(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberI welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. IICSA’s final report rightly said that the pace of technological change is of significant concern. Indeed, since the report was published, some seven months ago, we have seen a seismic shift in artificial intelligence. AI is already bringing fantastic benefits for society, but it also brings threats; I know that the Home Secretary is fully aware of that. Those threats are especially acute for children. For instance, huge amounts of AI-generated child sexual abuse imagery are already being created and shared by paedophiles. As we have heard, the report was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) some eight years ago. It has taken us that long to reach the point of action. In the AI age, we can no longer take so long to act. What processes has the Home Secretary put in place to ensure that her Department and laws keep up with the pace of change of technology?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the rapid pace of development in technology is a challenge to grapple with when it comes to protecting children online. I pay tribute to him for standing up for child victims when he was Home Secretary, and taking a stance against this heinous crime. Our Online Safety Bill is making its way through Parliament. It is future-proofed to allow the regulator to keep pace with technological developments. From the Home Office point of view, I am working with the National Crime Agency and GCHQ to identify the new challenges posed by AI. In this field, there are opportunities but also real risks posed by the proliferation of AI, and we need to ensure that our law enforcement agencies are equipped to deal with them.
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberOf all the issues that the Home Secretary has to deal with, few are more harrowing than child sexual abuse. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse recently reported that there were 8.8 million attempts to access such imagery online in the UK in a single month. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Online Safety Bill will include a provision for UK companies to report such content to the National Crime Agency? Will she work with her colleagues to bring forward the Bill this year?
This issue is very close to my right hon. Friend’s heart and to mine. The Government are committed to tackling all forms of child sexual abuse to keep children safe at home, outside and online. There is a lot of good work being done by the NCA and GCHQ. In relation to timing, I am hopeful that we will have some news imminently.
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberI know work is being done. I think there was a report five years ago and there are separate, ongoing reports in Scotland, with many cross-cutting themes. The hon. Gentleman rightly asks about modern slavery laws, many of which we have my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) to thank for. I reassure him that any changes made for the specific purpose of ensuring that potential loopholes are closed will not have an impact on the main purpose, just as he describes.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding us that the Online Safety Bill will return very shortly. I am ensuring that its findings, many of which were in the interim report, will be covered in the Online Safety Bill. I will return to him in writing on his comments about asylum seekers in hotels.
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. He will know that his role comes with huge responsibilities, especially for protecting children, which is why I welcome his statement and the comments of the shadow Home Secretary. I welcome this excellent final report, of course, and I thank Professor Alexis Jay, the victims and survivors, and Professor Jay’s entire team for producing it.
The Disclosure and Barring Service is referenced some 84 times in the report. In 2020, when I led a commission into child sexual abuse and exploitation, we discovered a number of issues relating to the DBS, particularly the ability of convicted child sexual abusers to avoid detection by simply changing their name. This loophole has still not been closed by the Government, so I urge my right hon. Friend to work with his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to close it as quickly as possible.
My right hon. Friend has occupied my post and is very knowledgeable about this subject. There are concerns about the DBS, and I asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), to look into this urgently. That work is already under way, so I will report back to the House.
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberMay I begin by thanking the Public Bill Committee, which met on 12 January to consider the Bill in detail? The Committee submitted the Bill to detailed scrutiny, and I am confident that the cross-party spirit that has run throughout this process has made it a much better piece of legislation.
After Second Reading in this House on 19 November last year, I was inundated with media and interview requests to talk about child marriage. Many of the issues and specific cases that hon. and right hon. Members from across the House raised were ones that there is not enough awareness of. Indeed, I am absolutely delighted that two of the incredibly brave survivors of child marriage whose stories I told in November, Payzee Mahmod and Farhana Raval, are here today in the Gallery to witness this historic moment, when the House of Commons will vote to end child marriage in this country.
Child marriage exists as both a legal and a social phenomenon. We in this House can, and I hope that we will, change the legal position by criminalising those who arrange child marriages and refusing to recognise unions involving children. However, the social aspect—raising awareness of child marriage among children, parents, educators, social care professionals and community leaders—is equally important. We must send a message that child marriage is illegal and is unacceptable under any circumstances.
May I take this opportunity to commend my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on this most important of issues? She has shown hon. Members and the public exactly why child marriage is child abuse and why it is absolutely right that we put an end to it.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that, and he is absolutely right. I know that he, too, has been passionate about raising awareness about this issue. If it were not for his now being Health Secretary, I would not be doing this today, because he had the private Member’s Bill, which I never got, and he generously gave it over to me. He did that because he knew that I had been working with the charities represented in the Public Gallery for many years. So I thank him for the help he has given in my being able to do this.
It is undeniable that changing this law and making it unequivocally clear that it will be illegal to arrange any child marriage, whether for a boy or a girl, in England and Wales, irrespective of alleged consent, coercion or persuasion, is a huge step in the right direction, because many children are brought up to believe that this is the norm, but it is not the norm in this country to be married as a child. This legislation will send a huge message out and that is the purpose of the Bill. Let me briefly mention the effect of each of its key provisions. First, the Bill will remove the exception that currently allows 16 and 17-year-olds to get married and to enter into a civil partnership with parental or judicial consent in England and Wales. People who are too young to consent for themselves are too young to be married. Getting married is a huge decision, no matter at what age someone decides to marry. The existing law has been in place for more than 70 years and reflects social values from a different time, one in which a school leaving age was 14 and the average age for marriage was just 23. Many girls like my mother left school at 14 and went to work. In that context, a marriage at 16 was not unreasonable. Of course, there were many shotgun weddings before the age of 18 where a pregnancy was involved, because in the eyes of many being pregnant without being married was a sin. This was before contraception and life is completely different now.
Now, the Government have legislated to ensure that all children must be in education or training until 18, providing greater opportunities for academic and professional development for all children. Furthermore, the average age for marriage is now over 30. There are substantially fewer than 200 children utilising this exception every year, which is evidence that as a society we are moving away from this practice. So there is a real need to remove that exception. When I have tried to bring this before the House previously, I have been told by previous Ministers, not the excellent Ministers we have in place today, that it was not relevant, because there were so few cases and it did not really matter.
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberI thank my hon. Friend for that point. We have seen that in the case of FGM, where we have had only one case. That was where a child had to testify against a family member who had conducted the FGM procedure. In this case, however, the child will not have to do that, and it is much better that the child is seen always as the victim, as they should also be in the case of FGM—perhaps that law needs to be tweaked to make it more appropriate. In this case we are not talking about women; we are talking about girls and under-18s. Of course we want violence against any woman or girl to be abolished, and we must do all we can to document that and make sure it never happens.
The Bill’s first objective is to safeguard young people, and in particular to safeguard their futures. This is about breaking a harmful practice legacy that is often handed down from generation to generation. We know that children who are subject to child marriages have significantly poorer opportunities and life chances. Those include a lack of education and job opportunities, the removal of independence, serious physical and mental health problems, developmental difficulties for children born to young mothers, and an increased risk of domestic abuse and divorce. There are many organisations in society with a duty to safeguard children, including social services, the police, and medical professionals. It is telling that when it comes to child marriage, those organisations are turning for support to the voluntary sector, including Karma Nirvana, the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, and other charities, rather than being able to rely on the force of the law. The Bill will therefore be an incredibly important tool in safeguarding young people and giving them the best chance for their futures.
I came into politics from a background of education, so giving children the best chance in life has always been at the heart of my political motivations. The Bill will support those young people, and help to ensure that they remain in education or training until they are 18, at which point they are far more able to make informed decisions about their futures.
The second area where the Bill achieves its key policy objectives is in covering both civil and unregistered religious ceremonies. I have been working on this issue for over four years, so I understand that crucial importance of covering religious ceremonies in the legislation. If we were only to regulate civil marriages, we would solve fewer than 5% of the child marriage cases with which the national honour-based abuse helpline deals each year. It is common sense to recognise that the responsibilities and life-changing elements of a marriage flow not from the legal procedure, but rather from the traditional or ceremonial wedding. For so many cases dealt with by the charities I work with, and the forced marriage unit in the Home Office, the religious marriage is the important aspect, and the civil marriage is either non-existent or an afterthought. That is why the Bill will be able to achieve its primary aim of safeguarding young people.
The final point that I would like to make in support of the Bill relates to the UK’s international obligations. The UK is committed to achieving the UN sustainable development goals by 2030. Target 5.3 in the SDGs is to
“eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation”
by 2030. That specifically applies to both religious and non-religious child marriages. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child also recommends that there should be no legal way for anyone to marry under the age of 18, even with parental consent.
By supporting the Bill, we are also helping the UK to set an example to the rest of the world on prioritising children’s futures. It will enable us to further our aims to promote girls’ education around the world, which the Prime Minister has always championed, because, as I have said, dropping out of education is one of the main effects of child marriage.
A practical example is the case of Karma Nirvana ambassador Farhana Raval, who was taken to Bangladesh at 16, under the pretence of visiting a sick relative, in order that she should marry a second cousin. Ironically, and tragically, that marriage was allowed in Bangladesh only because of the UK’s rules. At the time, girls in Bangladesh had to be 18 to be married, but because Farhana was British and the rules were different, the marriage was allowed. Since then, in 2017 Bangladesh implemented a new legal provision allowing younger girls to marry in special circumstances. Human Rights Watch confirmed that Bangladeshi officials repeatedly cited the fact that child marriage is legal in the UK as a justification for that change.
The UK’s position in criticising child marriage around the world and championing children’s future is incompatible with our allowing child marriage at home. To uphold our international obligations under the sustainable development goals and persuade other countries of the importance of banning child marriage, we must first lead by example and ban it ourselves.
May I commend my hon. Friend for bringing this vital piece of legislation to the House? I know that this is something she has championed for many years, and I think all Members are pleased to see the Bill before the House today. Does she agree that this is an opportunity for this House to show unambiguously—to make it crystal clear—that child marriage is child abuse and that it will never be tolerated in our country?
I thank the Secretary of State for his intervention. When he got the opportunity to present a private Member’s Bill, he took this Bill on and wanted to take it through, but the quirk of fate that meant he got promoted meant that I was able to take it through. I congratulate him on his new job—well, it is not so new now—and I am delighted that I was able to step into the breach. It is important that we show the world and the whole of this country that we will not tolerate child marriage, because, as he says, it is child abuse.
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsAn informal meeting of EU Interior and Justice Ministers took place on 18 to 19 July in Helsinki, Finland. The Home Office Europe Director, Chris Jones, represented the UK for interior day. The Ministry of Justice Director, International and Rights, Paul Candler, represented the UK on justice day.
Interior day began with a discussion on the future of EU internal security, where the presidency noted its intention to discuss further at the October JHA Council to inform the new Commission’s work programme. In a broad ranging discussion, a number of issues were raised including: the new Commission President’s commitment to promote cross-border co-operation; the importance of enhancing Europol; the use of EU funding programmes to support internal security activity; the need to modernise Prum; the importance of SIS II; and tackling child exploitation. The UK intervened to support the broad thrust of the presidency’s paper, focusing on the importance on access to data and challenges from new technology, especially the need for early engagement with the private sector to protect law enforcement capabilities.
The Council then discussed the future of EU migration policy. Ministers raised a broad range of issues, with a focus on the revision of the EU’s common European asylum system legislation, which remains unresolved. Other issues raised including the need to address lack of co-operation by third countries on readmission, a focus on EU-Africa co-operation to tackle illegal migration, disembarkation platforms in third countries, the need for better external checks at the EU’s borders, and the problem of secondary movements. The UK did not intervene.
Over lunch, the Finnish presidency presented to Ministers on the use of artificial intelligence (Al) by law enforcement, after which followed a brief discussion on the benefits and risks from the use of Al. Discussion addressed the need to protect people from both private sector capabilities and state actors, and considered how EU privacy concepts needed to be reconsidered in the law enforcement context. The Commission highlighted plans to prioritise consideration of the impact of Al, 5G and risks to digital infrastructure. The UK did not intervene.
After lunch, Ministers undertook a table-top exercise focused on identifying and dealing with hybrid threats. Ministers were asked to consider and vote on responses to a fictional scenario. The post-scenario discussion considered the use of the EU’s solidarity clause. The UK did not intervene.
Justice day began with a discussion on the strengthening of the rule of law. Justice Ministers agreed that significant domestic responsibility for rule of law fell to them and their Ministries. National courts implemented EU law and ensured mutual trust was possible, while judicial training and judicial co-operation mechanisms were vital. All Ministers agreed, therefore, that the Justice Council should have a role. The UK noted commitment to the rules-based international order, highlighting in particular the work of the Venice Commission, the importance of sustainable development goal 16, and the benefits of direct judicial co-operation.
The Council then discussed criminal judicial co-operation, in particular, alternatives to detention and the issues relating to prison overcrowding. Discussion centred around the aim of considering alternatives to prison. For most, the aim was not reduction of prison populations but, rather, improved rehabilitation. Member states were clear that national rules should not be harmonised, but regarded mutual trust in appropriate sanctions, and in prison conditions, as a precondition for mutual recognition.
Over lunch, Ministers discuss civil judicial co-operation and multilateralism, including The Hague conference and other fora such as UNIDROIT and UNCITRAL.
[HCWS1805]
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsI am today making an announcement on a number of issues related to immigration. These include an expansion of the shortage occupation list (SOL) in line with the recommendations of the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) and a planned future amendment in the Immigration Rules to Section 67 leave. I am also providing an update on the Home Office’s response to cheating in English language tests and the Border, Immigration and Citizenship System (BICS) independent review.
Migration Advisory Committee review of the shortage occupation list
On 29 May, the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) published the outcome of its full review of the shortage occupation list (SOL). I am very grateful to the MAC for a very thorough and comprehensive piece of work. The MAC recommended a number of changes to the main UK-wide SOL, expanding the list to cover a range of high-skilled occupations, including a number of health and social care, engineering and digital technology occupations.
The Government are happy to accept all of the MAC’s recommendations on the composition of the SOL and the necessary amendments will be made in the autumn immigration rules changes.
The MAC also suggested that, in order to combat the particular challenges faced by some remote communities, the Government should pilot a scheme that facilitated migration to these areas. The Government accept that this is an idea worth pursuing. Further details will be given in due course.
Section 67 leave
In June 2018, we introduced section 67 leave to fulfil our legal obligation to those children transferred to the UK under section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016. This ensures that those unaccompanied children transferred to the United Kingdom under section 67, and who do not qualify for refugee status or humanitarian protection, are able to remain in this country and build a life here. This form of leave allows them to study, work, access public funds and healthcare, and is a route to settlement which they would not ordinarily have had.
Currently, the immigration rules only provide for section 67 leave to be granted to those who have already had an application for refugee status or humanitarian protection refused. This means that upon arrival in the United Kingdom, the child is required to go through the process of claiming asylum, including providing an account of why they fled their country of origin.
We intend to amend the existing rules to allow those transferring under section 67 to receive this form of leave immediately, as soon as they arrive. This will provide the children, and the local authorities who will care for them, with additional reassurance and guarantee their status in the UK at the earliest opportunity.
Children who have already been transferred to the UK under section 67 and are currently having their asylum claims assessed will also be entitled to section 67 leave automatically once this amendment has been made. Children granted section 67 leave on arrival will still have the opportunity to claim asylum. Should they be successful in an asylum claim, those who qualify will receive refugee or humanitarian protection status.
The Government are absolutely committed to transferring the specified number of 480 unaccompanied children under section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016 as soon as possible.
The Home Office’s response to cheating in English language tests
Five years ago, the scale of this issue was uncovered by Panorama. Their footage revealed systematic cheating in test centres run on behalf of the company ETS. Further investigation showed just how widespread this fraud was. Twenty-five people who were involved have been convicted and sentenced to over 70 years in prison. Further criminal investigations are ongoing, with a further 14 due in court next month.
Our approach to taking action on students has been endorsed by the courts, who have consistently found the evidence the Home Office had was enough to prompt the action that was taken at the time.
Despite this, there have remained concerns that some people who did not cheat may have been caught up and I am aware that some people found it hard to challenge the accusations against them. So earlier this year, I commissioned officials for advice.
This is a complex matter given that we need to work within existing legal frameworks relating to appeal rights, judicial review and administrative review.
I have therefore asked officials to review our guidance to ensure that we are taking the right decisions on these cases to ensure we are properly balancing a belief that deception was committed some years ago against other factors that would normally lead to leave being granted, especially where children are involved. We will update operational guidance to ensure no further action is taken in cases where there is no evidence an ETS certificate was used in an immigration application.
We continue to look at other options, including whether there is a need for those who feel they have been wronged to be able to ask for their case to be reviewed. We intend to make further announcements about this and will update the House in due course.
Review of the border, immigration and citizenship system
In October 2018, I committed to conducting a review of the Border, Immigration and Citizenship System (BICS). The purpose of this review will be to ensure the BICS is ready and able to deliver a world class immigration system.
The review will focus on whether the BICS has in place the right systems, structures, accountability and working practices to deliver against its goals. It will be forward looking in its nature. It will not consider individual policies or goals, but rather whether the system has the right capabilities to deliver against those stated objectives.
I am pleased to announce today that I have appointed Kate Lampard CBE to lead the review.
Kate has previously held senior non-executive roles in the NHS, chaired the Financial Ombudsman Service, and has undertaken important reviews for Government. She has a wealth of skills and experience to bring to this critically important task.
I will place a copy of the terms of reference for the review in the Libraries of both Houses. The review will aim to complete by early 2020.
[HCWS1803]
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsI am today announcing changes to the terrorism threat level system. As recommended in the operational improvement review, the joint terrorism analysis centre have taken an increased role in assessing all form of terrorism, irrespective of the ideology that inspires them.
The national threat level system will now take account of the assessments from all forms of terrorism, including Islamist, Northern Ireland, and extreme right-wing. The threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Northern Ireland will remain separate from the national threat level.
Also, to ensure clarity in the threat level system, I am also announcing the change in definition of the LOW, SUBSTANTIAL and CRITICAL threat levels. The threat levels will now be defined as below:
CRITICAL meaning an attack is highly likely in the near future
SEVERE meaning an attack is highly likely
SUBSTANTIAL meaning an attack is likely
MODERATE meaning an attack is possible but not likely
LOW meaning an attack is highly unlikely
The changes made today do not affect the current threat level. The threat level to the UK from terrorism remains at SEVERE, and the threat level to Northern Ireland from Northern Ireland-related terrorism also remains at SEVERE, meaning that an attack is highly likely.
Threat levels are designed to give a broad indication of the likelihood of a terrorist attack. They are a tool for security practitioners working across different sectors and the police to use in determining what protective security response may be required. They also keep the public informed and give context to the protective security measures which we all encounter in our daily lives.
There remains a real and serious threat against the United Kingdom from terrorism and I would ask the public to remain vigilant and to report any suspicious activity to the police regardless of the threat level.
The decision to change the terrorism threat levels are taken by the independent from Ministers. The joint terrorism analysis centre set the national threat level and the security service set the Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Northern Ireland threat level. These are based on the very latest intelligence, considering factors such as capability, intent and timescale. Threat levels are kept under constant review.
[HCWS1797]
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsI am pleased to announce that Dr Owen Bowden-Jones has been reappointed to the ACMD both as a member and as its Chair. This re-appointment is for a three-year term, beginning on 1 January 2020. Dr Bowden-Jones is an experienced clinician who provides assessment and treatment for people experiencing harms from emerging problem drugs.
The ACMD was established under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and provides advice to Government on issues related to the harms of drugs. It also has a statutory role under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016.
[HCWS1781]
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsSection 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of his TPIM powers under the Act during that period. TPIM notices in force (as of 31 May 2019) 3 TPIM notices in respect of British citizens (as of 31 May 2019) 3 TPIM notices extended (during the reporting period) 0 TPIM notices revoked (during the reporting period) 1 TPIM notices revived (during the reporting period) 0 Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices (during the reporting period) 4 Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused (during the reporting period) 0 The number of current subjects relocated under TPIM legislation (as of 28 February 2019) 1
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The TPIM review group (TRG) keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. The second quarter TRG meetings took place on 4 and 13 June 2019.
On 15 March 2019 an individual was convicted for seven breaches of his TPIM notice and was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.
On 22 March 2019 the trial of an individual charged with breaching his TPIM notice was discontinued as the jury could not reach a majority verdict. The CPS elected not to seek a retrial as it was assessed not to be in the public interest.
On 13 May 2019 an individual was sentenced for one breach of his TPIM notice. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment (suspended for two years), a 12-hour curfew to be observed for 12 months, 150 hours’ unpaid work, 18 months’ attendance at an extremist risk guidance and identity help programme and a victim surcharge and collection order.
[HCWS1780]