Digital Devices: Search Powers at the UK Border

Laura Farris Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on securing the debate. I compliment her on her steadfast commitment to the rights of children, and protecting them from sexual exploitation in a range of ways.

I will start with some preliminary observations. First, my hon. Friend presents a compelling case, which I undertake to take back to ministerial colleagues and discuss further. The opportunity represented by inspecting digital devices at the border to increase our ability to tackle and prevent sexual abuse is one that we should take seriously, and it is a key priority for the Government.

I will go through the scale of child sexual abuse, with which she is familiar. The Office for National Statistics estimates that perhaps as many as 7.5% of children in this country will experience some form of sexual abuse before the age of 16. That is the equivalent of just over 3 million people across England and Wales. Reports from the Internet Watch Foundation show that the fastest-growing age group appearing in online child sexual abuse imagery is seven to 10-year-olds, and the prevalence of the most severe forms has more than doubled since 2010. Not only are children being abused, but these moments of their lives are being captured, uploaded on to the internet and essentially frozen in perpetuity. For them, it is a never-ending cycle of abuse from which they will never escape. The files are not even hidden in hard-to-reach parts of the internet; many can be accessed in just three clicks.

My hon. Friend knows how seriously we take child sexual exploitation in this country. We are the Government who implemented the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. It had a historical focus, but it none the less informs our continuing work.

We also recognise the unique vulnerability of children online. We have tackled that to some extent through the Online Safety Act 2023, which brings companies in scope under legal duties to proactively combat the threat of child sexual abuse on their platforms and to identify, report and remove material. We are now working with the independent regulator Ofcom and the National Crime Agency to implement and operationalise those new powers and duties. However, I do not want to duck my hon. Friend’s wider point, which is that the border provides an important opportunity to apprehend and arrest perpetrators. On occasion, there will be important probative material that would lead a member of Border Force to reasonably suspect that an individual has images on their device that suggest serious criminality and that would give an opportunity for interception.

When people enter or leave our country, we can see where they are going and where they have been. We can create risk profiles based on their movements and note when someone has travelled to multiple locations that are well known for child sex tourism. Under our existing customs powers, Border Force can, without the requirement for reasonable suspicion, check the baggage of people entering and leaving the country. That baggage may include obscene or indecent materials. Notable examples include child and baby-like dolls, which sometime have purpose-built internal sex organs. Specialist Border Force teams are trained to capture this key information, seize materials and arrest where appropriate.

[Mrs Latham]

I recognise what the Minister is saying, but the gap exists and Border Force needs these powers. It can search bags and pockets, and strip-search individuals, but it cannot look at their phones or devices. That is where the gap lies and if we do not close it, there will be even more children being abused on a regular basis.

[Laura Farris]

My hon. Friend has accurately pointed out what looks like a lacuna in the law—where physical objects that may be identified in someone’s baggage indicate something, Border Force simply does not have the power to search devices. I have already undertaken to go back to Ministers and discuss that with them.

I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government remain firmly committed to exploring and exercising all potential levers that can be used to safeguard children and bring offenders to justice. We will continue to work across the whole system to ensure that we are doing all we can to tackle this abhorrent crime, and I thank my hon. Friend again for securing this important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Town Centre Safety

Laura Farris Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)]

I am glad to have this opportunity to speak and hope to set the record straight. Forgive me if I do not recognise the counsel of despair emanating from the Opposition Benches. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) invites us to believe that there has been a catalogue of failure and that everything is getting worse, but the facts tell us something different. I do not pretend that everything is perfect—of course we need to protect our town centres and the people who use them, and I will come to all that in a moment—but for all the noise that these debates can generate, we do the public a disservice if we seek to distil everything into a row across the Dispatch Box without sometimes acknowledging the merits of the other side and the meaningful progress they have sometimes made.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

On that conciliatory note, could we all just pay tribute to what the police do, because they are the focus of the debate? They put on the uniform in the morning and say goodbye to their loved ones not knowing how their day is going to turn out. As we argue about where things should go in future, perhaps we can all agree that they do such an important job for our society and that we owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

[Laura Farris]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I accept without reservation that there is considerable courage and selflessness in being a first responder whose job and duty is to run towards danger when everybody else is running away from it.

Let me begin with the simplest facts. Since 2010, neighbourhood crime—the crimes that undermine the fabric of communities and make people feel unsafe in their homes and on their local streets—has fallen. The crime survey for England and Wales, which the Office for National Statistics described as

“the best estimate of long-term trends in crimes against the household population”,

shows that since 2010 overall crime levels are down by more than 50%. Violent crimes as a whole, which include crimes that involve any form of offensive weapon, are down by 52%. Theft overall, which includes domestic burglary and the theft of a vehicle—some of the most invasive thefts that go directly to a person’s sense of personal security—has almost halved since we came into office. Domestic burglary currently stands at its lowest ever level.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister accept that the workplace is a personal place for those who work there? The Co-op Group has reported that in the year to date some 300,000 incidents of abuse and violence have taken place in shops up and down the country. Employees who are just there to sell to the public in their community are the victims of abuse and, in some cases, violence, but the police do not even turn up to 76% of reports, so how can people feel safe going to work?

[Laura Farris]

I will come specifically to shop workers. I have no difference of opinion with the Opposition on the points about the role of shop workers and some of the issues that affect them personally, and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I will come to that.

There are today more police officers in England and Wales than at any other point in our nation’s history—

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Laura Farris]

If I could just finish my sentence, I will of course give way to the hon. Lady. The most recent figures we have are from March 2023, when the figure for police offices in England and Wales was 149,566. It has never been higher. With that, I give way.

[Jess Phillips]

I wonder whether the Minister can provide the per capita of population figures.

[Laura Farris]

I do not have that figure, so I will have to write to the hon. Lady.

It is right that decisions about how police resources are deployed, including the number and composition of people in neighbourhood and local policing roles, are for the determination of chief constables, who know their beat better than anyone and are accountable to democratically elected police and crime commissioners. Nevertheless, the numbers have a broader significance, and I want to draw the Opposition’s attention to four points.

First, due to the investment in the police uplift programme, the number of police officers in local policing roles is the highest since comparable data began to be collected, with an increase of 6.5% in the 12 months to 31 March. We have more female officers and more officers from minority ethnic backgrounds than ever before—something that I hope the hon. Member for Nottingham North will agree is consistent with some of the conclusions that were certainly implied, if not made explicit, on the nature of representation in Baroness Casey’s report into conduct in the Metropolitan police.

We have more officers receiving specialist training for specific categories of crime. I will give the House one example, because yesterday I visited Avon and Somerset Police, the pioneering force conducting Operation Soteria Bluestone in the investigation of rape. They made it perfectly clear to me that the increase in numbers that they have seen locally has facilitated a huge increase in the number of specialist trained rape and serious sexual offences police officers. In fact, there are 2,000 nationwide. I noted that the hon. Gentleman said that we were setting the police up to fail. That could not be more different from the information that that force gave me yesterday—and if they are incorrect, I would appreciate it if he would explain why when he closes.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I put on record my support for the police, particularly Thames Valley Police—like the Minister, I represent a constituency in Berkshire. Can she update the House on the proportion of new officers who are still in training? It seems to be a very serious issue in Reading and the surrounding areas that, while officers have been recruited, they are still in training, as opposed to the fully trained and experienced officers who were lost through austerity.

[Laura Farris]

The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question, and I will have to get back to him on that. I know that the number in my part of the Thames Valley is quite low, but that may not extend to Reading. He deserves an answer on that, and I will get one to him.

The Government have also ensured that the police have the resources they need. This year they received record funding of above £17.2 billion. That is an extra £550 million for frontline policing compared with last year. I gently remind those on the Opposition Benches that they voted against our police funding settlements every single year between 2016 and 2019.

I want to draw our attention down to community level and make a few observations. We have had a commitment from the National Police Chiefs’ Council—it was announced in August, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North will recall—that the police will follow up on all reasonable lines of inquiry and that there is no offence too small. That commitment is intended to offer huge reassurance to the public. It was also this Government who introduced the safer streets fund, which has been in receipt of £120 million already, for 270 projects covering all 43 police forces in England and Wales, and which is complemented by the StreetSafe app.

All that kind of thing can seem quite microscopic, as though it only affects individual streets or individual parks, reporting a broken light or a dark and dangerous corner of a popular area for jogging. The point is that people can report the area and action will be taken, and all that contributes to improving the fabric of communities up and down the United Kingdom.

I want to spend a moment on retail crime, which I will deal with in two parts: first I will cover shoplifting itself, and then I will move on to assault on retail workers. I take issue, very respectfully, with the suggestion that somehow the Government are being complacent in shoplifting. The Government are clear that we expect the police to take a zero-tolerance approach to shoplifting and violence towards shop workers. I want to disabuse anyone of the notion that somehow we have decriminalised shoplifting offences below £200.

I gently draw the shadow Minister’s attention to the following. In 2020, the National Business Crime Centre surveyed police forces in England and Wales, asking whether they had a policy of not responding to shoplifting if the goods were worth less than £200. Not one force in England and Wales said that it had such a policy. He will know as well as I do that the National Police Chiefs’ Council recently produced a retail crime action plan, which included a commitment to prioritise police attendance at the scene where violence had been used against shop staff.

[Jim McMahon]

I accept the explanation that it is not a written policy, but how does the Minister explain that in 76% of the 300,000 sample cases, the police did not turn up?

[Laura Farris]

It is difficult for me to identify every single complaint and whether somebody has attended, but one thing I think is relevant is that the increase in shoplifting that we have regrettably seen over the past 12 months has been met by a corresponding and equivalent increase in the volume of charges for shoplifting offences. Charges are up by 29% in the past 12 months. I gently draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to that.

I want to talk specifically about offences against retail workers. I invite the hon. Member for Nottingham North to answer this point when he closes—it is not put in an aggressive way, because I recognise the role that retail workers perform and it is completely unacceptable that they should be subject to violence in the line of their duties, but it is already unlawful to commit an act of assault. It is criminalised under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

The hon. Gentleman knows, because we have already had this discussion, that there is a statutory obligation to treat the fact that an individual is a retail worker as an aggravating factor. He has identified the fact that the trade unions support a new law, but I say very respectfully that the judges do not, the Crown Prosecution Service does not and the police forces I have spoken to do not. The practitioners in this area of the law do not support a new law. Even though he has made that point, he has not identified any case where he considers there to have been a miscarriage of justice because the laws were not sufficient to offer protection. It is not enough simply to assert that we need new laws without setting out clearly why the existing statutory protection does not succeed.

Let me now turn to the issue of antisocial behaviour—it is not minor or trivial, and I make no bones about that. It is probably the principal crime that all MPs hear about, irrespective of the constituencies we represent. I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have taken a range of legislative and non-legislative action. A new antisocial behaviour action plan was introduced earlier this year, backed by £160 million of funding to ensure that our commitments have real teeth. He will be aware of the hotspot patrolling pilot that has been conducted across 10 police forces and is about to be rolled out on a national basis because of its success.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for the £2.4 million given to South Yorkshire Police for antisocial behaviour hotspots, including in Maltby and Dinnington, areas in my constituency that are plagued by antisocial behaviour. When I met the police and the police and crime commissioner, they said that that money is making a real difference to getting boots on the ground and on patrols. I thank the Minister for the extra funds to clamp down on antisocial behaviour in Rother Valley.

[Laura Farris]

It is very heartening to hear that those funds are making a real difference in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

I also draw the shadow Minister’s attention to some of the new teeth, if I may call them that, in the Criminal Justice Bill. He will be aware that we have lowered the minimum age at which a community protection notice can be ordered to 10 years old. That is not just to achieve consistency with other aspects of criminal justice, but because we recognise that in reality quite a lot of antisocial behaviour is committed by those in the age 10 to 16 bracket. That is a common complaint that many in this House will be familiar with.

We have extended police powers to implement a public spaces protection order. I mention that simply because I could not differentiate between that and the respect order that the hon. Gentleman was describing, but it gives the police greater powers for a rapid response. We have also expanded the minimum exclusion period by 50%, from 48 hours to 72 hours, to give authorities more powers to implement dispersal arrangements.

Moving on to our Criminal Justice Bill, I think I noted the shadow Minister’s qualified agreement with at least some of its contents, and certainly those on the Opposition Benches did not vote against it on Second Reading. We respectfully say that the Bill takes the fight to the criminals, introducing new powers to enter premises and seize stolen goods—the example given repeatedly during the debate was of stolen mobile phones, the everyday theft that people endure. It contains new powers on knife crime to seize, retain and destroy a bladed article found on private property, without evidence that it has been used in conjunction with a criminal offence, but where there is a reasonable belief that it may be, and new laws on possession of a knife with intent.

I would add one or two other measures that are just as important to community safety. This Bill, for the first time, recognises coercive control as the cancer of a crime that it is, by putting those convicted of a serious offence in that regard under the multi-agency public protection arrangements and then putting them on the violent and sex offender register.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North was critical of the Criminal Justice Bill, but he neglected to say anything about the Sentencing Bill, which has its Second Reading tomorrow. That Bill will put some of the worst offenders away for longer, so some of the men who maraud on our streets to carry out the most grotesque offences against women—we all know their names—can anticipate a whole-life order without the possibility of parole, even if theirs was a one-off offence. Rapists, who under the last Labour Government served just 50% of their sentence behind bars under section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, can now look forward to spending the entirety of their sentence in custody without the possibility of parole.

[Mr Sheerman]

I am not sure that I like the language of “taking the fight to the criminals.” The fact of the matter is that we want to deal with criminals in the right way. If only the Minister would look at the injustices of joint enterprise, under which almost 1,000 young people are in prison with long sentences for crimes in which they did not actually physically take the fight to anyone.

[Laura Farris]

The hon. Gentleman has been a compassionate campaigner on the issue of joint enterprise, and I have listened to him a lot over the years. I know that the matter was considered by the Court of Appeal, and its decision was not consistent with some of his remarks, but that conversation should be continued because it is a developing area of the law.

I will conclude with a quotation from a non-political figure. His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary, Andy Cooke, said recently:

“England and Wales are arguably safer than they have ever been.”

I make no apology for ending where I began: neighbourhood crime has fallen by 50% since 2010, and I am proud of that. Of course, we can go further, and we are building and developing police powers, new laws and community measures so that we can get there, protecting the law-abiding majority and cherishing the town centres in our communities by keeping them safe.

Criminal Justice Bill

Laura Farris Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 28th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)]

It is a pleasure to close this important debate on the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill, a Bill that puts public protection and community confidence at its core. It has a strong empirical basis, building on the detailed work undertaken by the Law Commission, by Baroness Casey into misconduct in the Metropolitan police, by Clare Wade KC into domestic homicide and coercive control, and by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse.

It consolidates the significant progress this Government have made since 2010 and it was disappointing to hear the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the shadow Home Secretary, only rely on the statistics from police recorded crime when she knows as well as I do that the Office for National Statistics says that the correct measure is the Crime Survey for England and Wales, which provides—

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Minister give way?

[Laura Farris]

I will not because I have little time. That survey provides a more reliable measure of long-term trends than police recorded data.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Laura Farris]

If we use the correct measure, the regrettable conclusion for the Opposition is that like-for-like crime is down by 56%.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Minister give way?

[Laura Farris]

Violent crime is down from where it was in 2010 by 52%, and domestic burglaries are down by 57%. If we compare—[Interruption.] If we compare where we were in 2019 to today—

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Minister give way?

[Laura Farris]

Domestic abuse, a sensitive category of crime, has fallen between 2019, before the pandemic, to today by 16%. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Even the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has to understand that the Minister is not giving way.

[Laura Farris]

My time is limited and I apologise for that.

[Yvette Cooper]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister will know that the time is not limited. We do have time and she has named me. I do understand that she has the right not to take an intervention but she will also know that, having named me, as a courtesy to the House, she would normally do so.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is not strictly a point of order for the Chair. The right hon. Lady understands the procedures extremely well.

[Laura Farris]

The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said that this Government have failed in their duty to keep citizens safe. It is regrettable that His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary, Andy Cooke, takes a different view. He has said:

“England and Wales are arguably safer than they have ever been.”

In the limited time I have available, I will address some of the points that came up today. I will respond in writing to those whose speeches I cannot address. Under this Bill, we are taking the fight to serious organised criminals, cutting off their capacity to churn out new firearms, mass-produce illegal drugs and perpetrate fraud with devices using multiple SIM cards. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) elegantly put it, we are designing crime out. We are cracking down on some of the most pernicious harms, which are often hidden from view. We are developing recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and we are developing the package of measures announced by the Prime Minister in April by creating an obligation in law to treat grooming as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on the name change measure. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), who introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on that issue. I will just pick up on the point about mandatory reporting, which the House will know was the subject of a principal finding and recommendation of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham agrees that the measure is a good step forward.

I will briefly address two other issues. Making murder at the end of a relationship an aggravating factor, recognising that the moment of maximum danger for many victims is when they tell him finally that they are leaving, is not the only thing we are doing in that space. Yesterday, the Ministry of Justice announced a consultation on whether coercive and controlling behaviour or the use of a knife or weapon that is already on the scene should become aggravating features in any murder case. I pay tribute to Carole Gould and Julie Devey for their campaign on that.

Finally, I will address the point that was raised about whether the measures we are taking adequately answer the findings of Baroness Casey in her report into misconduct in the Metropolitan police and our handling of it. The measures in the Bill are not the only ones we are taking. We are also acting to ensure that any officer who cannot hold appropriate vetting clearance can be removed from office and that a finding of gross misconduct will automatically result in summary dismissal, and we are giving chief constables the right of appeal following a misconduct hearing if the conclusion is that one of their subordinates has not been subject to an adequate sanction.

The depth and breadth of this debate highlights the need to stay ahead of criminal ingenuity through enhanced supervision, interception and disruption, and by cutting criminals off from the tools of their trade. We are developing legal principles that find their roots in the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Online Safety Act 2023. We are cracking down on crime at every level. From antisocial behaviour all the way to serious organised crime, it blights our communities and targets the most vulnerable. I therefore commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Criminal Justice Bill (Programme)

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

That the following provisions shall apply to the Criminal Justice Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 30 January 2024.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No.83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Scott Mann.)

Question agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

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

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a Minister of the Crown, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Scott Mann.)

Question agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Farris Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to tackle violence against women and girls.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)]

In the last three years we have passed comprehensive new laws covering everything from domestic abuse and street harassment to online safety. Last year the Government added violence against women to the strategic policing requirement, placing it on equivalent footing to terrorism, and the Home Office’s award-winning Enough campaign is now entering its final phase with a firm focus on tackling perpetrator behaviour being rolled out across colleges and universities.

[Julie Marson]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. I pay tribute to Sandra Conte and her team at Future Living in Hertford for everything they do to support victims of domestic abuse. As a magistrate, I specialised in domestic abuse courts and I am utterly convinced of their value, both for justice and for victims. Will my hon. Friend share her assessment of the initiatives to increase specialisation in court processes for sexual offending and sexual violence?

[Laura Farris]

The specialist sexual violence support project is now under way in Crown courts in Leeds, Newcastle and Snaresbrook. It is at an early stage but is due to report in early 2025. However, my hon. Friend should be aware that any victim of rape or sexual assault may now take advantage of section 28 procedures, which have been rolled out nationwide to allow people to give their evidence privately and ahead of trial. We are also engaging close to 1,000 independent sexual violence advisers in the system to accompany victims every step of the way through the criminal justice system. As a result, rape prosecutions are higher today than they were in 2010 and sentences are approximately 50% longer.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell me how many forces are still not providing domestic abuse training to their officers?

[Laura Farris]

I do not have that answer. I will have to go back to the Home Office and write to the hon. Member.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to take on this important role. I pass on my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for her dedication and commitment. I am looking forward to getting to work.

A shocking new study has found that domestic abusers are controlling the finances of more than 5 million women in the UK. This cannot be allowed to continue. The Government have turned a blind eye to this issue for more than a decade, so what steps is the Minister taking today to tackle economic abuse?

[Laura Farris]

The hon. Lady and I have worked together a lot on domestic abuse since we were elected. She will know that economic abuse is basically a derivative of coercive control, which Clare Wade KC, in her review of domestic homicide, says underpins almost all domestic abuse. Tomorrow the Criminal Justice Bill has its Second Reading in the House. The Bill will see serious coercive control offences placed under the multi-agency public protection arrangements and offenders placed on the violent sexual and terrorist offender register.

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the Supreme Court judgment of 15 November 2023 on the Rwanda relocation scheme.

UK Citizenship Test

Laura Farris Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing the debate. I would like to say at the start that I cannot comment on an individual case, but I know that the Home Office will be happy to look directly into the circumstances that she has outlined in relation to her constituent. I urge her not to conflate the issues that have been experienced by her constituent, which do sound irregular, with an indication that the system as a whole is failing.

Since 2003, successive Governments have been clear that all those seeking to make the UK their permanent home should be prepared to integrate successfully in the UK, with both an appropriate level of spoken English and a sufficient understanding of life in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the guidance book that is published to go with the “Life in the UK” test makes repeated reference to respect and commitment to British values. Many citizens would recognise and agree that that should be a fundamental requirement for anyone looking for permanent settlement.

Adult applicants between the ages of 18 and 65 are required to demonstrate that they have sufficient knowledge of the UK—not just our current political systems, but our history. I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady was saying; she was a bit critical about that, but I gently remind her that the past does inform the present. Here we are in Westminster Hall, a building that has gone through the centuries and has told the story of what this great nation really means. I have to say, with respect, that I think it is important that people are cognisant of our great history before they secure permanent leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Citizenship of this country is a privilege, and it is absolutely right that we have mechanisms in place that emphasise the importance of integration.

I want to contextualise some of what the hon. Lady was saying about her constituent. She made two points that I think are worth referring to. She talked about how her constituent has profound dyslexia, possibly veering into what would meet the statutory definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010. We will certainly look at why that somewhat higher threshold for medical evidence was required.

The hon. Lady also made the point that it was somehow surprising that the application had to be made by her constituent herself. I remind her very gently that it is likely that this case would be covered by section 20 of the Equality Act, “Duty to make adjustments”. In any case of this nature, where someone is dealing with a service provider that would be covered by that Act, it is for the person complaining to identify the “provision, criterion or practice”—here, it might be the circumstances of the test—and say why that puts them at a “substantial disadvantage”, before the service provider decides what action, if any, it is going to take. That is the statutory language that applies and it is therefore consistent with that language that the Home Office requires applications to be made on an individual basis.

To give a little bit of context, since 2013 over 1.7 million attempts have been made to pass the test, with 1.2 million people—70% of applicants—passing it the first time. Applicants do not have to get 100%, thank God. If we look even further into that data, we see that the vast majority of people pass the test by the third attempt. Although the test is quite comprehensive and, yes, it goes into history, it is not so onerous that people cannot pass it or that they do not have the right to citizenship because they fail. They are able to do it. There are 24 questions. It is computer-based and multiple choice. It requires those who wish to make their home in the United Kingdom to demonstrate a knowledge of the history, culture and government of the United Kingdom, and of the principles that sit at the core of British democracy.

Those who are taking the test will already have been living here for at least five years. The test therefore focuses on the more in-depth knowledge that is expected of someone who has presumably already sought to integrate within UK society and is committing to the next step by applying for permanent residence or citizenship. I hope that that answers, to a degree, the point that the hon. Lady made about those who are applying for asylum under the auspices of the refugee convention.

We can have a disagreement about whether those who are at the application stage should or should not have the right to work, but I will simply make three points. It is consistent with all our immigration practices that those who are applying do not yet have the same rights as somebody whose application, whether it is for a work permit or for asylum, has been granted; that is one of the reasons why they are treated differently. It is not irregular that people who are given refugee status are not required to take an equivalent test or are not given the opportunity to learn for it, because usually a grant of asylum is finite; it is not the same as getting indefinite leave to remain, so it is right that we treat those two categories of applicant differently. Somebody could get asylum, remain in the United Kingdom for an extended period, make the application for indefinite leave to remain and then have to take the test in the usual way. There is not differential treatment between those two categories; they are fundamentally different categories.

The hon. Lady talked about a review of the test. I am certainly aware of the House of Lords Committee’s report. I am also aware that the test has been in circulation for some time. It, or at least the guidance for it, is published by the Stationery Office on behalf of the Home Office and is available in paperback, audiobook, e-book and other digital formats. In other words, the training materials certainly are available in accessible formats that somebody with dyslexia or another kind of special educational need would be able to access.

The Home Office’s contract with the Stationery Office includes a commitment to enhance current digital learning materials and develop a new online platform, and the Home Office continues to work with the Stationery Office to ensure that materials are available in a digital format to meet customer demand and support candidates. The release of a new e-learning platform in 2020, in addition to a continued improvement process for the mobile apps based on customer feedback, has helped to drive a shift towards sales in digital format, from 23% in 2018 to 60% last year. The Home Office will continue to work with the Stationery Office to offer innovative digital products that meet customer needs and value for money.

In relation to the House of Lords report, I am aware that the UK handbook was first published over 10 years ago. Although much of the material, particularly the historical aspect, remains pertinent, the Home Office is aware of the need for the content to remain up to date, above and beyond minor amendments and perhaps the improving digitalisation of the training programme.

I recognise that there are strong views on how a review should be conducted, particularly in relation to the scope of the review, who should conduct it and what consultation should be undertaken.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Will the Minister undertake, in discussion with colleagues, to ensure that the review that is going to be forthcoming will be wide-ranging and comprehensive, to take account of some of the concerns that have been raised today? Then, hopefully, we can see some improvement for the future.

[Laura Farris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I was coming to that point. I think it is appropriate that I write to the hon. Member for North East Fife once the scope and timeframe for the review is known, so that she is aware. Of course, we will be listening carefully to the points that she has made.

Overall, it is right to say that the “Life in the UK” test is an important element of gauging commitment to integrating and to a permanent life in the United Kingdom. I hope that the irregularities that the hon. Lady has described in respect of her own constituent can be resolved. I do not believe that they are indicative of an overall weakness in the test, which by and large has proved highly successful and which nearly all applicants, in the end, do manage to access.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Can the Minister tell us whether a review date has been set, and what the scope of the review will be? It appears that up to this point, the Home Office has not met the commitment that it gave to the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee last year.

[Laura Farris]

That is a fair question. I am not aware of the timeframe yet, to be completely honest. However, I hope I am giving the hon. Lady a little bit of guidance. I would say that I do not think that it is recognised that there are inherent flaws in the “Life in the UK” test, although the Home Office is completely aware of the recommendations in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee report. It is considering the scope and will do a review, which I have already indicated that I will write to the hon. Lady about, with the timeline and the scope. I think that that is the context in which I should root my answer. I thank the hon. Lady once again for securing today’s debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Points of Order

Laura Farris Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. Mr Speaker has, I understand, reviewed the question and is content for it to be answered.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his perfectly proper question, and I want to reassure him that we have listened to it and the Lord Chancellor will be writing to him in due course.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has recently been announced that owing to its perilous financial position, Derbyshire County Council has asked the Department for Transport to pause its plans for the Staveley regeneration route bypass. That would mean that £140 million of Government money would not be available to us in Chesterfield for a much needed bypass because of the financial problems of Derbyshire County Council. Obviously the decision was not made by the Department for Transport, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I wonder whether you have been notified of any plans for a statement to be made in the House about the proposed change. If not, how we can ensure that the council and the Department work together to ensure that this important route still goes ahead?

Alcohol Licensing (Coronavirus) (Regulatory Easements) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Laura Farris Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 General Committees

[The Chair]

I call Laura Farris to move her first motion as a Minister.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Alcohol Licensing (Coronavirus) (Regulatory Easements) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 990).

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Elliott. This is a relatively modest instrument, which was laid before the House on 11 September 2023. As all hon. Members will appreciate, the hospitality sector continues to face significant economic headwinds in the aftermath of the covid-19 pandemic. In recognition of that, the regulations will ensure that the Government continue to support such businesses by extending the temporary provisions set out in the Business and Planning Act 2020 for a further 18 months.

I will begin by providing hon. Members will a bit of background. The Licensing Act 2003 enables licences to be granted to sell alcohol for consumption on site or off site, or both. In the event that a business obtains an on-sales-only licence and subsequently wishes to also do off-sales, the business is required to make an additional application to the licensing authority for a variation that would add off-sales to its licence.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am very supportive of the regulations and wish they were being made permanent, instead of us having to come back here in 18 months. Does the Minister agree that one of the big problems with people going back and seeking waivers in their licence is that many licensing authorities incorrectly treat it as a bartering game? They will say, “If you want to be able to do off-sales, what else are you going to give us? Will you shut a bit early or have extra restrictions?” That kind of bartering game is not good for business, and I hope she will make it clear from the Front Bench that it is unacceptable when local authorities do that.

[Laura Farris]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that. I was not aware of it.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I am happy to write to the Minister with some examples.

[Laura Farris]

I would be grateful if he did so. I can certainly discuss it with my ministerial colleagues, because it sounds like something that might warrant a response.

In response to the covid pandemic, the Business and Planning Act 2020 included a temporary provision that automatically entitled holders of licences that covered on-sales to make off-sales without any need to amend their licences, saving them time and money at a desperate moment. That provision meant that pubs and restaurants could make alcohol on-sales, and that pavement licences were provided for any outdoor facilities they had. This was facilitated by a parallel but independent easement to pavement licensing, which created a temporary streamlined process. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 made the change to pavement licensing permanent.

It is believed that the off-sales provision has benefited at least 30,000 licensed premises in England and Wales that previously did not have an off-sales licence. The provision was due to expire at the end of September 2023, but given the clear benefits that it brings to businesses, it has been extended until 31 March 2025. This ensures that businesses will be able to continue to benefit from the provisions for a further 18 months.

Let me make it clear that although the immediate covid-19 crisis has passed, the residual effects continue to have significant impacts, particularly in the hospitality sector, which was acutely affected, and many businesses continue to manage high levels of debt. It is believed that the regulations are an appropriate mitigation to help businesses with the residual effects of covid-19.

During the next 18 months, the Government will explore the creation of a unified pavement licence that includes the consumption and sale of alcohol in outside pavement areas. We want to reduce the administrative burden faced by cafés, pubs and restaurants, which currently have to apply for multiple consents from their council, and I reassure hon. Members that that work is already under way.

I would like to pre-empt a concern that may be raised by making it clear that the Government have consulted the National Police Chiefs’ Council about the impact of extending the temporary off-sales permission. The view of the police is that the extension of off-sales licences has not caused any clearly identifiable increase in crime and disorder. As Members may know, another regulatory easement set out in the BPA temporarily increased the annual number of temporary event notices that licensed premises could have from 15 to 20 and increased the maximum number of days on which temporary events could be held from 21 to 26 days a year. For the avoidance of doubt, that easement will not be extended. It was underutilised, and it is not necessary to extend this provision, so it will lapse on 31 December.

I am confident that the measures in this statutory instrument will continue to benefit a wide range of businesses, including pubs and restaurants, and for that reason, I hope that it will receive the Committee’s support. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Farris]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his warm words. He raised three interesting points. First, he referred to the responses to the consultation. The breakdown shows that two thirds of respondents were opposed to making the arrangements permanent, while 35%, a third, were in favour. That breakdown was divided roughly between the licenced premises themselves, and residents, residents’ associations, and so on. I tend to concur with him that this seems to be a matter which could be resolved best by individual police forces, perhaps in conjunction with the National Police Chief’s Council.

On the long-term plan, I have already said that it is the Government’s intention that this will be made permanent in some form or another. The Home Office is already working on a permanent solution, in conjunction with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Although the regulations concern a separate issue, it is anticipated that the long-term solution will be worked through in the coming months and will carry over between Parliaments, irrespective of when a general election comes.

The shadow Minister was quite right to raise the issue of antisocial behaviour. Again, there is a tension here, because although we are united in wanting to help the hospitality sector, we must be cognisant of the potential increase in antisocial behaviour. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby for quite properly raising the impact of things like this on disabled members of the public, who, frankly, often end up the victims of unexpected obstacles, because people do not give proper, adequate thought to them. She has given me food for thought, which I will take back to the Home Office.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

On antisocial behaviour, sometimes the problem is that the police do not have the resources to manage legitimate crowds and groups of people leaving bars and venues, and therefore they object to licences being granted or extended. Clearly, that is unfair on the business owners, who might not be producing any more noise or disturbance for local residents, but the police fear, because of a decade of underfunding, that they are unable to pound the streets at night. Could advice be provided to police forces and local authorities to ensure we get the balance right? In our local authority, the police objected to a licence for Soho House because they said they were worried that the punters leaving at 2 o’clock in the morning might be an antisocial behaviour risk. I know Soho House members are creatives, but they are not usually known for their antisocial behaviour.

[Laura Farris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I disagree with him slightly, as we have increased police numbers by 20,000 since I was elected in 2019, and I do not think the common complaint of local police forces at the moment is that they are underfunded, but he alights on an important point with his example of Soho House. In whatever local authority or policing area, there will be distinct considerations. It is probably true that if the police are not embedded in any extension of licencing arrangements, there is a risk of antisocial behaviour, so the long-term solution must plainly be directed at that.

Overall, the reality is that the hospitality sector emerged from the pandemic with £10 billion-worth of covid-related debt, and every MP has heard directly about the pressure that has put on it. Sometimes, in the worst cases, it has led to closures, so I am very pleased that the Committee seems to be united in wanting to do everything it can to support this sector while we work to put a long-term solution in place. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Illegal Migration Bill

Laura Farris Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 17th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

If the principle of removal to a safe third country is not an adequate deterrent, why was that principle the flagship of the last Labour Government’s immigration policy in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002? What was the point of section 94—its most controversial provision—if it was not about the swift removal of failed asylum seekers?

[Stephen Kinnock]

The crucial point is that for a deterrent to be effective, it has to be credible. A deterrent based on a 0.3% risk of being sent to Rwanda is completely and utterly incredible. The only deterrent that works is a comprehensive returns deal with mainland Europe. If someone knows that, were they to come here on a small boat, they would be sent back to mainland Europe, they will not come and they will not pay €5,000 to the people smuggler. The only way to get that deal is to have a sensible and pragmatic negotiation with the European Union based on quid pro quo—give and take. That is the fundamental reality of the situation in which we find ourselves, but unfortunately those on the Conservative Benches keep closing their ears to that reality.

[Laura Farris]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again—I will not take long. Does he not accept that, in reality, there is no such thing as a returns deal with mainland Europe? The reason the Dublin convention was such a disaster and never resulted in us removing more people than we took in was that it was so incredibly difficult to get European countries to accept removals and make that happen. It is just an unworkable suggestion.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Surely the hon. Lady sees the direct connection between us crashing out of the Dublin regulation because of the utterly botched Brexit of the Government she speaks for, and the number of small boat crossings starting to skyrocket. There is a direct correlation between crashing out of the Dublin regulation and skyrocketing small boat crossings. I hope that she will look at the data and realise the truth of the matter.

Illegal Migration Bill

Laura Farris Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2023 Commons Chamber

Finally, I support Lords amendments 102 on safe and legal routes. It is clear that giving a two-month period for the Government to come back with a plan of implementation for safe and legal routes is a very sensible measure. The Home Affairs Committee made it clear in our report that safe and legal routes was one of the clear recommendations the Government should adopt if they seriously want to tackle the small boats problem. I also support Lords amendment 103 on the National Crime Agency and organised immigration crime enforcement, which I think is a very useful and helpful amendment, and Lords amendments 104 and 107 from the Archbishop of Canterbury on the 10-year strategy on refugees and human trafficking, which I again think would help the Government in dealing with the small boats problem.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

I will begin with Lords amendment 2, which would remove the retroactivity provisions that state that the Bill would apply to anyone who arrived on or after 7 March 2023, which is the date that the Bill was introduced in the House. There is a good reason generally why we do not allow legislation to apply retrospectively: so that there is legal certainty and people are bound only by the obligations that apply at the time. I accept without reservation that the law would be in disarray, for example, if new criminal offences had retrospective effect and people found themselves criminalised for things that they could not possibly have known to be unlawful at the time.

I respectfully submit, however, that this is not that kind of point. There is no principled argument to be made. First, the Government made it clear that the date the Bill was introduced was the same date on which it would become effective. Secondly, a person cannot argue in any compelling way that they decided to make an illegal crossing to the United Kingdom in March because they believed that they might end up in a hotel in Southampton, but now that they know they might have ended up going to Rwanda, they would not have made the illegal crossing. I am afraid that that argument does not work at all. I accept the Government’s position that the only way in which the policy will have the desired deterrent effect is if it has retrospective effect, so that we do not create perverse incentives for people smugglers to surge the crossings immediately before the Bill receives Royal Assent.

The second tranche of Lords amendments includes those that the Immigration Minister identified as wrecking amendments—amendments 1, 7, 90 and 93—and I will deal with them collectively. Lords amendment 7 seeks to strike out clause 4(1)(d), which states that removal should take effect irrespective of whether there is a judicial review application. Lords amendment 90 seeks to strike out clause 52, which states that interim orders may not halt deportation. Lords amendment 93 seeks to strike out removal pending an age verification appeal.

There is a wider point about those amendments. Collectively, they seek to dilute the deterrent effect of all removal provisions. Whatever we disagree on in this Chamber concerning current migration, we can probably achieve a consensus on one point: this situation will not get any easier to resolve. Whether the UNHCR is correct in saying that there are 100 million displaced people, or whether there are tens of millions, the reality is that famine, climate change, flooding and conflict will result in more and more people leaving their countries of origin to try to come elsewhere.

Any nation that tries to resolve the situation in its domestic arrangements will have to follow a strategy similar to the one that the Government are pursuing. The first element of that strategy is to decide on a cap for admissions and then—likely with UNHCR support in the future—to give proper consideration in advance to who should come under the quota scheme. The current schemes that are working very well in relation to Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong provide a good starting point. The second element is to deter all illegal migration by ensuring, with only the narrowest of exceptions, that an individual gains absolutely nothing from doing this.

The objective of the Illegal Migration Bill and, by extension, the Rwanda scheme is to remove illegal immigrants quickly without prejudice to their wider right to challenge the deportation order later, because the rationale is that speedy deportation deters others from coming to the country. Many eminent people agree with that proposition. As the former Supreme Court Justice, Lord Sumption, said in his foreword to Professor Ekins’ recent paper for Policy Exchange:

“This objective is frustrated if deportees are able to hold up their removal for years while their challenge goes through potentially three tiers of appeal followed by a petition to Strasbourg. The process commonly takes years.”

He continued by stating that “whatever one thinks” of the Rwanda scheme, if

“interim measures are available in cases like this, it is probable that no legislative scheme for the prompt removal of illegal immigrants”—

could ever “succeed.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Farris]

I will come back on two points. First, under the Bill, annual quotas will be decided upon with the consent of various local authorities that will be responsible for accommodating those people, and that is the right approach. On illegal migration, people arriving through irregular routes should not take precedence over those arriving lawfully through safe and legal routes. We could not allow a system where one displaces the right of the other, and that is a feature of this Bill.

The second thing I want to talk about is the effect of judicial reviews. Lords amendment 7 would permit judicial reviews. I cannot improve on the language used by David Blunkett when he was Home Secretary, introducing Labour’s flagship immigration Bill, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which was supported at the time by the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). I wanted to refresh my memory of what he said on Second Reading, because it was a powerful part of his speech. He said:

“At the moment the system is virtually unworkable. People can bring a judicial review during the process of the initial appeal, and when they reach the right to appeal to the tribunal they can judicially review the tribunal for not allowing the appeal to the tribunal. They can then judicially review the tribunal’s decision and they can judicially review whether they are entitled to go to the court of appeal following failure at the tribunal. The whole system is riddled with delay, prevarication, and, in some cases, deliberate disruption of the appeals process. Then they can judicially review the decision on removal even when the appeals have been gone through.”—[Official Report, 24 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 355.]

We have simplified the system a bit since then, but effectively he is right. He was right then to seek to effect removal after one right of appeal had been exhausted, and the Government are right now to aim for swift removal without judicial review holding everything up.

My final point, briefly, is about the speech that the former Supreme Court Justice Lord Brown made on Second Reading of this Bill in the Lords. He sat as a Cross-Bench peer, and he died on Friday. He said:

“No doubt the Bill can be improved in various ways, but we must recognise that almost every amendment we make to soften it can tend only to weaken its essential objectives: stopping the boats… We really must…give the Government the opportunity by this Bill finally to confront this most intractable of problems.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 May 2023; Vol. 829, c. 1806.]

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I start by referring Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the support I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project.

Despite their lordships’ best efforts, this remains in my 18-plus years in this place comfortably the worst piece of legislation I have seen come to this House. That is not because I disagree with it—I have probably disagreed with most stuff in my 18 and a bit years here—but because it is based on several bogus understandings of the truth. Within it, there is a deplorable bias towards the inhumane.

To start with Lords amendment 1, we have an attempt to get the Government to do something massively radical: to comply with international obligations. The notion that we should not do that, or that we do not need to do that, is based upon the desire to depict the current situation—the boats situation and the asylum situation in the UK—as an emergency. I will come to that in a moment.

The two likely consequences of the UK habitually choosing to not comply with its international obligations are: first, that we become a pariah, and are seen internationally as not a team player, and thereby we are less effective in all parts of our policy around the world, whether economic, defensive or otherwise; and, secondly, that others will copy us and, as a consequence, the whole system breaks down. I often hear Members on the Government Benches say, “France is a safe country, why don’t people stay there?”. The simple answer to that is, “Yeah, it is. So is Spain and so is Italy.” If we end up in a situation where other people copy us, the whole network breaks down and we end up in a desperate situation. If we care about our position internationally, we need to care about that.

Let us turn straight to the Government’s justification for not complying with their international obligations, including issues to do with modern slavery and child detention, on which the Lords has made helpful amendments. Their explanation is that the situation constitutes an emergency. Does it? In the Home Secretary’s words, we are currently being swamped by refugees. Let us look at some facts to see whether either of those things bears any scrutiny. As we speak, Germany takes four times more asylum seekers than the United Kingdom, and France takes 2.5 times more asylum seekers than the United Kingdom. If we were to add the United Kingdom back into the European Union for statistical purposes, just 7% of asylum seekers would come to the UK and, per capita, the UK would be 22nd out of 28. Demonstrably, the United Kingdom has not faced an especial problem. We are not being swamped, and such language is demeaning of this country and of the office of Home Secretary.

The Government say, “Ah, but it’s different here, because we’ve taken in 250,000 Ukrainian refugees as well as those coming in through other routes.” I am utterly proud that the United Kingdom has been among those countries who have taken in the most Ukrainian refugees, but we have not taken the most. Germany has taken 1 million Ukrainian refugees and, as I said, it still takes four times more asylum seekers than us, and Poland has taken 1.5 million Ukrainian refugees. It appears that talking about our support for Ukraine and Ukrainian refugees is an excuse for the Government in seeking to avoid their international obligations.

Britain’s problem needs to be put into overall context. The reality is that 70% of the millions of displaced people and refugees on planet Earth flee either to a different region of their country or to a neighbouring country. A steadily decreasing trickle of people end up at the end of the line—and, my goodness, the United Kingdom, over the channel, is the end of the line. Again, for us to state that we face an especial emergency in terms of the numbers of people coming here is totally bogus. It is important to state that and put it on the record.

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Report

Laura Farris Excerpts

Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is precisely the reason why I am a passionate supporter of independent sexual violence advisers, as well as independent domestic violence advisers: they are also relevant for children who are victims of sexual violence. We have already increased the number of ISVAs available to victims of sexual violence, including children, so that when someone makes a complaint and enters the criminal justice system, they will have an independent professional who is on their side to help them navigate a very traumatic and daunting process, who can provide clarity and the vital support that can make the difference between a successful prosecution and an unsuccessful one.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

I have previously declared an interest, because I was counsel to the inquiry from 2016 to 2017.

Given that the inquiry looked at cases that were often decades old, there is a risk that we see its conclusions as belonging to the past, rather than the present. One of the recommendations of the inquiry is creating a protective environment for children, and although that will have meant something different in some of the contexts that we looked at, we know now from the Children’s Commissioner that one of the biggest drivers of child sexual exploitation is the ubiquity of violent online porn, particularly when the perpetrator is also a child.

Can I therefore ask the Home Secretary what reassurances she can give that the Online Safety Bill really will protect children from viewing this kind of content? Rather more boldly, could I ask her whether she would consider working with her counterparts at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to regulate the content of some of the big porn providers such as Pornhub, which we know through a body of evidence hosts and promotes child sexual exploitation in some of its online content?

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend speaks with expertise, and she raises a very important point with which I agree: the ubiquity, as she puts it, of online pornography and its accessibility by children is a major factor in the incidence of criminal behaviour of this type. The Online Safety Bill will mark a game changer in the protection of children online, and will take us forward in preventing children from accessing this heinous material. Through the Bill, companies will need to take a robust approach to protect children from illegal content and criminal behaviour on their services. They will also need to assess whether their service is likely to be accessed by children and, if so, deliver safety measures for them. Those safety measures will need to protect children, and there will be measures relating to age verification. In my mind, that represents a robust step change in how we protect children online.