriously and will be reviewing the three recommendations to the Home Office.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

Serious concerns were raised in the Casey report about the strip searching of children, alongside a damning account of culture in the Met. We know that there are serious issues with culture and behaviour in police forces across the country, so can I ask the Minister why the Government still have not introduced national standards on vetting, misconduct and training within the police?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Dines]

As the hon. Lady knows, the Home Secretary is looking at these issues at pace. It is clear from Baroness Casey’s review and recent cases across England and Wales that such behaviour, including instances of racism, misogyny, homophobia, are completely unacceptable, and I have been clear that standards must improve as a matter of urgency. The hon. Lady is right that policing is built on trust and we need to improve standards. However, I remind the House that the majority of police officers and members of staff are still honest, good and committed and work hard, and they can be let down by police officers who act beyond the law. It is critical that we do not lose the momentum that the Government have pushed forward, so we will be working on this issue in conjunction with the Home Secretary.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I am truly shocked and horrified by the Minister’s tone. This is an absolutely damning report. The Children’s Commissioner is putting children first, when will the Government do so? Finally, does the Minister consider it appropriate that children should be strip searched in the back of a police van? In effect, this is a violation. How does she think that this affects a child, and what will she do about it?

[Miss Dines]

I am disappointed that the hon. Lady does not think that my tone is appropriate. Strip searches are very serious. They have to be lawful and they have to be carried out in the most appropriate way, with the least amount of trauma. There is much research on this, which the Children’s Commissioner has looked at very carefully, and so will the Government. I can give a commitment that the Government will be looking at this very important issue. We have a balance to strike. We have to safeguard children in relation to gangs, because those gangs will abuse them. If there is a strict outlawing of strip searches, which some Opposition Members would like to see, the criminal gangs would have a field day abusing our children. That cannot be right, and we need time to look at these recommendations.

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

As a father of two young children, I am furious. I am horrified by the findings of this report that children as young as eight are being strip searched. I, too, have an eight-year-old child. Many of these children will have been confused, humiliated and scared, and, undoubtedly, this will have a long-lasting impact on them and their trust in the police. The Children’s Commissioner recommends that forces should review all the concerning strip search cases identified in her report and refer them to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Will the Minister confirm that she will accept this recommendation and issue a firm deadline for the forces to comply, and, for goodness’ sake, Mr Speaker, will she accept that 16 and 17-year-olds are still children?

[Miss Dines]

Let me highlight the statistics, which are correct. Seventy five per cent of those strip searched are 16 to 17-year-olds. Yes, they are still children, but I have added that information to show some balance. Very, very few eight-year-olds, with respect, have been strip searched, and that has to be in exceptional circumstances. However, I do take the report very seriously, and there will be a proper consideration of what can be done. There is always room for change. I, too, was concerned to read some of the facts in the report. The work that was done is very much valued, and I welcome it, because any criticism of the police is an opportunity to do better. We on the Conservative Benches are committed to do better rather than to grandstand on the issue of ages. I remind Members that 75% of those strip searched are over the age of 16 and 17. The Opposition must get a sense of proportion. Mistakes have been made. When the police act unlawfully we must step in, but we also need to allow the police to do their job lawfully.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I am not surprised that the Minister is struggling this afternoon as she tries to defend the indefensible. Instead of doing that, can she tell us how she will ensure that children are protected from what could be termed child abuse? Did she really suggest that body cameras could be used during strip searches?

[Miss Dines]

It is child abuse when criminal gangs are allowed to use children to carry weapons and drugs. That is child abuse. As safeguarding Minister, I wish to save each and every one of those children. There will be times when the police have to do their job. As I have said previously, in about half of searches, something is found. There are occasions when the police go beyond their lawful powers, and they need to be called out when they do. The Government will seriously look at the recommendation to review PACE codes C and A, but any change will be based on the evidence, not on a blanket view that this should be outlawed or not. We on the Conservative Benches believe in doing things proportionately and carefully based on the evidence.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I am afraid that, in her response, the Minister has been needlessly partisan. We all want to see children respected by authority. She is right to say that children must be safeguarded and that strip searches, if they are to happen, have to be lawful. There are huge variances across police forces. I asked for the data relating to Greater Manchester police. Between 2018 and 2022, there were 20 strip searches, none of which involved children under the age of 15. Nineteen involved boys and one a girl. In 13 cases, illegal items were found, and seven resulted in arrests. All those happened with appropriate adults present, I am told. But then Rachel de Souza stipulated that the strip searching of children requires robust safeguards, and I agree with her. What does the Minister think needs to be done to ensure that these safeguards are in place in every police force?

[Miss Dines]

Every police force needs to act lawfully. I am pleased to say that there will be consideration of the variances in what should be lawful and good practice. In relation to the 20 strip searches—I am not familiar with the exact number, but I will take the hon. Gentleman at his word—13 resulted in illegal weapons or substances being found. That is, indeed, shocking, and we know that, most likely, criminal gangs will be involved. I refer again to the fact that there is a balance to be struck because it is important: the police need to be able to do their job. They must do it lawfully, but evidence shows that often, sadly, children are being abused by criminal gangs and having these items on them. I note with interest the statistics for Manchester. There will be a proper consideration of exactly what the Children’s Commissioner says about the variance between how police are reacting and performing in different police areas.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Clearly, for all of us in the House, this is a difficult and sensitive issue. All of us are concerned for the young people, and some of us have given personal examples. As Members have said, there seems to be a systemic problem. In Northern Ireland, between 2021 and 2022, there were 53 strip searches, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) mentioned, with only one adult present. I believe that the Minister accepts that changes must be made. What steps will she take to ensure that there is a concerted and agreed policy for this UK-wide problem? Will she liaise with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to implement reforms that apply everywhere, because the Minister in Northern Ireland and her Department also need to be accountable?

[Miss Dines]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I will of course work with the Ministry of Justice, and I am sure that it will also reach out to the Northern Ireland Department of Justice. I, too, will reach out to the Secretary of State to see what can be done. As I said in answer to the question about Manchester, some areas have more concerning statistics, which is why data collection is essential. This Government have moved further than any other Government in collecting data. Data is really important. I am not normally someone who relies to that extent on statistical analysis in isolation, but it is important because it enables us to point a finger at certain police forces that frankly need to do better. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that matter and I can reassure him that I will work together with the Ministry of Justice.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Draft Licensing Act 2003 (Coronation Licensing Hours) Order 2023

Sarah Dines Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Coronation Licensing Hours) Order 2023.

It is an honour to appear before you, Mr Stringer, even if a little untimely, and a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

The draft order will have the effect of extending licensing hours to mark the coronation of His Majesty the King. It is a great privilege to stand in Committee today in my capacity as a Home Office Minister to discuss a piece of legislation that is designed to facilitate a period of joy and celebration for our country. The coronation is an occasion of profound significance. A great many people will, I am sure, want to gather together and to raise a glass to His Majesty the King.

Under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Secretary of State can make an order relaxing licensing hours to mark occasions of exceptional national significance. I am sure that Members across the Committee will agree that the coronation is just such an occasion.

The Home Office conducted a public consultation to seek the views of the public. The majority of responses were in favour of the licensing extension. The responses also agreed with the proposed duration and location, and that the extension should apply only to sales of alcohol for consumption on the premises. The draft order is therefore to extend licensing hours in England and Wales on Friday 5 May, Saturday 6 May and Sunday 7 May until 1 am the following morning.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I have no desire to slow down proceedings and, as I am sure the Committees appreciates, I wholeheartedly support this piece of delegated legislation—in fact, like most Members present, I am sure I will be out celebrating as well—but I have a specific question to ask the Minister. Where a licence has been revoked or suspended, will that suspension remain in place?

[Miss Dines]

That is a technical point to which I shall revert a little later.

The extension will apply to premises, licences and club premises certificates in England and Wales that license the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises only, as mentioned. Such premises will be allowed to remain open without having to notify the licensing authority via a temporary event notice. The draft order covers only sales for consumption on the premises after 11 pm; it does not cover premises that sell alcohol for consumption off the premises, such as off-licences and supermarkets.

Premises that are licensed to provide regulated entertainment will be able to do so until 1 am on the nights covered by the draft order, even where those premises are not licensed to sell alcohol. That includes, for example, venues holding music events or dances, as well as theatres and cinemas.

Premises that supply late-night refreshment—the supply of hot food or drinks to the public between the hours of 11 pm and 5 am—but which do not sell alcohol for consumption on the premises, will not be covered by the draft order. Such premises will only be able to provide late-night refreshment until 1 am if their existing licence already permits it.

To revert to the matter raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, yes, revocations will remain in place and are unaffected by the draft order. I hope that that gives her some comfort for her constituent.

His Majesty the King’s coronation promises to be a joyous and uplifting occasion. A mood of celebration will descend across the country, and it is in that spirit that we seek this extension of licensing hours. I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Dines]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. The Policing Minister is present, and I am sure he can confirm to us that it is the case that all local police forces are working very hard to make sure that the festivities are carried out in an orderly yet joyous way.

As I set out in opening the debate, the King’s coronation promises to be a joyous occasion in which tradition and celebration will be brought together. Therefore, it is only right that we give the people a chance to mark this historic occasion to greet our new King. As I am sure colleagues will agree, the coronation weekend in May will be a great opportunity for families, friends and communities to raise a glass to His Majesty. We must be hopeful that the coronation will also provide a timely boost for the hospitality industry. God save the King!

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Dines Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to improve charge rates for perpetrators of violence against women and girls.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

We are committed to holding perpetrators of violence against women and girls to account, as has been demonstrated by the rape review, the tackling violence against women and girls strategy and the tackling domestic abuse plan, which includes violence against men and boys. To improve the police response, the Home Office is providing £6.65 million to develop the national operating model for rape investigations through Operation Soteria, and has funded domestic abuse training specifically for investigators.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Disabled women are twice as likely to be victims of domestic abuse as non-disabled women. I am currently dealing with the case of a woman who has ended up in hospital as a result of abuse from her partner. She has had no direct contact with the police, no personal statement has been taken, and she feels completely let down. I appreciate that thousands of women go through this, and I also appreciate that Greater Manchester police are doing the very best they can, but what is the Home Secretary doing to ensure that these women have the necessary confidence and trust to feel able to report such abuse to the police?

[Miss Dines]

The confidence of any victim of abuse must be increased, and to that end the Government are spending unprecedented amounts on training not only new but existing police officers in how to deal with victims. Disabled victims are no different from any other victim, and they are entitled to the same number and quality of responses. I should add that police guidance dictates that officers will visit the scene of every reported instance of domestic abuse, the only exception being when it is unsafe for them to do so. The hon. Lady is right to raise this important issue, which we take very seriously.

[Kate Kniveton (Burton) (Con)]

I welcome last week’s announcement by the Government which will lead to tougher sentences for domestic abusers who kill their partners or ex-partners. Can my hon. Friend confirm that this Government will always do everything possible to protect vulnerable women and girls and deliver justice to those who attack or threaten them?

[Miss Dines]

This Government are made up of the party that believes in law and order, and wherever we can, we will continue to review sentences. Strictly speaking, this is a matter for the Ministry of Justice, but I know that the Deputy Prime Minister, and also the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, are thoroughly committed to reviewing this sort of offence.

[Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)]

4. When her Department plans to publish its fraud strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

In 2021, only about 10% of rape allegations were referred by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service. The figure is even lower when we take into account other sexual offending. Has my hon. Friend ever received a satisfactory explanation from the police for such a lamentably poor referral rate?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this really important issue. The nub of the issue is that historically police officers have not developed a new way of dealing with rape in a modern, digital world, among other things. I am pleased to say that the Government are investing extra money in education in this field. For example, the Government are supporting the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing to design and pilot a new rape and other sexual offences investigative skills development programme for police officers, to make sure they know how to deal with victims. Chief Constable Crew, down in Avon and Somerset, is doing similar work.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

In my constituency, I have employers who are struggling to recruit staff living next door to asylum seekers who are not allowed to work. Last week’s Budget talked about boosting employment. Does the Home Secretary agree that lifting the ban on work for asylum seekers would help to boost employment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Indecent exposure and non-contact sexual offending can be gateway offences to very much more serious offending against women and girls, as in the cases of Libby Squire in Hull and of Wayne Couzens, as we heard in his sentencing last week. When are the Government going to act on these early warning signs?

[Miss Dines]

This is a really important issue, and I am grateful that the right hon. Lady has raised it. We all know from new academic research that indecent exposure can lead to far more serious crimes, and it is now the time that the police chiefs and also the College of Policing take it more seriously. Again, with the extra money that we are spending in this field, with education and allowing police officers to know what they are dealing with, I expect a lot more progress to be made in this area.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

We have seen a number of murders recently in Walsall as a result of knife crime, but we have seen no sign of the Labour police and crime commissioner. Does the Minister agree that it is important that the police and crime commissioner visits all part of the west midlands, rather than simply staying in Birmingham?

Director of Labour Market Enforcement Interim Annual Strategy 2022-23

Sarah Dines Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

Alongside my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business (Kevin Hollinrake), I am today publishing the “Labour Market Enforcement Annual Strategy for 2022-23”, submitted by the DLME Margaret Beels OBE. The strategy will be available on gov.uk.

The Director of Labour Market Enforcement’s role was created by the Immigration Act 2016 to bring better focus and strategic co-ordination to the enforcement of labour market legislation by the three enforcement bodies which are responsible for state enforcement of specific employment rights:

The Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate;

His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs National Minimum and Living Wage enforcement team; and

The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.

Under section 2 of the Act, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement is required to prepare an annual labour market enforcement strategy, which assesses the scale and nature of non-compliance in the labour market and sets priorities for future enforcement by the three enforcement bodies and the allocation of resources needed to deliver those priorities. The annual strategy, once approved, is laid before Parliament.

In line with the obligations under the Act, Margaret Beels submitted a labour market enforcement strategy for 2022-23 in March 2022.

The director is a statutory office-holder with a degree of independence from Government, and is accountable to the BEIS Secretary of State and the Home Secretary. In agreement with sponsor Departments, the director decided to submit what she describes as an interim strategy ahead of a more comprehensive 2023-24 annual strategy, to enable the three enforcement bodies and sponsor Departments to continue to focus on work to address the recommendations in previous strategies, 2020-21 and 2021-22, published in December 2021.

This interim strategy provides an assessment of the scale and nature of non-compliance and focuses on the emerging threats posed by the dynamics of the shifting labour market. It consolidates existing themes from previous recommendations, highlights where the enforcement bodies and sponsor Departments should be focusing their efforts and sets out four priority areas, which include:

Improving the radar picture,

Improving focus and effectiveness,

Better joined up thinking,

Engagement and support.

We believe the enforcement bodies have been funded sufficiently to deliver the activities set out in the strategy. The DLME carried out stakeholder engagement for the 2022-23 strategy with the enforcement bodies prior to submission.

In previous years, we have published a Government response to the strategy setting out the approach we will take to the recommendations. For the latest strategy, we have instead worked closely with the director and their office and the enforcement bodies to agree the recommendations ahead of publication of the strategy.

We look forward to receiving the director’s 2023-24 annual strategy and a summary of the results of the director’s call for evidence to better understand the changing nature of the labour market.

[HCWS637]

Firearms Bill

Sarah Dines Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Public Bill Committees

We can do much more through extending the Bill’s provisions. I hope that we all support the Bill, but I believe that we can do much more to tackle the loopholes so that we do not have the sort of incidents that we have seen. They may be small in number, but they have a massive impact. We must never forget that.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

Sir Gary, it is a pleasure to appear in front of you. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West for promoting this modest-in-size, but very important Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South for being its custodian. I thank Opposition Members for the consensual way in which they have worked, and for the eloquence shown today. I thank all those who have contributed. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has a lot to contribute in this area, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon has a lot of expertise, and I thank the hon. Member for Leicester East for her interest in this subject.

At the outset, I should declare that I may be one of the few members of this Committee who had a hobby as a keen handgun shooter. It might be a matter of interest to the Committee that I left it until the very last day to hand my Browning in—it was a wonderful present that I treasured and looked after—and that was the same day as my second son was born. That was an interesting day for me. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That was the second of my four sons, who are now all grown up.

I will speak briefly about the amendments and clauses. Amendment 1 would have the effect of mandating in law that the police must check the social media profile of any person applying for a firearm certificate for the purposes of operating a miniature rifle range before issuing such a certificate, and to be satisfied that the checks do not reveal anything that suggests that the person should not have access to a miniature rifle or ammunition for such a rifle.

Clause 1, to which the amendment relates, removes the existing exemption in firearms controls that allows a person to operate a miniature rifle range without first obtaining a firearm certificate from the local police. That means that, in future, any person who wishes to operate such a rifle range will first need to apply to the police to obtain a firearm certificate, issued under the Firearms Act 1968. The applicant will therefore be subject to all the checks relating to suitability that the police conduct on all applicants who seek to obtain a firearm licence. Those checks are set out in the statutory guidance to the police on firearms licensing that came into effect in November 2021 and which was refreshed and strengthened on 14 February this year—there is no relevance to Valentine’s day.

The statutory guidance requires the police to consider conducting an open source check of social media presence and the activity of the person who applies for the firearm certificate to establish whether he or she has openly or repeatedly expressed or sympathises with views that may suggest that their access to firearms would be inappropriate. The checks that are sought by the amendment would be considered when a person applies for a licence to operate a miniature rifle range, or indeed for any other purpose, and not just for those seeking to operate a miniature rifle range, which would be the effect of the amendment.

The police have a legal obligation to have regard to the statutory guidance, which will be reviewed, in exercising their firearms licensing functions. The Government have said that we will keep the guidance under review and will not hesitate to refresh it and to strengthen it further whenever the evidence suggests that that is required.

The Government will consider such further changes to the guidance now, and possibly further changes in the law, following the outcomes of the recent inquests into those who were tragically shot dead by Jake Davison in Plymouth on 12 August 2021, and the expansive recommendations made by the coroner. Those recommendations sit alongside the outcomes and recommendations made by the Independent Office for Police Conduct following the investigation into the issue of a firearm licence to Jake Davison, and also recommendations made by the Scottish Affairs Committee, following its review of firearms licensing. It is clear that the Government will further strengthen the checks and controls on firearms licensing in the coming weeks and months.

Specifically in relation to social media checks, the Government have noted in the statutory guidance that the National Police Chiefs’ Council will develop a new national model, which I am sure will be helpful. When ready, it will assist all police forces in conducting social media checks in cases, to help them meet the requirements of the statutory guidance. It will be very useful to have a national scheme so that we do not have pockets or silos of good or bad practice, which is very important. Against that background, I would be grateful if the amendment were withdrawn.

I move briefly to amendment 2, which would have the effect of mandating that the police must meet privately with members of the family or household of a person seeking a firearm certificate in order to operate a miniature rifle range before they make a decision on whether to grant such a certificate. The underlying purpose of the amendment is clear and sensible. Those who know the applicant best and those who have a unique insight into the applicant’s temperament or behaviour may be particularly well placed to provide information about suitability. It may of course be difficult in some circumstances for an applicant’s partner or close family member to provide information that directly results in the application being refused. That person could be subjected to reprisals if the applicant considers that that person is to blame for the refusal. The statutory guidance for the police on their firearms licensing functions, which was refreshed by the Government on 14 February, covers that point explicitly in relation to partners where domestic abuse may be an issue.

I recognise that the scope of the amendment is not restricted to domestic abuse, but has rather more general applicability. In that context, it is worth noting that the statutory guidance to which I have referred invites the police to consider whether to interview individuals other than the applicant or their referees. It mentions the applicant’s partner specifically, where the police consider that contact to be necessary to assess suitability. Again, we are looking to good practice throughout, which is very important. The guidance does not mandate that contact in all cases, which may be the purpose of the amendment, but it draws attention to the fact that the amendment as it stands would have the effect of mandating an interview with members of the applicant’s family or household only in the cases of those wishing to operate miniature rifle ranges rather than in the generality of firearms applications. I know that perhaps that is not the amendment’s intention, but that is what it would do.

The Government feel that that the distinction is unhelpful, however they are keeping the statutory guidance as a whole under review and will consider further changes which may or may not include the terms of the amendment following the outcomes of the recent inquests. I am certain that the Government will consider whether it would be appropriate to amend the guidance to address the specific points addressed by the amendment.

A further review of referees will be undertaken and its results will be incorporated in the statutory guidance, resulting in stronger and more robust checks. I know that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will be happy that that is the way forward.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South said, the Government take the subject very seriously. The UK Government have some of the toughest gun controls in the world, but, as the hon. Member for Leicester East said, it is important that we keep all controls under review and take action when necessary to strengthen the laws further where the evidence suggests that that must be the way forward.

I have been impressed by the nature of the debate and the sincerity with which all speakers have contributed. I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to debate the Bill and ask that it be allowed to proceed.

[Holly Lynch]

I thank the Minister for her thoughtful contribution to the consideration of the Bill. She has put to me that scope is the reason why our amendments will not have the desired impact. She is entirely right, and I put to her that scope is exactly why the amendments will not have the desired impact. That does not mean that there is no merit in the amendments, and it is clear from today’s contributions that there is broad consensus that the amendments have been born out of the important lessons learned, having had a good look at recent tragedies.

I hope that there is progress on this matter, and a commitment particularly on amendment 3 to consult on the cost of firearms licensing. I hope that the Minister takes back to her Home Office colleagues the sense of consensus and the urgency with which we would like to see that work progressed.

I thank again my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, who spoke so powerfully with the weight of the experiences of his constituents; his was a powerful contribution to the debate. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that the Minister holds true to her word that there is a commitment to continue to move in the right direction on the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Change of Name by Registered Sex Offenders

Sarah Dines Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

I start by thanking the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for her work on this important issue and for securing the debate. I welcome those in the Public Gallery and those listening at home, and I thank the Safeguarding Alliance for all its work. To each and every person who has been sexually abused, be they male, female, young, old, children or adults, I say that the Government do take it seriously.

I reassure Members that we recognise their concerns. It was amusing to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) say that junior Ministers come and go. Of course she is right—we do—but in the short time I am here, I want to make sure that I make a difference on this issue. I have some experience in this field from a job I held previously, and what is salient for me is looking into the eyes of somebody who has been abused, or those of their mother, brother, relative or friend. It is horrendous. These crimes are heinous, and the Government must do more to crack down on those who perpetrate them.

As safeguarding Minister, I reassure the House that I am committed to ensuring that we have the most robust system possible for managing registered sex offenders. While a lot of criticism is made of the system for good reason, it is salient that we are still considered, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) said, to be one of the most stringent countries in the world for the management of sexual offenders, not least because of the sterling work that people in this House have done. But it is not enough, and more has to be done.

It may assist the House if I set out some of the general background in this area. I know that some here will have heard this before, but for those listening at home and for the record, I will turn to the specific concerns regarding registered sex offenders and name changes. Members will be aware that registered sex offenders are required to notify the police of certain personal details. This system is often referred to as the sex offenders register and it applies automatically to those offenders who receive a conviction or caution for a sexual offence. They are required to provide their local police station with a record of, among other things, their name, address, date of birth, bank details and national insurance number, and that must be done annually and, importantly, whenever their details change. That means that registered sex offenders are legally required to inform the police if they change their name. Offenders who are subject to notification requirements are also required to notify the police of all travel outside the United Kingdom. Breach of the notification requirements, including failure to provide notification of a name change, is a criminal offence punishable by up to five years in prison.

We know that some individuals pose a risk beyond that which can be properly managed by a straightforward notification requirement. We also know that there are individuals who come to the police’s attention and pose a risk, but who have not been convicted of an offence. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 reformed the civil orders available to the police on application to the court to manage those risks. It introduced sexual harm prevention orders, which can be applied to anyone convicted or cautioned for a sexual or violent offence; and sexual risk orders, which can be applied to any individual who poses a risk of sexual harm, even if they have never been convicted. Those orders have been deliberately designed to be as flexible as possible so that they can be tailored to the specific risk an individual poses. They can be used to impose any restriction the court considers necessary to protect the public from sexual harm, which can include restrictions on the ability of the individual who is subject to the order to change their name—something that should be used more frequently, in my view. For both orders, breach is a criminal offence punishable by a maximum of five years’ imprisonment.

Moving on to recent changes, registered sex offenders have committed some of the most abhorrent crimes and we must ensure that our approach mitigates the risk of their seeking to exploit weaknesses in the system. Following proposals from the National Police Chiefs’ Council based on feedback from operational policing on how things can be improved, which the police always have an eye to, we have made changes to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. It is now the case that through both SHPOs and SROs, the courts can impose positive obligations as well as restrictions, including requiring an offender to engage in a behavioural change programme. That is totally new and it has helped in some cases. None of these things will be a panacea, but they do assist. The court must also apply the lower civil standard of proof—namely, the balance of probabilities—which will lead to an increase in such orders being made.

The Secretary of State has a new power to prepare a list of countries deemed to be at high risk of child sex abuse by UK nationals or residents. That list has to be considered by applicants and the courts when applying for or making an order for the purpose of protecting children outside the UK from the risk of sexual harm.

In addition, to ensure that the police, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and others have the right systems in place to share information on registered sex offenders and other dangerous individuals, the Home Office and Ministry of Justice are investing in a new multi-agency public protection system—MAPPS. The new system will enable more effective and automated information sharing, which will, in turn, improve the risk management of all offenders managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements.

[Sarah Champion]

I believe that many Members are aware of the legislation and restrictions that are being outlined. Does the Minister believe that they are robust enough when a sex offender chooses to ignore them?

[Miss Dines]

The hon. Lady raises a good point. I never believe that any system designed to protect children and adults—be they men or women, boys or girls— is ever robust enough. There is always a way for a deceptive, calculating perpetrator to get round it. It is not enough for a Government to say, “We’ve done something, which is great.” The Government have to be conscious not to just park that on the side, but to constantly look to the next reform. I hope we can work together to achieve that spirit. To give more context, it is planned that MAPPS will replace the violent and sex offender register—ViSOR—next year.

I turn to the issue of name changes, and some of the good and interesting points raised by Members. I recognise and understand the concerns hon. Members have raised, and I reassure them that this Government and I take these issues seriously. Public protection is and will remain our utmost, foremost priority. I have already outlined the legislative measures that we have put in place, but there is, of course, more that can be done.

There are safeguards built in at an operational level, such as through His Majesty’s Passport Office, which has a watchlist to provide some protection for the public in the passport issuing process. That includes supporting the police in managing offenders of concern, including registered sex offenders, and to prevent those who pose a high risk of harm from obtaining a passport in a new name without the police first being consulted. We also have arrangements in place for the police to notify the Passport Office and other relevant bodies of individuals who pose a risk to the public to ensure that we properly control name changes in those cases.

[Jess Phillips]

I notice that the Minister mentioned “high risk of harm”, which is often up for debate in these issues. Does she agree that all sex offenders pose a high risk of harm?

[Miss Dines]

Indeed, all domestic abuse and sex offenders are high risk, which is why, of course, domestic abuse has now been included in the police strategic issues.

As I have set out, we do have safeguards built in. It is important that operational decisions are made in a way that ensures resources are deployed where they will be most effective in mitigating risk. As hon. Members will appreciate, I cannot go into detail about some of the intricacies in this field as, of course, we do not want to give people extra ideas—there are operational sensitivities. As with any matters related to public protection, we must always remain vigilant and front-footed to ensure our approach is as effective as possible.

The issue of name changes has been discussed by the hon. Member for Rotherham and others. The Government have listened to those concerns, as have I, and I am undertaking work to see what more can be done. We know that there is the internal review.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

As has been said, disclosing previous identities is a key component of safeguarding. What can be done under the sensitive applications route to prevent sex offenders who change their identity from exercising their right to have previous names withheld from a DBS certificate?

[Miss Dines]

I am grateful for that intervention. This is an area that I am particularly interested in, as it poses a conflict of competing interests: that of the person who has had a serious offence perpetrated against them, and that of someone who wants to move on in their life for perhaps bona fide—not necessarily nefarious—reasons. There are competing legal interests that need careful thought, and I am looking into that.

[Lucy Allan]

I thank the Minister for her response. Will she please work closely with the victims Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who is sitting next to her today? He is somebody of great integrity who commands respect across the House. With the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice working together, I know that this problem can be solved. Will the Minister please confirm that?

[Miss Dines]

If I may say so, I have been afforded the utmost professionalism and courtesy by colleagues in the Ministry of Justice. It has been very helpful. We are working on this matter together; we were discussing it just yesterday.

[Mark Fletcher]

I thank the Minister for accepting the intervention. I admit that she is on a slightly sticky wicket today. I know that she personally cares passionately about the issues we are discussing. We have mentioned the robust system and not wanting to give people ideas. However, I return to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the review that was meant to be published. Will the Minister commit to at least some of us in this House being able to see that review? We will still not know the scale of the problem until we have seen that. I would welcome the Minister’s commitment to letting at least some of us see it.

[Miss Dines]

The review is now complete and I am carefully considering the findings. There are some immediate actions that can be taken, including work to ensure that law enforcement partners are fully utilising and monitoring the tools, information and resources available, such as those provided by the Passport Office. As hon. Members will understand, some of it is very sensitive. However, I am currently considering it with the Home Secretary.

In addition to the internal review, there is lots of work being done. The former Home Secretary appointed Mick Creedon, a former chief constable of Derbyshire constabulary, to undertake an independent review into sex offender management more generally.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Miss Dines]

I will make a little more progress before giving way.

[Paula Barker]

On that specific point, will the Minister give way?

[Miss Dines]

Very briefly, then.

[Paula Barker]

I thank the Minister for giving way; she has been very generous with her time. As legislators in this place, we have a privileged position in representing our constituents, and we are subject to the highest scrutiny and security. Will the Minister therefore agree that the review should be shared in full with every Member of the House?

[Miss Dines]

I very much believe in open transparency, but there must always be checks when things are so sensitive that it would not be of assistance.

[Jess Phillips]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miss Dines]

I want to make a bit of progress, but I am very happy to talk about it. I have given way a few times, but I would be interested in taking up any further discussions outside the Chamber.

Serious issues have been raised in relation to name changes and changes of gender. An individual who is transgender and has a criminal history is subject to the same monitoring, rules and checks as any other offender. That is the case regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate. A change of name resulting from a change of gender does not relieve the registered sex offender from their notification requirements. Regardless of the route used, everyone applying for a DBS for a criminal record certificate must follow the same identity validation process to demonstrate their current identity. This includes the requirement to provide at least one document previously issued by the Government in the current identity, or consent to providing fingerprints. The DBS sensitive applications route allows transgender applicants, including those who self-identify, to provide their full previous identity information to the DBS, while not disclosing that to a prospective employer or having it printed on their DBS certificate.

There is more to do in this area. I am very interested in this area, with the competing rights of such individuals and those who need protection, and I am looking at this. For applications via this route, the DBS additionally seeks to see a name change deed poll or a separate signed self-declaration to formally record the link between the current name and the identity that is to be protected. An application will also be checked against both male and female genders within the system.

[Joanna Cherry]

The Minister is absolutely right that there are conflicting rights here, but when rights conflict we have to carry out a weighing exercise, and we are talking about sex offenders here—people with a proven track record of abusing children and vulnerable people—so there is really no competition in that situation.

[Miss Dines]

I am delighted to agree with the hon. and learned Lady, and that is part of my balancing exercise. Sometimes there is lazy government, where the Government think something is sorted out, we have granted a right or a legal right, and we do not need to do any more. However, we do need to look at how things change, at new legislative changes and at the competition between rights, and I am thoroughly interested in that point.

That is why, for example, a blanket ban—I know the hon. Member for Rotherham is not suggesting that today, although it was suggested yesterday—is perhaps a distinction without too much of a difference, because we all want the same thing. A blanket ban preventing sexual offenders from changing their name is at risk of a court finding it to be discriminatory, unreasonable or disproportionate by focusing on all past offending regardless of the level of danger posed by the individual to the public and ignoring their rights.

What is often cited is that there are good and proper reasons for offenders to change their name. It is often cited that there are implications under the Equality Act 2010 or the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and perhaps more importantly, the European convention on human rights, in relation to the right to a private life. This is where we get into the legal complexity of why successive Governments do not always grapple with that problem. I am determined to have a go at it, with the assistance of everybody in this Chamber.

[Joanna Cherry]

The Minister is being very generous in taking another intervention. The argument that preventing sex offenders from taking advantage of a process of self-identification of gender to hide their identity somehow breaches the European convention on human rights was put forward in the vexed debate over self-identification in Scotland, and I can tell her that it was widely rubbished by many legal commentators. Will she look into it more carefully, rather than just taking at face value what many of us think is the baseless assertion that such a measure would breach human rights?

[Miss Dines]

I was not putting these points forward as my views; I was saying that they are often cited as an issue. What we need is a thorough overhaul and to look at how, within a lawful existing framework, we can move forward. I am delighted to say that this is an area I am working on, but the hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right that more needs to be done. The present system, while one of the most robust regimes—if not the most robust regime—in the world, is in my view not quite going far enough, and we need to look at it again. We need to protect members of our society, and as the safeguarding Minister, I take that job very seriously.

In closing, I would like to thank hon. Members for the important points they made during their speeches. I hope I have provided some reassurance that we do have tools that assist in managing the risk of sex offenders, but I do accept and concede that there is always more work to be done. I look up at the Public Gallery as I say that, and I thank those who are there for coming to listen to this.

None the less, the Government can never be complacent. Along with the good things we do, we need to do more. I am shortly to meet the national policing lead for the management of sexual and violent offenders, Chief Constable Michelle Skeer, who has national policing responsibility for sex offender management. I want to look more at what ideas she has and what ideas we can all have together across Government, and indeed across the Opposition, to assist.

As I have made clear, public protection and safety is our No. 1 priority, and we are committed to ensuring that the police and other agencies have more and better tools to assist them to more effectively manage registered sex offenders. In a nutshell, a lot has been done, but there is more to do. We need more joined-up systems, and I am going to try to do my little bit in my short time to address these issues.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

And the final word goes to everyone’s champion on this issue—Sarah Champion.

Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill

Sarah Dines Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

People always say this, but I actually mean it: it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I express my thanks and those of the Labour party to the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells for the opportunity to have this longed-for conversation and to start to build the legislative framework.

The right hon. Member was drawn out of the legislative lottery, which is an odd quirk of this place. At the time, I noted—I mean no offence to him—that there were more people in the top 10 called Greg than women on the list. Hearts sank somewhat for some of us in the room, as they did for charities such as Plan and Girlguiding that have been working on the issue and trying to find a sponsor, so it was a relief that the right hon. Member immediately and clearly wanted to do it. I thank him for allowing us to have this conversation and move the legislation forward.

As we have heard in today’s very reasonable debate, including in the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, the Labour party stands ready and willing to work with the Government before the Bill’s final stages so that we can all agree without dividing the House. Nobody wishes to divide the House on the issue; we wish to sing with the same voice. I make that offer to the Minister.

I am not blessed with daughters, unlike others who have spoken. I am blessed with sons—I have two teenage sons. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow made an important case about what people ought to know and how they ought to be reasonable. My sons know that you don’t shout at women in the street and that you don’t find your way into their heart by touching them up in a crowded place. My sons know that, not out of any spectacular parenting on my part but because they are reasonable human beings.

When our children were young teenagers—they are basically adults now, which I do not like to admit because it makes me feel old—my husband and I were in a park in south London. A woman was jogging past us. There were two men sat on a bench: it was 4 o’clock and they were drinking cans of lager, having a perfectly nice time. The woman jogged past and they started shouting at her about her arse and her physique. She was none the wiser: she had headphones in, though not out of design on her part, I should have thought.

I did not even notice that this bad thing was happening, because I am so used to it—I am so used to this sort of thing happening. My husband turned on his heels and absolutely blazed the two men, not even for what they were doing to the woman, but for doing it in front of his sons: “Don’t teach my children that this is the way to behave. Don’t ever do that.” Obviously they gave him some lip back, but the next time they go to shout at a woman, they will look around in that moment and they will stop. It is not reasonable, and they ought to know that it is not reasonable, but it made me feel incredibly sad that because that behaviour is standard, I did not even notice it.

On the reasonableness of men, I should mention that after the Sarah Everard case, women came forward and described all the stuff they have to do to keep themselves safe. They described the keys in the hands, the headphones in, the heads down on the train—“Don’t talk to me, don’t touch me.” We all know that; we have all done it. It is important to say that the huge weight of that burden falls on young women. A school uniform is a red rag to a bull, which is terrible.

When we were all saying that we did all this stuff—thinking about how we were going to dress and how we were going to get home, tagging our friends, calling each other—my husband said to me, “If you had the time back, and you had the level of detail that you have lived your life at since you were about 10, you could make a feature-length stop-frame animation film as good as ‘Wallace and Gromit’. That is the level of detail and time that has been taken off you as an individual.” That was labour that he did not have to do, as a man.

In the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow is putting forward, all I think we are asking for is not to make the victim do the labour. We have done enough labour and put in the work to provide security for women. As individuals, we have done the state’s work for generations. In every rape case and every sexual violence case, there is still the problem that the person doing the labour, both in the investigation and on trial, is the victim. We have an opportunity to take that labour away.

We all want to see this legislation on the statute book. Anyone who says it will mean loads of people ending up in prison has never been at a trial relating to violence against women and girls. Hope springs eternal that anyone will go to prison for anything! We have a real opportunity here, but as the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North says, we have to make sure that this legislation is the beginning and that we make it as good as possible. What we should not do is put the labour on the shoulders of the victims.

I think I have been positively manny in my response. People come back at me saying that harassment is “banter” and that boys will be boys, but I hate that idea because I think much more of men than that. I think men are capable, brilliant human beings who can make choices. When they make choices to do bad things, it is nothing to do with boys being boys. They are not base or inhuman. They can control themselves. They are cracking—I raised two of them! They are not without control over their own faculties. It is not “boys will be boys”; it is “abusers will be abusers”. That is the top and bottom of it. I thank all hon. Members, and we obviously support the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

It is a pleasure to appear before you, Sir Gary. I confirm that the Government support the legislation, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells for his work on the issue.

I remind hon. Members about the effect of the Bill, as it stands. The Bill provides that if someone carries out behaviour that would fall under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, intentionally causing someone “harassment, alarm or distress”, and does so because of the victim’s sex, they could receive a longer sentence of up to two years.

My right hon. Friend has already set out the effect of his amendments, but I will confirm the Government’s position. New clause 2 and amendments 2 to 4 are purely consequential. They will ensure that the scope of the other statutes is unaffected by the Bill.

New clause 2 will add the new offence of sex-based harassment in public to schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1989. Schedule 1 is a list of the offences that will generally cause a person to be issued with a football banning order

“unless the court considers that there are particular circumstances…which would make it unjust”.

An FBO prevents a subject from attending UK football matches and may place conditions on them on match days, for example by forbidding them from going to a particular city centre or being within a certain distance of a stadium. It can require them to report to a police station in connection with matches overseas.

Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, the offence on which the Bill builds, is listed in schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1989. As that is the currently available offence for prosecuting someone who deliberately harasses another person on account of their sex, such a person should be issued with an FBO, but in future such a person would instead be convicted under section 4B. If we do not add the new offence to schedule 1, such a person could slip through the net and escape an FBO. The amendment will prevent that consequence and help to ensure that those who engage in sex-based harassment cannot sully the beautiful game.

New clause 2 will also add section 4B to the provisions listed in schedule 8B to the Police Act 1997. The legislation is devolved in Scotland, but with the agreement of the Scottish Government we seek to make the amendment here; it is right that when a consequential change arises from a UK Bill, we should make the necessary amendment ourselves wherever possible, in the interests of not unduly troubling our colleagues in Holyrood with the effects of our legislative changes. Schedule 8B lists the offences for which a person’s conviction, even if spent, will be disclosed on a criminal record certificate, unless certain conditions apply that relate largely to a period of time having elapsed since the conviction. Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 is listed in the schedule. Adding a new public sexual harassment offence will ensure the maintenance of the Act’s existing coverage, thus ensuring continued safeguarding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I apologise if I was not listening correctly, but the Minister mentioned intent. I am not sure that, in simply reiterating the question from the hon. Member for Walthamstow, the Minister gave us an answer. Is she going to give us an answer about intent?

[Miss Dines]

To be able to get forward to the next step of the offence, the prosecution must always prove intent, so we would not get to the statutory defences until we have dealt with intent, and intent depends on the circumstances. I think we all know that it is all quite obvious, although I and the Government are willing to look at a better form of wording. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend feels passionately about this issue, and it is something that will be considered very carefully.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the Minister for her time looking at this, because I have spent many hours doing so. I pay tribute to the Clerks, who were incredibly patient as we worked through the almost circular logic of when intent comes into this offence, partly because it is not a new offence; it is a kind of offence-plus, which is where some of the challenges about the decision on intent could be.

With the Government’s support on Report, we could learn lessons from other protections from harassment and other harassment legislation about the reasonableness test and where it comes in. I know that that would get support from the Opposition and the Minister’s colleagues, and it could clarify the point at which a defendant could claim reasonableness. That may be the way to do it, in the same way that this offence-plus also brings in the concept of discounting whether sexual gratification was part of the process. There will clearly be a point at which somebody decides whether it is a 4A or 4B offence, and that seems to be the point at which we could be clearer about the intent and whether somebody reasonable would know about it. We could put that in the Bill to give directions to judges and magistrates about how to interpret “reasonableness”, which is what I think we are all looking to get to. I hope that that is a helpful intervention to clarify where I think there is space to marry the two different types of legislation together.

[Miss Dines]

The hon. Lady makes very interesting points, and I know she is particularly interested in intent. It is right that we need to prove intent as part of the offence. I would question how much of a barrier this is in relation to the sorts of behaviour that the Bill is intended to address. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that the explanatory notes suggest five examples of behaviour that the Bill would cover, and I know the hon. Lady will be very aware of them. They are:

“(a) following a person (for example, deliberately walking closely behind someone as they walk home at night);

(b) making an obscene or aggressive comment towards a person;

(c) making an obscene or offensive gesture towards a person;

(d) obstructing a person making a journey; and

(e) driving or riding a vehicle slowly near to a person making a journey.”

I ask right hon. and hon. Members whether it can be plausibly claimed that a person carrying out that sort of behaviour does not actually intend to cause harassment, alarm or distress. It is not benign behaviour; it is almost as if that behaviour speaks for itself.

[Jess Phillips]

I agree, and I am sure everybody in this room would say that. I have sat in courtrooms and heard cases of people having been burned with an iron, and it has been argued that it was reasonable that that happened, so excuse us for trying to make sure that the Bill is belt and braces! We have all sat through people saying it is reasonable that a woman was strangled to death while she was having sex. It seems fanciful to the reasonable, of course, but it happens every day.

[Miss Dines]

I am grateful for that intervention. Of course, there are lots of different types of offences, and the circumstances that are explained are normally—I will not say “more serious”, because all these offences are serious—higher-level punishment serious offences. The Government have worked very hard in this area with the non-death strangulation measures that have been brought forward, and we seek the Labour party’s support for those sorts of measures. To some extent I agree with the hon. Lady, and to some extent I do not. For every matter that comes before the courts, it depends on the circumstances of the case. But things do evolve, and I accept that point.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miss Dines]

May I make a little progress? Things do evolve. Perhaps some people in the 1970s would have thought that following somebody closely in a car to pay them a compliment was acceptable. We now know that it is totally unacceptable; things evolve. Quite rightly, we know that such behaviour is certainly not benign. The climate is thankfully very different now and there is much greater awareness, but there is always more to do. If it can be plausibly claimed that somebody who does that was doing it without intent, we would have to get to the reasonableness defence.

[Christine Jardine]

I accept entirely that things have evolved since the 1970s, but they did not evolve on their own. It took a lot of work, like that which we are trying to do today on reasonableness. If we allow the opportunity to pass, people will look back and say, “How did they let that slip through the net? Why did they not address it? Why is it still reasonable for someone to be burned with an iron, or strangled during sex, or accosted in the street? Why is that still acceptable?” Evolution in this area does not happen on its own. It takes a lot of work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Dines]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. My question is whether it could be plausibly claimed that such behaviour is not intended. I do not doubt that some defendants will try to claim that they had no malign intent when they walked closely behind someone at night, for example—defendants will try anything—but it would not be plausible, and I do not believe it would succeed.

There may be some other types of behaviour where intention to harass is harder to prove. I am reluctant to say that they are less serious, because all public sexual harassment behaviour is serious, but we are talking about relative degrees of severity. Perhaps an example is a wolf whistle in a crowded place in broad daylight, at some distance from a victim. Let me stress immediately that such behaviour is very far from okay. It is demeaning and objectifying to the woman, and has no place in our society, but it is perhaps the type of behaviour where non-criminal responses are more appropriate. I remind hon. Members of our Enough campaign, which doubtless they have seen. An intention test can usefully differentiate behaviour where the criminal justice path is the right one from behaviour where societal interventions are more appropriate.

[Stella Creasy]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. A few years ago, when I left Parliament late at night and I walked up the steps to go to the underground, a young man—I was probably old enough to be his mother—walked up behind me, and slid his arms around my neck and then slowly round my breasts. He was trying to persuade me that I wanted to go to the Red Lion pub with him. I was very clear that that was not acceptable and I was not going to go. He followed me all the way down the street and I had to be quite physical to get him off me.

In that instance, he believed his intent was to charm and seduce me. He thought that that was an acceptable way to approach somebody. The difficulty with this legislation as it is currently constructed is that he could say in court, “My behaviour was reasonable—I thought it was reasonable.” In other forms of harassment legislation, that concept of reasonableness could be tested by whether anybody else would think it reasonable, but that would not come into play here, because of this difference in how we define what harassment is in different pieces of legislation. This is not about whether we could prove intent per se; it is the gap between how we define harassment in other forms of legislation as opposed to under public order offences, because they are about the first time somebody has contact with somebody.

I know the Minister said she and the officials will look at this. I hope they will. I hope we can clarify that it is not about whether something is serious and it is not about whether someone has intent; it is specifically about this concept of who decides whether behaviour is reasonable, so someone can mount a reasonableness defence. I am sure that young man would argue until he was blue in the face that I just could not take a compliment. That was not a compliment. It was harassment. It was intimidating and it was scary, and it is exactly the sort of behaviour the Bill is designed to capture—but he would have that defence unless we close the loophole. That is what we are getting at.

[Miss Dines]

I respectfully suggest that that stark example supports my position—that it would be so obvious what he was doing, and what he intended, that the defence would very easily be wiped away. But we need to keep that defence for the one or two circumstances where it should be reasonably argued.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. I wish to follow up the example of the hon. Member for Walthamstow with a very different example, which I have used previously in the Chamber.

A young woman came to speak to me. Her job was pushing trolleys around a supermarket car park. She used to shelter by the security guards for all of lunchtime. I said, “Why? Surely lunchtime is the best part of the day?” She said, “No, because that’s when the builders come.”

Now, I recognise that we are now castigating an entire category of man, and I apologise for doing so, but they would turn up in their vans and harass her while she was pushing her trolleys. This was at the height of covid. She wore a beanie hat, a mask, a thick puffer jacket, leggings and boots; and a man walked up to her, put his hands either side of her face, and said, “You are too beautiful to be doing a job like this.” Can we discuss what the intent and the reasonableness is there? That is a clear case of harassment on the grounds of sex, but it is not as stark as the case that the hon. Member for Walthamstow shared.

[Miss Dines]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that example. I personally think that it is just as stark, and that it is just as easy to knock down the defence, because the intent is so obviously there. Intent is not a fanciful legal device. It is something that is pretty obviously stated, and a jury, judge or magistrate—whoever it is—would very easily be able to knock the defence away, but I do value the point that my right hon. Friend makes. The Government have accepted that they will look at that again, and I very much enjoy hearing these interventions.

The Government’s view is that even though these amendments would have the desired effect, they would not be necessary to criminalise the type of behaviour that concerns most of us here, but I do take seriously the concerns that lie behind them and I will give them further consideration. In the meantime, I suggest that the hon. Member for Walthamstow, having probed with quite a lot of debate, and made her point very forcefully, should perhaps not press the amendments.

Moving on to substantive matters more generally—I know that I have taken up a great amount of time—I speak in support of clause 1, which creates the new offence at the heart of the Bill by inserting a new criminal offence within the Public Order Act 1986 as a new section 4B. The offence will be dependent on the behaviour that falls within section 4A of the Act—namely, that of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress—and will provide that if someone committed behaviour under section 4A, and did so because of the victim’s sex, they could receive a longer sentence of up to two years, rather than the six months mentioned in section 4A.

The approach of building on the section 4A offence reflects the Government’s view that public sexual harassment behaviour is already covered by existing criminal offences, most commonly that section 4A offence. Had we instead sought to create a wholly new offence, that would have entailed overlap with existing ones, which would be not only unnecessary but actively harmful, as it would create confusion about the law—exactly the reverse of what we are trying to achieve here.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. The argument is frequently put forward—as a former Home Office Minister, I have used it myself—that there will be duplication, and that that will be too much, but we need to find legislation that can be easily understood by the judiciary and interpreted properly, with proper training for police officers and others so that they can find the evidence needed. Sometimes an additional offence is not that harmful, because it will assist in getting the prosecutions that we all so desperately need. May I urge the Minister to consider that point in her deliberation about all the other points that we have discussed?

[Miss Dines]

I understand that point.

Section 4A makes it an offence if someone

“uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or…displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting”

if both the intention and the effect of the behaviour, or the display, are to cause another person harassment, alarm or distress. It provides that the offence

“may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.”

There are two specified defences to this: first, that the defendant was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other building; and secondly—this has been the focus of some of the debate—that the defendant’s conduct was reasonable.

The section 4B offence introduced by clause 1 of the Bill will inherit and build on the provisions of section 4A. Subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 4B provide that the new offence will be engaged when a person commits an offence under section 4A and does so because of the sex of the person towards whom they are directing their conduct or because of the sex that the defendant presumed the other person to be.

Subsection (3) of the new offence makes two clarifying provisions. The first is that it does not matter whether there are additional motivations behind the defendant’s behaviour as well as the victim’s sex, as long as the victim’s sex was one of the motivations. The second is that the defendant’s motivation need not have been one of achieving sexual gratification; of course it could have been, but there are many other reasons why a person might decide to harass someone on account of their sex.

Subsection (4) of the new offence provides that the maximum sentence for a person found guilty of the offence would be, if they were tried in the magistrates court, a term not exceeding the general limit that the court can impose or a fine or both, or if they were tried before the Crown court, a maximum of two years’ imprisonment or a fine or both. That contrasts with the section 4A offence, for which the maximum sentence is six months. Since the maximum sentence for the new offence will be two years, which is above what the magistrates court can impose, the new offence will necessarily be capable of being tried in either the magistrates or the Crown court—triable either way, in the formal language—whereas the section 4A offence can be tried only in a magistrates court, or summary only, in the formal language.

Subsection (5) of the offence states that if a person is tried in the Crown court for the new offence under subsection (1) and is acquitted for that offence, the jury may still find them guilty of the section 4A offence. I commend the clause to the Committee. The new offence that it introduces will play a crucial role in ensuring that everyone—women in particular—can feel safe on our streets.

Clause 2 contains the standard provisions about the commencement, extent and short title of the Bill. Subsection (1) provides that the Act will extend to England and Wales. New subsection (1A) introduced by amendment 3 would place a caveat on that, to the effect that a provision introduced by the consequential amendments in new clause 2 would have the same geographical extent as the provision it amends. The practical meaning of this is that the amendment to the Police Act 1997, which relates to Scotland, would naturally extend to Scotland. The rest of the clause confirms that the provisions of the Act will come into force in line with the commencement regulations made by Ministers, as confirmed in the Act’s short title. I commend the clause to the Committee.

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. These are long-standing issues, and I am sure we will debate them again. My Department will look very closely at whether this is the time for a sea change in the message in relation to intent and reasonableness.

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for the chance to respond to the debate. It has been a relatively short debate, but it has successfully highlighted, first, the strong support there is for making this historic change to the law and, secondly, the desire and intention on both sides of the Committee to ensure that we take this opportunity to get it right. The contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North and the hon. Members for Walthamstow, for Edinburgh West and for Birmingham, Yardley all point in that direction.

I am grateful to the Minister for her clear statement that she and her officials and colleagues in Government will reflect on the points that have been made, with a view to responding to them on Report and Third Reading. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow for indicating that this is a probing amendment, and it has afforded us the ability to do just that.

Let us step back and reflect on where we are. Everyone agrees that we need to make this change in the law, but the hon. Member for Walthamstow and others have rightly focused on the question of intent. It is clearly a matter of common consent that a man who harasses a woman in public on the grounds of her sex should not be able to escape conviction simply by asserting that he did not intend to cause alarm or distress. That is not acceptable, and it is not the intention of the Bill.

On Second Reading the hon. Lady introduced the interesting and quite powerful concept of foreseeable harassment. We are talking about whether such conduct at the time is foreseeable. The graphic examples that Members have given fall into the category of behaviour that is clearly foreseeable as liable to cause harassment, alarm or distress, so there could not be a risk that that could be cited as a defence on the basis that the perpetrator did not intend to cause that. There are various ways of addressing that.

The hon. Lady helpfully referred to other legislation that the House has passed and, in so doing, no doubt reflected on precisely these issues. It is always beneficial to be able to draw on debates that have concluded satisfactorily, with the further advantage of maintaining consistency in the law. On the suggestion that the hon. Lady made, I am grateful for the Minister’s assurance that we will follow it up.

DRAFT AUTHORITY TO CARRY SCHEME AND CIVIL PENALTIES REGULATIONS 2023

Sarah Dines Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Authority to Carry Scheme and Civil Penalties Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert.

The purpose of the regulations, laid under sections 23(2) and 24(7) of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, is to give effect to the Authority to Carry Scheme 2023, otherwise known as “the 2023 scheme”; to make consequential amendments to the Authority to Carry Scheme (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015 and to revoke the Authority to Carry Scheme and Civil Penalties Regulations 2021.

Once given effect, the 2023 scheme will, in turn, revoke and replace the Authority to Carry Scheme 2021. Authority to carry is, in effect, the UK’s “No Fly” scheme. It is operated to prevent individuals, including known terrorists, serious criminals and those subject to sanctions, from being able to travel to and from the UK.

The scheme is operated by the National Border Targeting Centre, which processes information about individuals - both passengers and crew - intending to travel to or from the UK. Where an individual is identified who is in a class of person described in the scheme, the carrier may be refused authority to carry the individual to or from the UK.

The 2023 scheme applies to aircraft, ships and trains that have been required by law to provide passenger and crew information before departure. It applies on all international routes including journeys within the Common Travel Area where advance passenger and crew information is received from a carrier.

The Authority to Carry Scheme continues to be extremely successful. Since its introduction in March 2015, the National Border Targeting Centre has refused carriers authority to carry more than 11,200 individuals seeking to travel to the UK. That is a daily occurrence. This has included around 270 individuals excluded from the UK; about 4,500 individuals previously deported from the UK; over 5,500 individuals using invalid documents; over 720 individuals seeking to use revoked or cancelled entry clearances or visas; and some 23 individuals who have been refused leave to enter prior to their departure to the UK. These are all individuals who would otherwise have arrived in the UK and been refused leave to enter by Border Force officers.

The primary reason we are introducing the 2023 Scheme is to account for the introduction of electronic travel authorisations - a key component of universal permission to travel. Universal permission to travel will require all individuals to have a valid permission before travelling to the UK. There will be some individuals who apply for an electronic travel authorisation but whose application is refused. Others may be granted an ETA that is subsequently cancelled, for example if it is established a false declaration was made about their previous good conduct. It is important that those individuals are prevented from travelling to the United Kingdom. Through the inclusion of those classes of individuals in the 2023 scheme we can ensure they are prevented from travelling to the UK.

We are also taking the opportunity to make additional amendments to existing classes of individual in the 2021 scheme to include namely: individuals who were subject to deportation proceedings but left the UK before those proceedings concluded; individuals who have been or would be refused entry clearance or a visa under the immigration rules—not only on non-conducive grounds as in the 2021 scheme; individuals who are using an invalid travel document that was not issued to them, or is otherwise not valid for international travel—that will include documents being misused but not reported, or not yet reported, lost or stolen and so called “fantasy documents” not issued by a recognised national or international authority; and as an additional class, individuals whose indefinite leave to enter or remain has been revoked under section 76 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

It is important to note that the Crown Dependencies are aligning with the UK by introducing their own ETA schemes and collectively we will recognise each other’s schemes. Therefore, authority to carry refusals may be issued to carriers operating to the UK where an individual’s ETA has been, or would be, refused or has been issued and subsequently cancelled under any of the ETA schemes of the Crown Dependencies.

The additions to the 2023 scheme that I have outlined will ensure the authority to carry policy continues to operate effectively and will reflect the wider development of the UK’s border security measures through the advent of the universal permission to travel, and, particularly, the introduction of the ETA for non-visa nationals.

Like the previous Authority to Carry Schemes, the proposed 2023 scheme will be an important element of our multi-layered approach to border security, alongside universal permission to travel, the visa regime, the ETA and our checks at the border.

The Government are committed to ensuring the continued safety and security of the UK border. This new Authority to Carry Scheme is central to that effort. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Sarah Dines]

I am grateful for the points that have been raised by hon. Members.

In response to the questions from the hon. Member for Halifax on behalf of the Opposition, the ETA scheme will be introduced later this year. The price of it, which will be announced soon, will be similar to other schemes such as those operated in the USA and the EU. I appreciate that issues have been raised by Members about the imposition of penalties. As I said, civil penalties of up to £50,000 will be imposed on carriers who breach the requirements of the scheme. We appreciate that that is large penalty, particularly at a time when the travel industry is facing global economic pressures. We recognise that, and I can reassure Members that we will not increase the maximum penalty amount. Although the regulations set out that a financial penalty may be applied, we have a dedicated team in Border Force who engage with carriers to resolve issues about timelines and the quality of data submissions to the Government’s border systems, which may result in non-compliance with the scheme.

Our approach is one of collaborative working, but where a breach of the scheme occurs, it is only right and proper that we should penalise that carrier. In seven years of operating the Authority to Carry Schemes only 23 penalties totalling £352, 500 have been imposed. There have been one or two occasions when the penalty was £50,000.

The numbers of those apprehended have been consistent. As I said earlier, since 2015, more than 11,200 individuals have been prevented from travelling. In 2021-22, 1,197 individuals were stopped; in 2022-23, that number was 1,700. In the year 2016-17, the number was 1,702. It is clear that those figures are pretty consistent.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North, who spoke on behalf of the SNP, suggested that the scheme could be part of a hostile immigration environment. He fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the scheme. It is not designed to enable the blatant disregard of people’s rights, nor is it part of the means to create a hostile environment. People will not be stopped at the border in the UK, rather they will not be allowed to be carried if they are those whom we know should not be coming to the UK. The scheme does not affect the classic asylum claims.

The Government are committed to ensure the continued safety and security of our UK border. The authority to carry is an integral part of that policy, and has been since 2015. Consistency of support from the official Opposition is gratefully received, and such consistency from all the opposition would be gratefully received if offered.

The Authority to Carry Scheme is essentially the UK’s “no fly” scheme, and is similar to those operated across the world. It is designed to ensure that the citizens of the UK are safe. It is intended to prevent certain individuals from travelling to the UK when necessary in the public interest. It is operated by the National Border Targeting Centre, the multi-agency operational hub within Border Force. It is an important part of our border security arrangements, which prevents individuals who are known terrorists, serious criminals and those subject sanctions from being able to travel to the UK. I do not apologise for it or accept in any way the suggestion that the scheme is part of fostering a hostile immigration environment. It is about keeping our citizens safe.

I thank all hon. Members for their participation. The adoption of the regulations and giving effect to the Authority to Carry Scheme 2023 will underpin the operation of a critical element of our future border and immigration system, namely, universal permission to travel. It will build on the successful operation of the existing policy, which prevents individuals from travelling to or from the UK, and will maintain and develop that important part of our security arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Dines Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

5. What steps her Department is taking ensure effective (a) management and (b) monitoring of serial perpetrators of domestic abuse.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

Domestic abuse is an abhorrent crime and tackling it is a priority for this Government. Our tackling domestic abuse plan, which was published last year, is clear that our response to perpetrators will be uncompromising and relentless. We are investing unprecedented amounts in perpetrator interventions and technology for the police to identify abusers. We are also considering the feasibility of putting dangerous offenders on the register.

[Ellie Reeves]

In response to a recent parliamentary question, the Minister admitted that the Home Office does not routinely collect data on the number of domestic abuse victims killed by a partner who had previously been convicted of domestic violence. When domestic abuse offences reported to the police have doubled in the past five years while charges have nearly halved, this puts lives at risk. Will the Minister back Labour’s call for a domestic abuse register to track offenders, protect victims and help prevent more crime?

[Miss Dines]

The feasibility of such a register is being looked into. I remind the House that 911,000 reports of domestic abuse are made to the police every year. The Government are carefully considering technological answers and ensuring that police forces look carefully at the situation. We are looking at multi-agency forums for improving the track record on this issue. The Government are spending unprecedented amounts in a cogent, targeted way and I am proud of the commitments so far.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I was pleased to see that last year’s tackling domestic abuse plan recognised the link between domestic abuse and child abuse. My hon. Friend will be aware of the horrendous child sexual exploitation case in Rotherham and will agree that we need to end child abuse of all kinds. Does she agree that we need a child criminal and sexual exploitation commissioner, working alongside the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, to stop CSE, punish perpetrators and ensure that anyone linked to CSE has no link to public office ever again?

[Miss Dines]

I know my hon. Friend is a strong campaigner on this issue and that it is very important locally, but it is also hugely important nationally. I was privileged to visit the National Crime Agency and other groups that work in the field. A huge amount of work is going on. It is clear that the Government need to have a detailed response to the recent report to ensure that we have joined-up thinking across all Departments to stamp out child sexual abuse, because it is a dreadful crime.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

6. When she plans to appoint an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

The role of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, as set out in the Modern Slavery Act 2015, is to encourage good practice in the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of slavery and human trafficking offences and the identification of victims. The Home Secretary recognises the importance of the role of the anti-slavery commissioner and has committed to running a new competition to recruit for the role. The process will begin imminently.

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank the Minister most warmly for that answer. She illustrates perfectly the need for my private Member’s Bill, which would allow Parliament to make this most important appointment, rather than the Government. The post has been vacant for 10 months already. In the third quarter of last year, no fewer than 4,586 potential victims of modern slavery were referred to the Home Office—38% up on the previous year. What is it about their record on this issue that makes the lack of scrutiny so attractive to the Government?

[Miss Dines]

I do not accept that narrative. The competition is opening shortly. There will be a large number of very good candidates, and there needs to be a proper process. These things cannot be rushed. Sometimes the best things come to those who wait.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

In the third quarter of 2022, over 4,500 potential victims of modern slavery were referred to the national referral mechanism—a record since its introduction—and 43% of those were children. Just last month, people up and down the country were shocked to learn that over 200 children seeking asylum have gone missing from Home Office hotels. The Home Office ignored repeated warnings that the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 would make things worse. What have we seen since then? A failure to appoint a new anti-slavery commissioner and just one conviction for child trafficking last year. Does the Minister think that that one conviction shows that the Government are on top of this? Does it not show that they are continuing to let dangerous criminal gangs get away with their crimes?

[Miss Dines]

There is a big history with trafficking, and dangerous gangs have to be looked at. However, it is this Government who have the confidence to do something about it. There are issues that other Members of this House were reluctant to look at. It is important, for example, that the ethnicity of each and every alleged criminal in the field is noted, so that greater statistics and knowledge can be held. A commissioner will be appointed at the appropriate time, as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

T9. Does the Minister agree that in addition to funding for town centre improvements, there is the safer streets fund, which plays a vital role in levelling up places such as Ilkeston and Cotmanhay? They will benefit from more than £400,000 of safer streets funding to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour, which far too often blight our communities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

My hon. Friend represents a seat in an interesting county, and I know that she works hard on this issue. I believe that there are three projects of the kind that she mentions in Derbyshire, on which more than £1.5 million has been spent. These projects do level up, and they include spending on measures such as closed circuit television and street lighting. Crime has fallen in her constituency, and that is partly due to her work with the outstanding Conservative police and crime commissioner, Angelique Foster. I urge my hon. Friend to continue that work.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Following the news this week that Australia’s medical regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, has moved to reschedule psilocybin for medicinal use from 1 July, when can we expect the Home Office to finally reschedule psilocybin, so that people with conditions such as treatment-resistant depression and post-traumatic stress disorder do not have to travel to Europe, the United States or, now, Australia for psychedelic therapy treatment that they should be able to access safely, where appropriate, here?