Brain Family: Deportation

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I say to my hon. Friend that when dealing with issues of migration it is important that we take steps both outside Europe, where the majority of net migration continues to come from, and inside Europe. Therefore, our approach is to look at this in both ways, but, as I have indicated, I will certainly reflect on the further representations that are made to me.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

First, I would like to express my heartfelt sympathy to the Brain family, who came here in good faith and have been let down by this Government. Their case is yet another that highlights the chaos of the immigration system under this Government. The Brains’ situation will be familiar to many Members in this House, who will have seen their own constituents faced with deportation owing to changes in the immigration rules. Let us be clear about what is involved here. This family came to the UK on a Government scheme specifically designed to attract people to relocate here. They entered legally, they have integrated into their community and they have fully embraced its way of life. That they should now be faced with deportation because of Government changes shows the problems caused by the constant chopping and changing of the immigration rules by the Home Office. These changes are retrospectively made, in a desperate attempt to meet targets on net migration that the Government have consistently missed and show no sign of meeting any time soon—it just adds insult to injury.

The highlands of Scotland have for centuries faced the problem of depopulation. The population of Scotland has barely grown in the past 100 years. As the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) correctly said yesterday; the Brains’ case is not an issue of immigration, but of emigration. Our immigration system must allow us the flexibility to meet the needs of our communities. It must not focus solely on an arbitrary number put in place from Whitehall. Of course there must be rules to govern immigration, and it is important that these rules are enforced, but this is also an issue of compassion. Should we really be uprooting a young family, who came to the UK legally and in good faith, from the lives they have built here? Should we be deporting children whose whole lives have been here, to a country they barely know?

I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. Why do the Brain family no longer qualify under the original visa terms under which they came to the UK? I understand what the Minister said about extending the application process, but given that these terms were changed by the Government, what support has the Home Office provided to assist this family? Why is the Home Office making this an issue of immigration, as opposed to one of emigration, as under the original scheme?

[James Brokenshire]

I say to the hon. Lady that the help provided has been the discretion that has already been applied in this case, not once, but twice, in allowing extra time for the family to regularise their stay. It is therefore completely incorrect to suggest that we have taken a blinkered approach or have simply applied a strict one, although she has sought to criticise us for that.

On post-study work, it is important that the House understands that we made these changes not to target some simple number, but to deal with abuse in system, which this Government inherited from the last Labour Government. We had students arriving in this country who could not speak English and were using this route as a mechanism not to study but to work. We have, however, shown that we are prepared to listen in this case. In continuing to reflect on it, we have already taken representations from the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, who is representing his constituents. As I have indicated, that is what we will do, but I make the point that the family have known for at least five years what the requirements would be. They have known of the need to get a graduate-level job. We wish them success in securing that, and obviously I look forward to hearing further representations on this matter.

Unaccompanied Children

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for securing such a timely and appropriate debate. I also thank him because whenever I hear him in Committees or the Chamber, he is always moderate and thoughtful and really has the best interests of the most vulnerable people in his heart.

Nobody who has heard today’s speeches can be in any doubt about the level of concern Members have about the growing number of unaccompanied children in Europe, or their frustration at the Government’s response. The debate is timely as it comes just a week before the House will have the chance to consider an amendment to the Immigration Bill that would require the Government to relocate and support 3,000 unaccompanied refugee children from across Europe. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for pushing that issue for a long time.

The amendment is small but significant, with the potential to provide safety and stability to children for whom conflicts in their home countries are far beyond their comprehension, let alone their control. As Members will know, the amendment was tabled by my colleague Lord Dubs, himself a refugee who arrived in Britain in 1939 as one of almost 10,000 Jewish children saved by the Kindertransport. The quote from 1938 that the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) read out was therefore particularly pertinent.

Lord Dubs’ amendment passed in the Lords by more than 100 votes and has the support of a wide range of charities and campaign groups. It will have the support of Labour Members in the Commons next week, and I implore all Members of all parties to support it. I do not pretend that the amendment will solve the growing problem on its own. The number of unaccompanied children who are now making such treacherous journeys to Europe is an incredibly serious and complex issue. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate said, two more children died making the journey last night.

In February this year, children accounted for more than a third of all refugees and migrants in Europe, compared with one in 10 in June 2015. Beyond the refugee crisis, 982 of the 3,266 people identified as potential victims of trafficking in the UK last year were children, who are vulnerable to unimaginable exploitation and violence. As with so many other challenges we face, our response to unaccompanied children in Europe, whether they are here as refugees or as the victims of traffickers, will require an EU-wide solution and EU countries working together to address a problem that cuts across borders.

I echo the points made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen). There needs to be an improved framework to support migrant children in Europe and reduce the risks of them falling into the hands of traffickers or suffering sexual exploitation and violence. Recent reports by UNICEF and the Children’s Society have emphasised the urgency of finding a more durable solution, and I hope that the Minister will reflect on that in his response.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Save the Children estimate that there are currently 24,000 unaccompanied refugee children in Europe, so we believe that 3,000 would be a reasonable figure for the UK to take at this stage. That would be in addition to the number already being taken under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, a scheme that we fully support but that does not allow the resettlement of vulnerable refugees who have already reached Europe. Given the sheer scale and immediacy of the problem of unaccompanied refugee children in Europe, we believe that the amendment is fair and realistic.

Now for some asks. The Minister has stated that he is sorting out the issues relating to the Dublin III resolution, but so far he has not told us about the facts. Will he do so today? Does he agree with the UNHCR, Save the Children and countless other bodies on that matter? If he does not, what alternative proposal do the Government have in mind? If the Minister can introduce some constructive proposals today, we would like to hear them, because of course we have a vote in a week. My right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) was right to bring up the issues relating to the support given to local authorities. Will the Minister update us on the support that the Government are making available for local authorities that are resettling unaccompanied child refugees? For how long will such funding and support be continued?

I am sure the Minister will appreciate that it is not enough to simply allow children to find sanctuary in this country; we must afford them the security and safety that we would expect for our own children. Yet in April 2013, the Government implemented changes to the legal aid system that mean that separated or unaccompanied migrant children are no longer able to get free advice and representation for their immigration cases. However, just yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that the former Lord Chancellor acted ultra vires when he made changes to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 using secondary legislation.

The cases that were affected by the changes to the 2012 Act primarily involved children who have non-asylum immigration claims. Their claims are often about their right to a family and private life, and the children have often grown up in the UK in foster homes and have no lasting connections to their country of origin. Cases include those of lone children making citizenship applications; child trafficking victims; children involved in international adoption processes; and children who have been abandoned or estranged from their care-givers.

The restriction in legal aid means that some of the most vulnerable children are left without clarity as to their immigration status as they turn 18, which affects their access to housing, education and employment. I thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for making that point more completely. Without legal aid, the children affected no longer have independent access to legal professionals who can help establish their immigration status and advise them on their options to find a permanent solution. They are at increased risk of removal to countries to which they have little, if any, connection. Worse still, children desperate to resolve their legal issues are faced with the intense risk of being exploited through unregulated labour, or of being sexually exploited or groomed by criminal networks, because of the need to raise the funds to pay for their legal fees. Can the Minister tell us that he will look into reinstating legal aid for all separated children for their immigration cases?

Although the debate is timely, it is also depressingly familiar. For a number of years Labour has been calling on the Government to do more to help vulnerable refugees fleeing violence, abuse and oppression, but at every stage they have been reluctant to do so. They must recognise and respond to public and parliamentary pressure and support unaccompanied children in Europe. Children are vulnerable to the most horrifying exploitation and abuse. I end where the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate began: the Government must offer these children not just a temporary safe haven but a lasting solution, and the opportunity to make the UK their safe and secure childhood home.

European Agenda on Security

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 General Committees

[The Chair]

We now have until 3.35 pm for questions to the Minister. I remind members of the Committee that those questions should be brief. Subject to my discretion, it is open to a member to ask related supplementary questions.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and I thank you for your guidance on the protocol of the Committee. Will the Minister provide some information about how the British Government were involved in drafting “The European Agenda on Security”?

[James Brokenshire]

Obviously, the agenda is a Commission document, but as I indicated in my opening remarks, we see it as being led by the Council. These issues were debated at meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council and they continue to be debated; we have a further extraordinary meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council later this week. Through that mechanism, issues of security, what the right processes are and how we work together were addressed; the UK made interventions at Council meetings; and the internal security strategy—the Council-led document that I referred to—was created. Obviously, COSI, which is now implementing the strategy, reports back to the Council.

[Sarah Champion]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Taking it to the next step, will he provide clarity on the steps that the Government will take to implement the agenda once it is adopted and what plans the UK has to help tackle common EU security threats?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have indicated, the internal security strategy, which was renewed by member states in June of last year, sets out a clear agenda. It contains much of what is in the Commission’s communication, although the Council very much leads on it: the strategy is being implemented by the Council and that implementation is being led by COSI. We welcome that, as it ensures that member states are clearly in the driving seat of the agenda’s implementation and will get regular feedback on it. As has been indicated, a Europol counter-terrorism centre was established in January of this year, in response to a call from the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers at Council on 20 November. That new centre, which acts as a platform for member states to increase information sharing, is a good example of how the agenda is being implemented.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call—

[Sarah Champion]

rose—

[The Chair]

Order. I can only call those who are standing. Only one Member was standing at that moment, and that was Kelvin Hopkins.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

It is important to recognise that national security is a member state competence. In other words, the lead responsibility for determining a country’s national security policy rightly lies with that member state. We guard that very clearly, but it is also important to recognise that EU membership gives UK police forces and law enforcement authorities automatic access to a broad range of tools and databases that help combat transnational crime. Those include Europol; the Prüm Council decisions on fingerprint and DNA exchange—when fully operational, those will allow DNA exchanges in 15 minutes, which simply is not possible through other mechanisms—Eurojust, the EU’s judicial co-operation unit, in which we participate; the European Criminal Records Information Sharing System; data on passenger name records; the second-generation Schengen information system; and, of course, the European arrest warrant.

That combination of mechanisms that is available to law enforcement authorities would be difficult to replicate. Those mechanisms would all need to be reassessed and negotiated, and alternative arrangements would need to be put in place. That would be challenging. We clearly benefit from those structures at the moment in guarding our domestic security and confronting transnational crime, which does not respect borders, and we therefore need to continue to work closely with our European partners and use the most effective mechanisms to protect our citizens.

[Sarah Champion]

This is my final question. The right hon. Member for Ashford highlighted the fact that the Commission document was drafted before the Paris terror attack in November 2015 and the events that followed in Brussels. Have the Government given further consideration to whether any additional steps are now needed?

[James Brokenshire]

In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, I should say that it is always the Government’s intention to schedule debates in a timely fashion, although I regret and acknowledge that that was not possible in this case. We continue to take debate recommendations seriously, although I think that we all recognise that there have been opportunities to debate counter-terrorism and security through oral statements on the Floor of the House and other debates. There have been opportunities for right hon. and hon. Members to debate the approach that the UK takes and the context of the broader European security agenda.

I say in direct response to the hon. Lady’s questions that we keep these matters under close review. We hold ongoing discussions with our European partners. Following the attacks in Paris and Brussels, we stepped up operational arrangements at the border and we continue to consider with European partners how best to strengthen things further. I touched on work that we want to take forward in Europe on firearms. I have also highlighted work that we continue to press on criminal record information sharing and encouraging other member states to put additional data into ECRIS and the second-generation Schengen information system to benefit the domestic security of the UK and all the other European countries. Europol’s ongoing work on taking down propaganda from Daesh and other terrorist organisations effectively mirrors at EU level the work that we do through the counter-terrorism internet referral unit.

We continue to advance practical steps. Clearly, the approval of the passenger name records directive is another important milestone and highlights the need for collaboration, co-operation and continuing to debate, discuss and work with our European partners. We must recognise that member states lead on national security—that is a member state competence—but, equally, that we gain strength from good co-operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I welcome the opportunity to debate this important matter. I thank the members of the European Scrutiny Committee for their work on examining “The European Agenda on Security”.

In the past 15 years, the nature of global terrorism has changed dramatically, with a deadly combination of home-grown terror and sophisticated global networks. Both do their utmost to cause maximum harm to citizens across the world. The current UK terror threat remains at severe, as it does across the majority of the EU. We must give our law enforcement bodies access to the information and methods that they know will work. We must do all we can to work together with our European counterparts to keep our respective populations safe. That is why Labour strongly supports common EU policing measures and a cross-EU response. That is why Labour believes that our membership of the EU makes us stronger and better able to tackle emerging cross-border security threats.

We welcome the focus of the proposed agenda and the five key principles outlined, which build on previous structures that are working well. We welcome the fact that the agenda addresses the terrorist threat that is faced by every EU country. The events of Brussels, Paris and elsewhere have shown us how real the threat is and how irrelevant borders are to those who perpetrate such heinous crimes.

The agenda recognises and identifies rapidly changing crime and security threats, including organised crime, terrorism and cybercrime, in Britain and across the EU. Indeed, cybercrime was only an emerging threat when the 2010 EU internal security strategy was agreed, but it is now a reality and a serious security threat that we all face. “The European Agenda on Security” gives our police and security services the cross-EU integrated response that they need to tackle our common security threats, and that is why Labour is pleased to support its implementation. The agenda’s importance to our ongoing national security is clear.

draft Modern Slavery Act 2015 (Code of Practice) regulations 2016

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Monday 18th April 2016 General Committees

That the Committee has considered the draft Modern Slavery Act 2015 (Code of Practice) Regulations 2016.—(Karen Bradley.)

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I apologise if I was late, Mr Nuttall—I got caught up with the Secretary of State—but it is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

The magnitude and scale of human trafficking and modern slavery across the world are beyond most people’s comprehension. The United Kingdom, in common with every country on earth, is not spared from this insidious crime. The National Crime Agency reports that last year 3,266 people, 928 of whom where children, were identified as potential victims of trafficking in the UK. That is a 40% increase on the number of potential victims in 2014.

The trafficking of human beings, whether for sexual exploitation, forced labour, domestic servitude, organ harvesting or child trafficking, is part of serious, internationally organised crime. Perpetrators are often linked across a number of international networks, and can change their routes and methods faster than the international and national authorities can keep up.

The UK, in common with many other countries in western Europe, is primarily a destination country for victims of trafficking. In 2015 potential victims of trafficking found in the UK were reported to be from 102 different countries of origin. The global scale of trafficking, the number of transit countries through which a victim is transported and the sheer diversity of trafficking routes associated with western Europe make human trafficking all the more difficult to tackle. Our police and border forces must, therefore, have use of the most effective powers to pursue, disrupt and serve justice on those engaged in human trafficking.

Throughout its passage in both Houses, the Modern Slavery Bill was approached in a collaborative and cross-party manner. The Act and the regulations that have followed have been much stronger as a result, and I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for making that so. I admire her courage and conviction in getting the right legislation in place and allowing us all to have a strong debate about it.

Given the scale and complexity of human trafficking, I am sure that the Minister appreciates that the code of practice before the Committee today must be fit for purpose. It must support our police and border forces to make arrests without ambiguity and, as such, to deal effectively with maritime trafficking.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

As the hon. Lady knows, victims of trafficking are held in our care for 45 days in hostels, but are then released. Although I may be wrong, I understand that once they are released there is no monitoring of them. For all we know, they might be going back to the people who have trafficked them. I hope that the Minister will comment on that in her summing up. Does the hon. Lady agree with me, however, that it is important that we keep a close and watchful eye on them?

[Sarah Champion]

I completely agree with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I am particularly interested in the children who have been trafficked, and one of my concerns is that up to 60% of children who have come into local authority care and whom we believe to have been trafficked then go missing, within the timeframe he was talking about. One can only assume that they are back in the clutches of the traffickers and abusers, so yes, that is very worrying. I know that ECPAT UK is doing further research into the data, but the figure for the proportion of children going missing, while not as high as 60%, still seems high. I agree that the same is happening with adults. We need to be much more mindful of that, because these victims need our support to enable them to rebuild their lives and to go home, if that is what they want to do. The Government need to give more attention to that.

As I was saying, I want to ensure that the code of practice receives sufficient scrutiny to be able to deliver its objectives. I thank Human Rights at Sea, ECPAT UK and the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner for their expert analysis and the guidance they have given to me on this code that enables me to recommend the following additions. Crucially, I urge the Minister to include an additional exception under paragraph 3.1(a) on urgent interviews. Currently, the code allows for an urgent interview to take place away from a police station or other authorised place of detention if any delay would result in an interference with, or harm to, evidence or people or serious damage to property. I believe it is necessary to include an additional exception under paragraph 3.1(a) for when the consequence of a delay could lead to potential or imminent loss of life. That would cover possible eventualities when trafficked individuals may be trapped in vehicles, containers or other forms of trafficking apparatus. This may become apparent on, or after, the point of arrest of a suspected perpetrator or subsequently during initial inquiries and should be explicitly articulated in the code to prevent potential or actual loss of life.

Paragraph 4 of the code outlines the power to obtain information. I believe that paragraph 4 should include references to existing stop-and-search powers as well as the existing powers outlined in the code, to ensure officials are able to use all powers available to them. The paragraph, as drafted, is restricted to obtaining information on the ship only. I recommend that it is broadened to include obtaining relevant information under the Act on the quayside, in the area of a port, in a harbour, in warehouses, in packing sheds or in the immediate locality of the ship. I also recommend that this power is extended in order to be exercised on tenders, liberty boats and all other watercraft used to re-supply ships.

There may be the need for a small number of additional clarifications, particularly regarding the definitions of specific terms in the code. I would be more than happy to write to the Minister about those issues to ensure that we avoid any ambiguity on the implementation of the code, as we all want it to be as effective as possible.

The code does not make reference to the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice on modern slavery. I understand that the code relates to constables and other enforcement officials and is specific to maritime enforcement, but it is important to ensure consistency of practice across police activity in relation to modern slavery. Will the Minister consider updating the code to ensure that it makes reference to the College of Policing’s APP and other professional codes of practice? Likewise, I urge the Minister to redraft elements of the code so that it has a closer relationship to other codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That issue has been raised by the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner who has written to the Home Office about the inconsistencies in the code of which I have given examples.

Will the Minister consider revising the code in the areas I have outlined using the powers granted to her under paragraph 5(5) of schedule 2 to the Act?

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

There are obviously challenges in relation to dealing with certain communities with organised gangs where, as the hon. Gentleman says, there may well be language difficulties. Police and crime commissioners are finding many innovative ways around that. Looking at their recruitment policies and at how volunteers and special constables in particular can be used to ensure that the language skills are available is a very good idea, which has been adopted by some PCCs around the country.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

On Friday, the South Yorkshire PCC announced the loss of 850 police staff because of Government cuts. Also last week, the National Crime Agency’s application to the Home Office for support for Rotherham’s 1,400 victims of child abuse was rejected. How are we meant to bring down child sexual exploitation when the Government are cutting police resources?

[Mrs May]

I indicated earlier that overall the Government are protecting police budgets when the precept is taken into account. We have also made money available to the national policing lead precisely in relation to the issue of child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation, and ensured that the National Crime Agency has the resources it needs to be able to do that job. The hon. Lady has an excellent record in dealing with this issue. Her constituency has faced particularly challenging times as a result of child sexual exploitation, and I can assure her that I and other Ministers involved take the issue very seriously indeed. That is why we have taken steps such as setting up the Goddard inquiry, and why we have made money available to the national policing lead in order to better co-ordinate the work that is done in this area.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. First, we have generally seen an increase in the number of reports of rape and other sexual violence. It is good that people have more confidence to come forward, precisely because of the support they now feel they will get from the police and other services. It is, of course, important to ensure that support is available to individuals, for example at Rape Crisis centres. I am pleased to say that over the past five years the Government have made money available to ensure that new Rape Crisis centres have opened, unlike under the previous Labour Government when they were closing.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is believed that 170,000 women and girls in the UK have endured female genital mutilation. It is right that the Government have introduced legislation and are funding projects in Africa and training NHS and education staff, but without significant UK grassroots intervention to change cultural norms, we will never prevent this horrific child abuse. When will the Secretary of State change her approach and invest in helping communities to prevent FGM, rather than failing to prosecute once the crime has been committed?

[Mrs May]

As the hon. Lady knows, we have taken the question of forced genital mutilation extremely seriously, which is why we have significantly strengthened the law on FGM and have issued a range of materials to support professionals in being able to understand these issues and spot signs of somebody being taken out of the country. I commend the work of the all-party parliamentary group on female genital mutilation and, in particular, of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who has ensured that information is made available to communities and community groups about what can be done to prevent forced genital mutilation and to ensure that people can spot the signs and stop it taking place.

Healthcare: Yarl’s Wood

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate hugely my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), because she has given those women a voice which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said, is being denied them.

At the moment a great deal of attention is rightly being given to those who are crossing borders to seek safety. It is important that we focus our attention on those who reach the UK and seek our protection, and that we ensure they are treated with dignity and humanity. Every year, around 2,000 asylum-seeking women are locked up at Yarl’s Wood detention centre. Most are survivors of rape, sexual violence or torture. Because of their experiences in their countries of origin, those women are clearly vulnerable and many have serious physical and mental health problems. However, in spite of that, when they come to the UK for sanctuary they are locked up in detention, where they are re-traumatised, and the physical and mental health care available to them is wholly inadequate.

The chief inspector of prisons has called Yarl’s Wood a “place of national concern”. He found in his most recent inspection report that, of all the areas in the centre,

“healthcare had declined most severely”.

His report also pointed to the lack of gender-sensitive health practices in Yarl’s Wood. For instance, women who had newly arrived at the centre were expected to speak to male nurses as part of the health screening process and women who were placed on constant supervision, deemed to be so mentally distressed that they might kill themselves, were being watched by male staff in spite of their previous experiences of abuse and victimisation.

When Maimuna Jawo, who was detained in Yarl’s Wood prison, gave evidence to the parliamentary inquiry into the use of immigration detention, she said:

“Anybody who is on suicide watch has sexual harassment in Yarl’s Wood, because those male guards, they sit there watching you at night, sleeping and being naked.”

The Home Office has promised that a new policy will be put in place to ensure that women are watched only by female guards, but while the proportion of female staff at Yarl’s Wood remains under 50% there are serious questions about whether such a policy will ever become practice.

There are also real concerns about the treatment of pregnant women in detention, as hon. Members have said. Research by Medical Justice found that pregnant women miss antenatal appointments and some do not have any scans while detained. The poor care provided to those women is particularly troubling when we consider that, as has been said, for most of them detention serves absolutely no purpose.

[Mrs Spelman]

I want to highlight one important point: staff from Yarl’s Wood were actually prosecuted for offences against detainees. It is important to place that on the record.

[Sarah Champion]

I am grateful that the right hon. Lady placed that on the record. It turns my stomach that we are in this situation. Ninety of the 99 pregnant women detained in Yarl’s Wood in 2014 were released back into the community to continue with their cases, so they were locked up and re-traumatised for no reason at all. One of the pregnant women who the charity Women for Refugee Women is in touch with, a survivor of trafficking, was recently released back into the community after being detained for almost two months, even though Home Office guidance says that pregnant women should be detained only if their removal is imminent.

[Alex Chalk]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady’s excellent speech, but do we not have to be a tiny bit careful about making the point that people are sometimes released into the community and then continue normally? It happens in the criminal system that people who are remanded in custody subsequently have their trial and are acquitted, but that does not necessarily mean that, in all cases, there is not a public policy reason for such action. I understand her argument, but I wonder whether that is the strongest point.

[Sarah Champion]

I will come on to strengthen my point in a moment. It is welcome news that the Home Office has committed to consult on its policy of detaining pregnant women and I hope that it will engage with a wide range of stakeholders, including women who have been in detention while pregnant, to make sure that the process is meaningful. Standards of healthcare in Yarl’s Wood need to improve as a matter of real urgency, but we must not lose sight of the fact that locking up women who have come to the UK to seek our protection is harmful by its nature. However much healthcare services are improved, detention causes mental health trauma and exacerbates physical problems.

These women do not need to be in Yarl’s Wood in the first place. Their claims could be dealt with much more effectively in the community. In fact, two thirds of asylum-seeking women are released from Yarl’s Wood to do just that. The Home Office’s own evidence on the new family returns process found no rise in absconding among families seeking asylum since children stopped being detained at Yarl’s Wood. We can and should learn from that.

Minister, locking up women seeking asylum is expensive, unnecessary and unjust. It is time that the practice is swiftly brought to an end.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 3) Order 2015

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 General Committees

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. May I also wish you a belated happy birthday and you and the Committee a very happy new year?

The motion asks us to affirm the Government’s decision to place a temporary class drug order on methiopropamine—may I say that I have both a lisp and no A-level in chemistry?—otherwise known as MPA. Having carefully considered the health risks identified by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, I can confirm that the Opposition support the motion. There are serious health harms associated with MPA. As the Minister said, adverse effects reported by users include tachycardia, anxiety, panic attacks, sweating, headaches, nausea, difficulty breathing, vomiting, difficulty urinating, and sexual dysfunction.

The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has reported users suffering seizures across Europe, and, most gravely, MPA was implicated in seven deaths in the UK in 2014. There is therefore clear evidence that the substances controlled by the order pose a significant risk to public health.

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs reports that the number of deaths and harms related to MPA use is increasing, and it could not find evidence of any past or present legitimate medicinal use for MPA. The Government received a recommendation from the ACMD that MPA be placed under a temporary class drug order on 18 November 2015. Given the increased risk to public health posed by MPA, that seems appropriate.

MPA has been on the market since January 2011. For five years MPA has been perniciously branded as a legal high and has brought real danger into our communities. It has been found in head shops since 2012, so it has found its way on to the high streets up and down our country. The delay between MPA hitting the market and finally coming under control demonstrates why we need new legislation that allows authorities to get ahead of the market, which is why we support the Government’s Psychoactive Substances Bill. We look forward to the Bill coming into force as soon as practicable.

The new Bill and a ban on MPA will be futile without a drugs education policy that is fit for purpose. The Government have consistently emphasised the importance of “Talk to Frank”, the Home Office’s flagship drug information service. We support “Frank”—it was, after all, the previous Labour Government that established it—but we are concerned that it is neglected. The Angelus Foundation has argued that there is a strong case for overhauling the service. Release has gone further and described the information that “Frank” provides as oblique. “Frank” received only 29 inquiries about MPA between October 2014 and September 2015. I have looked at the “Frank” website for content on MPA and it is not impressive.

On 16 December, neither the “Drugs A-Z” nor the search function on the “Frank” website had any hits for MPA or methiopropamine. There are no results for the street names of the drugs provided by the ACMD, such as “Ivory Dove Ultra”, “China White”, or “Walter White”. That paucity of content about MPA on the “Frank” website is symptomatic of a stretched information service that cannot keep up with the evolving drugs market. The Government really need an effective drugs education policy, as the laws we pass cannot deal with the problem on their own.

The Opposition support the order before us. The ACMD has made a clear recommendation based on the evidence about the real harms brought about by MPA. A temporary class drug order is an appropriate response, but I urge the Government to look carefully at their drugs education policy.

Sexual Exploitation: Protection of 16 and 17-year-olds

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing this important debate. I would also like to thank everyone who has spoken because they have done so with passion, on the basis of many years of experience and out of a real commitment to using the opportunity we have as parliamentarians to make a difference for the most vulnerable people. I am always most proud when we have debates such as this one.

The clear driver for this debate is improving the lives of the most vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds. Too often, young people of this age are treated like adults and not afforded the additional protections given in law to younger children. However, teenagers of this age are more predisposed towards risk-taking behaviour. For the most vulnerable—for example, those with earlier experiences of abuse, trauma and neglect—this risk taking can have serious consequences.

Yes, 16 and 17-year-olds can give consent to sexual acts, but is it always informed consent? The law does not recognise that in many cases where children aged 16 and 17 become victims of sexual offences, they are coerced into submission by perpetrators who supply them with drugs and alcohol or of whom the young people are scared. The capacity to consent is impaired through an imbalance of power between a child and a perpetrator, and by the young person’s use and/or dependency on drugs or alcohol prior to the offence.

As far as under-18s are concerned, the law is clear that the sale and consumption of alcohol from licensed premises and from licensed vendors is prohibited, but the law does not specifically address the fact that 16 and 17-year-olds, particularly vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds, can be coerced to submit to their own sexual abuse through adults supplying them with alcohol on private premises.

It is welcome that the Serious Crime Act 2015 has created an offence of coercive and controlling behaviour in intimate and family relationships, which protects vulnerable individuals, including 16 and 17-year-olds, in cases of domestic abuse. However, similar changes are needed to recognise the fact that 16 and 17-year-olds can be coerced and controlled—either through drugs or alcohol, or through fear—for the purpose of sexual abuse in more transient relationships.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines sex offences against adults and children. In the case of a number of sexual crimes, the Act views young people aged 16 and 17 differently from those under the age of 16, and differently again from adults. For example, young people aged 16 and 17 are recognised as children if they are victims of sexual exploitation. A person who is found guilty of such an offence will incur a shorter prison sentence—up to seven years—than a person whose victim is under 13. That person will be sentenced to life imprisonment, while a person whose victim is between the ages of 13 and 16 will be sentenced to up to 14 years in prison.

Despite the age-related gradation in the length of sentences for sexual exploitation, the sentences for offences of rape and sexual assaults do not reflect the age of the victim in the same way. They do not recognise that young people aged 16 and 17 are children, and are therefore more vulnerable than adults aged over 18. The current legislation provides no guarantee that a sexual assault against a 16 or 17-year-old will incur a more severe sentence than an attack on an adult aged over 18.

Child abduction warning notices are used by the police to disrupt contact between a vulnerable child and an adult when it is feared that the child may be at risk of sexual exploitation or harm. They are primarily used to protect children under the age of 16, with the consent of their parents or guardians. Currently, the law also affords protection to the tiny proportion of vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds who are in local authority care under section 31 of the Children Act 1989. Police protocols specify that only that group can be protected by child abduction warning notices.

Last year 4,510 teenagers aged 16 or 17 became looked-after children, but only 190 were taken into care formally under section 31. The other 4,320 became looked-after children voluntarily, under section 20. As only those who are formally taken into care under section 31 are protected by child abduction warning notices, the vast majority of 16 and 17-year-olds in care are not protected. That denies the police a critical tool to keep them safe from sexual exploitation. For example, when two children are living in the same supported accommodation and facing the same risks of exploitation, and one is looked after under section 31 while the other is looked after under section 20, the police can protect only the first child; the second is left unprotected. As the Minister knows, there is clear evidence that children in care are more vulnerable to grooming and sexual exploitation. I ask her to look at the position again to see whether that highly vulnerable group of 16 and 17-year-olds could be protected by child abduction warning notices.

We must bear in mind that there are other vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds who are not looked after by local authorities. They include “children in need” under section 17 of the Children Act, who could be disabled or young carers. Those aged 16 or 17 who are assessed as homeless under the Housing Act 1996 are not eligible either. Both groups are at significant risk, and would benefit from the increased protection provided by child abduction warning notices.

In Rotherham there are 2,360 young people aged 16 and 17, and analysis of Department for Education statistics shows that 160 of them have been assessed as “children in need”. I want those 160 to have the protection of child abduction warning notices, so that if they are being sexually exploited—even if the process of sexual exploitation is just beginning—the police can disrupt the perpetrators rather than sitting on their hands until the abuse happens. The Minister has the perfect opportunity to make amends in the upcoming policing and criminal justice Bill. It is an opportunity to send a strong message that 16 and 17-year-olds are children, and that sexual offences against children will always be treated seriously.

Let me end by asking the Minister some questions. Does she agree that the law should make it very clear that a young person who consents to drink alcohol or take drugs should never be seen as also consenting to a sexual act? Does she also agree that the sexual offences legislation could be strengthened with the introduction of a new offence of coercive and controlling behaviour for the purposes of sexual activity with vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds?

The definitive sentencing guidelines on sexual offences, specifically on offences of rape or sexual assaults, do not include vulnerability due to the victim being under the age of 18 as the harm factor, the culpability factor, or even the aggravating factor. This means that those convicted of these horrible crimes against children aged 16 and 17 may not get a sentence reflecting the seriousness of their crime due to a victim being a child. Does the Minister agree that the sentencing guidelines on sexual offences should be amended to include a victim aged under 18 being listed as a category 2 harm factor? This would strengthen the message that targeting children for sexual crimes will not be tolerated and raise awareness of the vulnerability of children of this age.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the work of that organisation. I will talk about mental health services later, if she will bear with me. I am absolutely sure that the organisation does incredibly important work. The length of its waiting list clearly demonstrates the demand for its services and the fact that it is tackling the issue in an effective way.

We need to work across Government, which is why we have established a cross-Government response to child sexual exploitation. I want to assure all hon. Members that this is a top priority for this Government. The Home Secretary launched the report “Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation” in March this year. It sets out a national response to the failures that we saw in Rotherham, which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) described, as well as in Manchester, Oxford and elsewhere, where children were let down by the very people who were responsible for protecting them. It sets out how we will continue the urgent work of overhauling the work of our police, social services and other agencies together to protect vulnerable children.

I want to assure all hon. Members that significant work has been and is taking place across Government, but given the time available today, I will not go through all the points that have been raised. My door is always open, however, and all hon. Members are very welcome to come and see me to discuss their concerns and the work that is being done. I will be happy to share in detail the work we are doing across Government.

I want to touch on the issue of terminology in relation to child sexual exploitation. We know that there is an issue with the terminology, so we are reviewing and reissuing the current definition and the statutory guidance on safeguarding children and young people from sexual exploitation. We will make it clear what constitutes sexual exploitation as a form of sexual abuse, and we are working with a number of stakeholders, including the Children’s Society, to sharpen the definition and strengthen the guidance. We will publish a progress report on all actions taken following the “Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation” report early next year.

We recognise that 16 and 17-year-olds are a diverse group and can be particularly vulnerable. They are children, but they are old enough legally to consent to sexual activity where appropriate. We know that that combination can be exploited and lead to abuse. There is a contradiction between the ever-decreasing age of sexual maturity and the age of emotional maturity, which is not going down. The wider that gap becomes, the harder it is for us to deal with these complex issues.

The court process can clearly present a particular challenge to vulnerable victims and witnesses, and everyone involved has a responsibility to manage that impact. In January 2015, toolkits were launched for the police, prosecutors and advocates, addressing the fact that consent is an issue for vulnerable young victims as well as dealing with the context of drugs, alcohol, mental health and learning disabilities. We have also completed the training of all specialist prosecutors, which will include Crown Court cases of child sexual abuse, and in 2016 we are training in-house advocates as well.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) talked about the law that applies to the sexual exploitation of children aged 16 and 17. I want to assure her that the law in England and Wales already specifically protects that age group from abuse. For example, sections 47 to 50 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 criminalise payment for the sexual services of a child aged under 18 and provide for the offences of causing, inciting, controlling, arranging or facilitating the sexual exploitation of a child under 18.

The hon. Member for Stockport has campaigned vigorously on this issue. During the passage of the Serious Crime Act 2015, she was a leader in ensuring that the Government removed the terms “child prostitution” and “child pornography” from the law. I know that the guidance has not yet been updated in some areas but we are working incredibly hard to ensure that that happens and to ensure that all agencies with responsibility for that guidance update it as soon as possible. This is the clear message: a child cannot consent to sex. They are forced into sex, they do not consent to it, and there can therefore be no such thing as a child prostitute.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire talked about children in care, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst). Children in care are particularly vulnerable, which is why the Children Act 1989 makes it an offence to take any child in care, including a 16 or 17-year-old, away from the person responsible for them without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. We also know that 16 and 17-year-olds can be vulnerable in a variety of ways, some of which may be directly or indirectly linked to their age. That is also reflected in the sentencing guidelines, in which additional aggravating factors include the use of alcohol or drugs on the victim and the targeting of a particularly vulnerable child.

[Sarah Champion]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I want to go back to her last point. I do not believe that either the police or people working in care homes are aware of that piece of legislation. If there is anything she can do to make them aware, that would be great. When I speak to these workers, they say, “The child is 16, so I can’t intervene if they want to go off with this person.”

[Karen Bradley]

I hope they have been listening to the debate, but we will make sure that even those few people who are not watching the House of Commons on a Thursday afternoon are made aware of that piece of legislation. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran talked about a young person’s consent after taking drugs or alcohol. Let us be clear: the law is clear that a young person’s consent to take drugs or alcohol can never be viewed as consent to sexual acts.

I am making sure that I deal with the important points, so let me move on to the issue of mental health. Some children who experience the kind of trauma associated with child sexual exploitation will need support from mental health services. The Minister for Community and Social Care has just joined us on the Front Bench. He is a Health Minister, and I am working closely with him on the crisis care concordat to make sure that mental health services are appropriately delivered. It is crucial that we get this right for children, including 16 to 17-year-olds. That is why we have commenced a major transformation programme, backed by additional investment, which will improve the support provided to vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds who have experienced sexual abuse and are in need of mental health and wellbeing services. The programme will place the emphasis on prevention and early intervention, which I know to be an issue close to the heart of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), building care around the needs of children, young people and their families, including the most vulnerable.

May I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for bringing the details of the WISH Centre to the Chamber today? I welcome the invitation she made and I hope that we can arrange time in my diary for me to visit.

Draft Modern Slavery Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2015

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 General Committees

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, even if only briefly. As the Minister has said, the regulations make consequential amendments, and I have nothing more to add.

Question put and agreed to.