Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Champion Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
There are obviously challenges in relation to dealing with certain communities with organised gangs where, as the hon. Gentleman says, there may well be language difficulties. Police and crime commissioners are finding many innovative ways around that. Looking at their recruitment policies and at how volunteers and special constables in particular can be used to ensure that the language skills are available is a very good idea, which has been adopted by some PCCs around the country.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
On Friday, the South Yorkshire PCC announced the loss of 850 police staff because of Government cuts. Also last week, the National Crime Agency’s application to the Home Office for support for Rotherham’s 1,400 victims of child abuse was rejected. How are we meant to bring down child sexual exploitation when the Government are cutting police resources?
Mrs May
I indicated earlier that overall the Government are protecting police budgets when the precept is taken into account. We have also made money available to the national policing lead precisely in relation to the issue of child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation, and ensured that the National Crime Agency has the resources it needs to be able to do that job. The hon. Lady has an excellent record in dealing with this issue. Her constituency has faced particularly challenging times as a result of child sexual exploitation, and I can assure her that I and other Ministers involved take the issue very seriously indeed. That is why we have taken steps such as setting up the Goddard inquiry, and why we have made money available to the national policing lead in order to better co-ordinate the work that is done in this area.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Champion Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. First, we have generally seen an increase in the number of reports of rape and other sexual violence. It is good that people have more confidence to come forward, precisely because of the support they now feel they will get from the police and other services. It is, of course, important to ensure that support is available to individuals, for example at Rape Crisis centres. I am pleased to say that over the past five years the Government have made money available to ensure that new Rape Crisis centres have opened, unlike under the previous Labour Government when they were closing.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is believed that 170,000 women and girls in the UK have endured female genital mutilation. It is right that the Government have introduced legislation and are funding projects in Africa and training NHS and education staff, but without significant UK grassroots intervention to change cultural norms, we will never prevent this horrific child abuse. When will the Secretary of State change her approach and invest in helping communities to prevent FGM, rather than failing to prosecute once the crime has been committed?
Mrs May
As the hon. Lady knows, we have taken the question of forced genital mutilation extremely seriously, which is why we have significantly strengthened the law on FGM and have issued a range of materials to support professionals in being able to understand these issues and spot signs of somebody being taken out of the country. I commend the work of the all-party parliamentary group on female genital mutilation and, in particular, of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who has ensured that information is made available to communities and community groups about what can be done to prevent forced genital mutilation and to ensure that people can spot the signs and stop it taking place.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 3) Order 2015
Sarah Champion Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. May I also wish you a belated happy birthday and you and the Committee a very happy new year?
The motion asks us to affirm the Government’s decision to place a temporary class drug order on methiopropamine—may I say that I have both a lisp and no A-level in chemistry?—otherwise known as MPA. Having carefully considered the health risks identified by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, I can confirm that the Opposition support the motion. There are serious health harms associated with MPA. As the Minister said, adverse effects reported by users include tachycardia, anxiety, panic attacks, sweating, headaches, nausea, difficulty breathing, vomiting, difficulty urinating, and sexual dysfunction.
The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has reported users suffering seizures across Europe, and, most gravely, MPA was implicated in seven deaths in the UK in 2014. There is therefore clear evidence that the substances controlled by the order pose a significant risk to public health.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs reports that the number of deaths and harms related to MPA use is increasing, and it could not find evidence of any past or present legitimate medicinal use for MPA. The Government received a recommendation from the ACMD that MPA be placed under a temporary class drug order on 18 November 2015. Given the increased risk to public health posed by MPA, that seems appropriate.
MPA has been on the market since January 2011. For five years MPA has been perniciously branded as a legal high and has brought real danger into our communities. It has been found in head shops since 2012, so it has found its way on to the high streets up and down our country. The delay between MPA hitting the market and finally coming under control demonstrates why we need new legislation that allows authorities to get ahead of the market, which is why we support the Government’s Psychoactive Substances Bill. We look forward to the Bill coming into force as soon as practicable.
The new Bill and a ban on MPA will be futile without a drugs education policy that is fit for purpose. The Government have consistently emphasised the importance of “Talk to Frank”, the Home Office’s flagship drug information service. We support “Frank”—it was, after all, the previous Labour Government that established it—but we are concerned that it is neglected. The Angelus Foundation has argued that there is a strong case for overhauling the service. Release has gone further and described the information that “Frank” provides as oblique. “Frank” received only 29 inquiries about MPA between October 2014 and September 2015. I have looked at the “Frank” website for content on MPA and it is not impressive.
On 16 December, neither the “Drugs A-Z” nor the search function on the “Frank” website had any hits for MPA or methiopropamine. There are no results for the street names of the drugs provided by the ACMD, such as “Ivory Dove Ultra”, “China White”, or “Walter White”. That paucity of content about MPA on the “Frank” website is symptomatic of a stretched information service that cannot keep up with the evolving drugs market. The Government really need an effective drugs education policy, as the laws we pass cannot deal with the problem on their own.
The Opposition support the order before us. The ACMD has made a clear recommendation based on the evidence about the real harms brought about by MPA. A temporary class drug order is an appropriate response, but I urge the Government to look carefully at their drugs education policy.
Healthcare: Yarl’s Wood
Sarah Champion Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate hugely my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), because she has given those women a voice which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said, is being denied them.
At the moment a great deal of attention is rightly being given to those who are crossing borders to seek safety. It is important that we focus our attention on those who reach the UK and seek our protection, and that we ensure they are treated with dignity and humanity. Every year, around 2,000 asylum-seeking women are locked up at Yarl’s Wood detention centre. Most are survivors of rape, sexual violence or torture. Because of their experiences in their countries of origin, those women are clearly vulnerable and many have serious physical and mental health problems. However, in spite of that, when they come to the UK for sanctuary they are locked up in detention, where they are re-traumatised, and the physical and mental health care available to them is wholly inadequate.
The chief inspector of prisons has called Yarl’s Wood a “place of national concern”. He found in his most recent inspection report that, of all the areas in the centre,
“healthcare had declined most severely”.
His report also pointed to the lack of gender-sensitive health practices in Yarl’s Wood. For instance, women who had newly arrived at the centre were expected to speak to male nurses as part of the health screening process and women who were placed on constant supervision, deemed to be so mentally distressed that they might kill themselves, were being watched by male staff in spite of their previous experiences of abuse and victimisation.
When Maimuna Jawo, who was detained in Yarl’s Wood prison, gave evidence to the parliamentary inquiry into the use of immigration detention, she said:
“Anybody who is on suicide watch has sexual harassment in Yarl’s Wood, because those male guards, they sit there watching you at night, sleeping and being naked.”
The Home Office has promised that a new policy will be put in place to ensure that women are watched only by female guards, but while the proportion of female staff at Yarl’s Wood remains under 50% there are serious questions about whether such a policy will ever become practice.
There are also real concerns about the treatment of pregnant women in detention, as hon. Members have said. Research by Medical Justice found that pregnant women miss antenatal appointments and some do not have any scans while detained. The poor care provided to those women is particularly troubling when we consider that, as has been said, for most of them detention serves absolutely no purpose.
Mrs Spelman
I want to highlight one important point: staff from Yarl’s Wood were actually prosecuted for offences against detainees. It is important to place that on the record.
Sarah Champion
I am grateful that the right hon. Lady placed that on the record. It turns my stomach that we are in this situation. Ninety of the 99 pregnant women detained in Yarl’s Wood in 2014 were released back into the community to continue with their cases, so they were locked up and re-traumatised for no reason at all. One of the pregnant women who the charity Women for Refugee Women is in touch with, a survivor of trafficking, was recently released back into the community after being detained for almost two months, even though Home Office guidance says that pregnant women should be detained only if their removal is imminent.
Alex Chalk
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady’s excellent speech, but do we not have to be a tiny bit careful about making the point that people are sometimes released into the community and then continue normally? It happens in the criminal system that people who are remanded in custody subsequently have their trial and are acquitted, but that does not necessarily mean that, in all cases, there is not a public policy reason for such action. I understand her argument, but I wonder whether that is the strongest point.
Sarah Champion
I will come on to strengthen my point in a moment. It is welcome news that the Home Office has committed to consult on its policy of detaining pregnant women and I hope that it will engage with a wide range of stakeholders, including women who have been in detention while pregnant, to make sure that the process is meaningful. Standards of healthcare in Yarl’s Wood need to improve as a matter of real urgency, but we must not lose sight of the fact that locking up women who have come to the UK to seek our protection is harmful by its nature. However much healthcare services are improved, detention causes mental health trauma and exacerbates physical problems.
These women do not need to be in Yarl’s Wood in the first place. Their claims could be dealt with much more effectively in the community. In fact, two thirds of asylum-seeking women are released from Yarl’s Wood to do just that. The Home Office’s own evidence on the new family returns process found no rise in absconding among families seeking asylum since children stopped being detained at Yarl’s Wood. We can and should learn from that.
Minister, locking up women seeking asylum is expensive, unnecessary and unjust. It is time that the practice is swiftly brought to an end.
Sexual Exploitation: Protection of 16 and 17-year-olds
Sarah Champion Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing this important debate. I would also like to thank everyone who has spoken because they have done so with passion, on the basis of many years of experience and out of a real commitment to using the opportunity we have as parliamentarians to make a difference for the most vulnerable people. I am always most proud when we have debates such as this one.
The clear driver for this debate is improving the lives of the most vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds. Too often, young people of this age are treated like adults and not afforded the additional protections given in law to younger children. However, teenagers of this age are more predisposed towards risk-taking behaviour. For the most vulnerable—for example, those with earlier experiences of abuse, trauma and neglect—this risk taking can have serious consequences.
Yes, 16 and 17-year-olds can give consent to sexual acts, but is it always informed consent? The law does not recognise that in many cases where children aged 16 and 17 become victims of sexual offences, they are coerced into submission by perpetrators who supply them with drugs and alcohol or of whom the young people are scared. The capacity to consent is impaired through an imbalance of power between a child and a perpetrator, and by the young person’s use and/or dependency on drugs or alcohol prior to the offence.
As far as under-18s are concerned, the law is clear that the sale and consumption of alcohol from licensed premises and from licensed vendors is prohibited, but the law does not specifically address the fact that 16 and 17-year-olds, particularly vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds, can be coerced to submit to their own sexual abuse through adults supplying them with alcohol on private premises.
It is welcome that the Serious Crime Act 2015 has created an offence of coercive and controlling behaviour in intimate and family relationships, which protects vulnerable individuals, including 16 and 17-year-olds, in cases of domestic abuse. However, similar changes are needed to recognise the fact that 16 and 17-year-olds can be coerced and controlled—either through drugs or alcohol, or through fear—for the purpose of sexual abuse in more transient relationships.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines sex offences against adults and children. In the case of a number of sexual crimes, the Act views young people aged 16 and 17 differently from those under the age of 16, and differently again from adults. For example, young people aged 16 and 17 are recognised as children if they are victims of sexual exploitation. A person who is found guilty of such an offence will incur a shorter prison sentence—up to seven years—than a person whose victim is under 13. That person will be sentenced to life imprisonment, while a person whose victim is between the ages of 13 and 16 will be sentenced to up to 14 years in prison.
Despite the age-related gradation in the length of sentences for sexual exploitation, the sentences for offences of rape and sexual assaults do not reflect the age of the victim in the same way. They do not recognise that young people aged 16 and 17 are children, and are therefore more vulnerable than adults aged over 18. The current legislation provides no guarantee that a sexual assault against a 16 or 17-year-old will incur a more severe sentence than an attack on an adult aged over 18.
Child abduction warning notices are used by the police to disrupt contact between a vulnerable child and an adult when it is feared that the child may be at risk of sexual exploitation or harm. They are primarily used to protect children under the age of 16, with the consent of their parents or guardians. Currently, the law also affords protection to the tiny proportion of vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds who are in local authority care under section 31 of the Children Act 1989. Police protocols specify that only that group can be protected by child abduction warning notices.
Last year 4,510 teenagers aged 16 or 17 became looked-after children, but only 190 were taken into care formally under section 31. The other 4,320 became looked-after children voluntarily, under section 20. As only those who are formally taken into care under section 31 are protected by child abduction warning notices, the vast majority of 16 and 17-year-olds in care are not protected. That denies the police a critical tool to keep them safe from sexual exploitation. For example, when two children are living in the same supported accommodation and facing the same risks of exploitation, and one is looked after under section 31 while the other is looked after under section 20, the police can protect only the first child; the second is left unprotected. As the Minister knows, there is clear evidence that children in care are more vulnerable to grooming and sexual exploitation. I ask her to look at the position again to see whether that highly vulnerable group of 16 and 17-year-olds could be protected by child abduction warning notices.
We must bear in mind that there are other vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds who are not looked after by local authorities. They include “children in need” under section 17 of the Children Act, who could be disabled or young carers. Those aged 16 or 17 who are assessed as homeless under the Housing Act 1996 are not eligible either. Both groups are at significant risk, and would benefit from the increased protection provided by child abduction warning notices.
In Rotherham there are 2,360 young people aged 16 and 17, and analysis of Department for Education statistics shows that 160 of them have been assessed as “children in need”. I want those 160 to have the protection of child abduction warning notices, so that if they are being sexually exploited—even if the process of sexual exploitation is just beginning—the police can disrupt the perpetrators rather than sitting on their hands until the abuse happens. The Minister has the perfect opportunity to make amends in the upcoming policing and criminal justice Bill. It is an opportunity to send a strong message that 16 and 17-year-olds are children, and that sexual offences against children will always be treated seriously.
Let me end by asking the Minister some questions. Does she agree that the law should make it very clear that a young person who consents to drink alcohol or take drugs should never be seen as also consenting to a sexual act? Does she also agree that the sexual offences legislation could be strengthened with the introduction of a new offence of coercive and controlling behaviour for the purposes of sexual activity with vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds?
The definitive sentencing guidelines on sexual offences, specifically on offences of rape or sexual assaults, do not include vulnerability due to the victim being under the age of 18 as the harm factor, the culpability factor, or even the aggravating factor. This means that those convicted of these horrible crimes against children aged 16 and 17 may not get a sentence reflecting the seriousness of their crime due to a victim being a child. Does the Minister agree that the sentencing guidelines on sexual offences should be amended to include a victim aged under 18 being listed as a category 2 harm factor? This would strengthen the message that targeting children for sexual crimes will not be tolerated and raise awareness of the vulnerability of children of this age.
Karen Bradley
I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the work of that organisation. I will talk about mental health services later, if she will bear with me. I am absolutely sure that the organisation does incredibly important work. The length of its waiting list clearly demonstrates the demand for its services and the fact that it is tackling the issue in an effective way.
We need to work across Government, which is why we have established a cross-Government response to child sexual exploitation. I want to assure all hon. Members that this is a top priority for this Government. The Home Secretary launched the report “Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation” in March this year. It sets out a national response to the failures that we saw in Rotherham, which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) described, as well as in Manchester, Oxford and elsewhere, where children were let down by the very people who were responsible for protecting them. It sets out how we will continue the urgent work of overhauling the work of our police, social services and other agencies together to protect vulnerable children.
I want to assure all hon. Members that significant work has been and is taking place across Government, but given the time available today, I will not go through all the points that have been raised. My door is always open, however, and all hon. Members are very welcome to come and see me to discuss their concerns and the work that is being done. I will be happy to share in detail the work we are doing across Government.
I want to touch on the issue of terminology in relation to child sexual exploitation. We know that there is an issue with the terminology, so we are reviewing and reissuing the current definition and the statutory guidance on safeguarding children and young people from sexual exploitation. We will make it clear what constitutes sexual exploitation as a form of sexual abuse, and we are working with a number of stakeholders, including the Children’s Society, to sharpen the definition and strengthen the guidance. We will publish a progress report on all actions taken following the “Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation” report early next year.
We recognise that 16 and 17-year-olds are a diverse group and can be particularly vulnerable. They are children, but they are old enough legally to consent to sexual activity where appropriate. We know that that combination can be exploited and lead to abuse. There is a contradiction between the ever-decreasing age of sexual maturity and the age of emotional maturity, which is not going down. The wider that gap becomes, the harder it is for us to deal with these complex issues.
The court process can clearly present a particular challenge to vulnerable victims and witnesses, and everyone involved has a responsibility to manage that impact. In January 2015, toolkits were launched for the police, prosecutors and advocates, addressing the fact that consent is an issue for vulnerable young victims as well as dealing with the context of drugs, alcohol, mental health and learning disabilities. We have also completed the training of all specialist prosecutors, which will include Crown Court cases of child sexual abuse, and in 2016 we are training in-house advocates as well.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) talked about the law that applies to the sexual exploitation of children aged 16 and 17. I want to assure her that the law in England and Wales already specifically protects that age group from abuse. For example, sections 47 to 50 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 criminalise payment for the sexual services of a child aged under 18 and provide for the offences of causing, inciting, controlling, arranging or facilitating the sexual exploitation of a child under 18.
The hon. Member for Stockport has campaigned vigorously on this issue. During the passage of the Serious Crime Act 2015, she was a leader in ensuring that the Government removed the terms “child prostitution” and “child pornography” from the law. I know that the guidance has not yet been updated in some areas but we are working incredibly hard to ensure that that happens and to ensure that all agencies with responsibility for that guidance update it as soon as possible. This is the clear message: a child cannot consent to sex. They are forced into sex, they do not consent to it, and there can therefore be no such thing as a child prostitute.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire talked about children in care, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst). Children in care are particularly vulnerable, which is why the Children Act 1989 makes it an offence to take any child in care, including a 16 or 17-year-old, away from the person responsible for them without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. We also know that 16 and 17-year-olds can be vulnerable in a variety of ways, some of which may be directly or indirectly linked to their age. That is also reflected in the sentencing guidelines, in which additional aggravating factors include the use of alcohol or drugs on the victim and the targeting of a particularly vulnerable child.
Sarah Champion
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I want to go back to her last point. I do not believe that either the police or people working in care homes are aware of that piece of legislation. If there is anything she can do to make them aware, that would be great. When I speak to these workers, they say, “The child is 16, so I can’t intervene if they want to go off with this person.”
Karen Bradley
I hope they have been listening to the debate, but we will make sure that even those few people who are not watching the House of Commons on a Thursday afternoon are made aware of that piece of legislation. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran talked about a young person’s consent after taking drugs or alcohol. Let us be clear: the law is clear that a young person’s consent to take drugs or alcohol can never be viewed as consent to sexual acts.
I am making sure that I deal with the important points, so let me move on to the issue of mental health. Some children who experience the kind of trauma associated with child sexual exploitation will need support from mental health services. The Minister for Community and Social Care has just joined us on the Front Bench. He is a Health Minister, and I am working closely with him on the crisis care concordat to make sure that mental health services are appropriately delivered. It is crucial that we get this right for children, including 16 to 17-year-olds. That is why we have commenced a major transformation programme, backed by additional investment, which will improve the support provided to vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds who have experienced sexual abuse and are in need of mental health and wellbeing services. The programme will place the emphasis on prevention and early intervention, which I know to be an issue close to the heart of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), building care around the needs of children, young people and their families, including the most vulnerable.
May I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for bringing the details of the WISH Centre to the Chamber today? I welcome the invitation she made and I hope that we can arrange time in my diary for me to visit.
Draft Modern Slavery Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2015
Sarah Champion Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, even if only briefly. As the Minister has said, the regulations make consequential amendments, and I have nothing more to add.
Question put and agreed to.
Female Genital Mutilation
Sarah Champion Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We will now move to the questions session. The Minister started speaking at 2.35 pm; we have one hour from then, so I will bring proceedings to a close at 3.35 pm if they have not concluded earlier.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I would like to put on the record how impressive the Government have been with their zero-tolerance approach to female genital mutilation. I particularly thank the Minister, who has done everything she can to ensure that legislation and guidance are put into practice to prevent the crime.
Does the Minister recognise, however, that the figures in the EU document are actually outdated? Will she outline how she is updating the EU with UK-wide figures? Will she also comment on the provision of specialist FGM training for those in child protection roles? She mentioned the mandatory reporting, the guidelines and the specialists, but I am thinking about people who are on the frontline, such as social workers, health workers and teachers. What training provision is there for them? Will the Government consider conducting a review of FGM protection orders to determine if they are actually meeting their objectives?
The Chair
I will allow supplementary questions at my discretion. I know that this is the first Committee for a number of Members, so I will be hugely tolerant.
Karen Bradley
We do not yet have the final figures. Protection orders were only introduced on 17 July, so the first set of statistics has not yet come through. We hope to have them shortly, and I am sure the hon. Lady will be made aware of them when they are released.
Sarah Champion
Taking the Minister back to her answer about telephone helplines and reporting, I know that the advice on hate crimes is to call 111, but 111 does not have a translation service. Will the Minister tell Committee members, when she reports back to us, whether people are able to report in languages other than English?
Karen Bradley
I would be happy to report back to the Committee on that when I write with all the information on the helplines and the other help that is available, including from the FGM unit at the Home Office. We also have a forced marriage unit, which is a joint Home Office and Foreign Office unit working across communities to provide outreach education about forced marriage. It also works across borders with countries where we believe people may be being taken to be put into a forced marriage. I will be very happy to share all that information when I write to the Committee.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 17228/13, a Commission Communication: Towards the elimination of female genital mutilation.—(Karen Bradley.)
Sarah Champion
Thank you for calling me, Mr Evans; you are being very tolerant with a novice, and I appreciate it.
I think the whole Committee agrees that female genital mutilation is a fundamental attack on the human rights of women and girls. It has been recognised as such by the United Nations General Assembly and stands in direct violation of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and the convention on the rights of the child. Women and girls subjected to FGM suffer lifelong medical and psychological damage. The procedure can lead to gangrene, septicaemia and tetanus. Long-term complications include enduring pain, severe complications during pregnancy and childbirth, higher infant mortality, stillbirth and death in childbirth. In psychological terms, women who have undergone FGM have been found to suffer from a wide range of conditions, including anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The elimination of FGM has, rightly, been a key goal of human rights organisations, the United Nations and national Governments for many years. Progress has undoubtedly been made, but FGM remains widespread. As many as 133 million women are thought to be living with FGM across the world. In Somalia, up to 98% of women and girls between the ages of 15 and 49 are thought to have undergone FGM. In four other countries, the prevalence of FGM is thought to be higher than 90%.
We must remember that FGM is not simply an African problem. In Europe, it is estimated that 500,000 women have undergone FGM, and that 180,000 girls are at risk every year. The figures for the UK cited in the communication were collated in 2007, and according to revised figures from 2014, as many as 137,000 women in the UK are estimated to have undergone FGM. The NSPCC has estimated that as many as 23,000 girls under the age of 15 could be at risk. We must therefore ensure that the UK plays a full part in bringing this barbaric practice to an end and continues to promote the elimination of FGM across the globe.
FGM is, in many countries, a deep-rooted cultural practice. Simply encouraging Governments to outlaw it will do little to address the problem. FGM is already illegal in many of the states where it is most widespread, but it remains endemic. We should of course continue to push for Governments to prohibit FGM and punish offenders, but we must energetically promote cultural change. UK Aid and the Department for International Development have done really good work on the subject, and initiatives such as “The Girl Generation”, an Africa-led project to tackle FGM, are positive steps, but eliminating FGM will take time, and the Government must continue their commitment of resources and expertise.
The work of the European Union towards ending FGM is vital. It remains an international issue that cannot be managed by the UK alone. The framework provided by the EU is valuable in co-ordinating and amplifying our efforts. The UK must work closely with our European partners to ensure that the prevention of FGM, the identification of those at risk and the services for those living with FGM are strong across the EU. We must also utilise the EU’s global influence to promote action to challenge the cultural norms and attitudes at the root of FGM.
FGM has been explicitly illegal in the UK since 2004. There have been no successful prosecutions for FGM in the UK, which highlights the lack of awareness of FGM across our services. Positive steps to promote awareness have been taken in recent years, and it is vital that we ensure that practitioners can identify women and girls who may have been subject to, or who may be at risk of, FGM and report that to the authorities.
The introduction of FGM prevention orders in the Serious Crime Act 2015 was a welcome development. They provide a legal avenue to protect girls who are at risk of FGM, but we must ensure that they are effective. The Government should consider, as I have asked them to do in parliamentary questions, undertaking a review to determine whether they are meeting their objective. Victims of FGM, like those of any other form of abuse, are often reluctant to come forward or engage with support services. Health, immigration, child protection and immigration services are all likely to come into contact with those who are at risk. Multidisciplinary co-operation, better understanding and training are essential to protect girls who are at risk.
Education on FGM must be embedded as an integral element in curricula for professions in which practitioners are likely to come into contact with affected women and girls. Guidelines and procedures must be in place across the services to make certain that FGM, and those at risk, are identified and appropriate steps taken. Where FGM is identified, services must be able to provide support for its wide range of physical and psychological consequences.
The communication from the EU identifies a lack of holistic support services across the EU, including in the UK. The needs of survivors of FGM will vary dramatically, and we must therefore ensure that there is a focus not only on gynaecological services but on psychological support and post-traumatic counselling. Services should also share best practice across countries. In many cases, with cultural practices such as FGM, the messenger can be even more important than the message. We must therefore continue to engage proactively with minority communities, particularly those at risk of FGM. Without such engagement, the message that FGM is illegal and abusive will not be heard. Initiatives such as that recently undertaken by the Muslim Council of Britain, which issued explicit guidance to council members condemning the practice of FGM, are crucial and to be welcomed.
The Government should continue to work closely with community groups, third sector organisations and faith leaders to ensure that the message is heard loud and clear. We should also ensure that resources are allocated specifically to African-led organisations, as those might be the most effective at communicating the message about female genital mutilation.
Continued commitment to tackling FGM is vital if we are to ensure that all women and girls are safe from abuse. Many significant advances have been made in the fight against FGM in recent years, but we must not allow our focus to be diverted. FGM remains a widespread and, by some estimates, growing problem. I therefore welcome the EU communication and encourage the Government to engage closely with its recommendations and conclusions.
Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention
Sarah Champion Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am glad that we have had the opportunity to debate the business and implementation case for the Prüm decisions. I appreciate the fact that it has been a wide-ranging debate. I support the conclusion in favour of rejoining. I welcome the Government’s change of heart relating to these decisions, even if that has taken them over a year. I am glad they are now listening to the evidence, rather than just to their Back Benchers’ fears about the EU, and recognise that these measures improve policing capability both in the UK and across the EU.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who referred to the fact that our freedoms, civil liberties and laws are built on the foundations of security and safety for all our citizens. Prüm seeks to enhance that. The recent attacks in Paris demonstrated the importance of working closely with other member states to ensure that our police forces have the best possible means at their disposal for combating crime and ensuring the protection of our citizens.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Interpol has a motto, “Connecting police for a safer world”. It could do this very well not only in Europe but across the world if it got its act together.
Sarah Champion
Personally, I think we should use all the measures and all the tools at our disposal. Particularly in my field, abuse, I see that criminals are working internationally now and we must do all we can to prevent that.
I am aware that opting in to Prüm may seem like a technical matter, but it speaks to a deeper issue—that we can and do achieve more by co-operation with our European partners than we can individually. Labour firmly believes that by working with our European partners on such matters, we are more than the sum of our parts. As we have heard, these decisions establish requirements for sharing data related to DNA profiles, vehicle registrations and fingerprint images. The Labour Government were right to support these as vital means of improving policing across the EU. However, in an attempt to appease their Eurosceptic Back Benchers, this Government opted out of them in 2013, with effect from 1 December 2014.
Although the Government opted back in to 35 EU justice measures, the Prüm decisions were not among them. Labour was opposed to that decision at the time, so we are pleased that the Government have come to their senses and now see the benefit of these measures. Before I come on to why we support rejoining Prüm and set out some outstanding questions that I have for the Minister, it is important that we set the original opt-out in context. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) reminded the House that in justifying the decision not to rejoin Prüm in July last year, the Home Secretary stated that the Government had
“neither the time nor the money”.—[Official Report, 10 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 492.]
I am pleased that they now have the time and the money to devote to this important issue. However, it is hard to shake the suspicion that apart from time and money, last year they lacked the inclination because of the need to appease their Back Benchers. We all remember the pressure the Government were under with regard to the European arrest warrant, and we have seen today the divisions within the Tory party regarding Prüm. While I welcome the change in stance and the party’s willingness now to stand up to its Back Benchers, I wish that there had not been the need for a delay of over a year. The demonstrated benefits of Prüm mean that this delay is likely to have had a negative impact on British policing, so it is important that legislation is now introduced as soon as possible.
Although the business case and the pilot study clearly show that there would be operational and public protection benefits, there is of course a need for balance and safeguards. I have a number of questions relating to these issues, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could answer them.
It is right and proper that we send information abroad only about people actually convicted in the UK, and that additional requirements be applied prior to the release of information relating to minors. The risk of false positive matches is another serious issue. While it is promising that the Government’s business case found that there was increased convergence in DNA testing standards across member states, we would like a requirement under Prüm that data is collected using a system of quality assurances for crime scene examination. Will the Minister confirm that the standard requirement prior to transferring DNA information will be maintained at 10 loci rather than the minimum of six loci required by Prüm?
I have a number of questions about the proportionality test mentioned in the implementation case. Will the Minister give an example of when he thinks that the test will prevent personal information from being sent abroad due to the offence under investigation being insufficiently serious? Given that the proportionality test is not explicitly included in the Government’s proposed draft legislation, will it be contained in any legislation, and who will be responsible for taking these decisions?
In addition to those concerns about sufficient safeguards being put in place, I have a number of other outstanding issues that I would like the Minister to clarify. The business and implementation case estimates that the cost of Prüm will be £30 million, although it acknowledges that there will be additional downstream costs. How are the savings of £18 million being made from the previous estimate of £31 million? What are the annual costs expected to be for the rest of this Parliament? It is important that ongoing transparency and scrutiny is applied to ensure that the measures are operating effectively. What plans are there to publish details of the number of pieces of information being sent abroad from the UK, as well as the number being denied due to failing the proportionality test?
Will the Minister tell the House about the timeframe for bringing forward the legislation needed to give effect to the decision to rejoin Prüm, and how long it is expected to take for the system to become operational? Given the delay already caused by the initial opt-out from Prüm, preventing any further delays should be a matter of priority for the Government.
In summary, Labour supported the Prüm decision when in government and opposed the initial opt-out from these measures during the previous Parliament. We are therefore happy to support this motion authorising the Government to rejoin.
Immigration Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Sarah Champion Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Keir Starmer
I am grateful. I did think that that was what the Minister had said, and I just wanted that assurance.
Turning in a little more detail to the provisions in paragraph 2 dealing with those leaving care, former looked-after children who require leave to enter or remain when they turn 18, but do not have it or are not asylum seekers, will be excluded from receiving accommodation, financial support, a personal adviser, a pathway plan, funds for education or training and any other assistance under various provisions of the Children Act 1989 and from staying put with foster carers or maintaining contact. The Minister says that that is because the needs of those who have no right to be here are different from those of people who have their future in this country. Such individuals are former looked-after children who have just turned 18, and care leavers in such circumstances include those with no immigration status, those who arrived as children and sought asylum and were granted UASC leave, and those who came to the UK at a young age but were never helped to regularise their status.
Such people can only claim access to accommodation and other assistance in limited circumstances. The first is if they are destitute, have been refused asylum and are eligible for support and there is a genuine obstacle to them leaving the UK. The second is if they are destitute and have a pending non-asylum immigration application or appeal. The third is if their rights are exhausted, and regulations will set out the limited circumstances in which they can receive support.
The concern here is that specific provision was made in the Children Act for all children leaving care in recognition of their additional vulnerabilities and the need for additional support in order for them to have the same chances as other young people entering adulthood. The new clause and new schedule fundamentally change that position. There is a real concern that someone who has just turned 18 and who, as a matter of fact and possibly because of vulnerabilities, has simply not regularised their immigration status will be denied support under this provision, which cuts across the thrust of the 1989 Act.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I want to speak against new clause 17 and new schedule 3. I want to start by asking the Minister whether he has the approval of the Minister for Children and Families, because the provisions seem to challenge much of the core principles for which he has been arguing. The changes have far-reaching impacts on the core definitions and duties of the Children Act, and it is strange that such dramatic changes are being housed within an immigration Bill.
Section 23(4)(c) of the Children Act places a duty on local authorities to give care leavers assistance to the extent that their welfare requires it. While the young person was a looked-after child, the local authority was their corporate parent. That duty recognises the legacy of the parental role and allows the local authority to step in and protect a care leaver in crisis. The Government’s Staying Put initiative explicitly recognises the need for care leavers to have “stable and secure homes” and to
“be given sufficient time to prepare for life after care.”
The Department for Education care leavers’ charter outlines key principles that will
“remain constant through any changes in Legislation, Regulation and Guidance”,
including the provision of advice and practical, financial and emotional support. Such initiatives are entirely undermined by the proposals.
Migrant children in care often face additional difficulties to British children. They are particularly likely to have faced trauma. They may experience language and cultural barriers. They are less likely to have any contact with biological family members. Care leavers often need their personal adviser or advocate to help to identify and even instruct an immigration lawyer. Barnardo’s conducted a child advocacy pilot for the Home Office that by all accounts seemed to be very beneficial. It helped the young person enormously to make informed choices and it helped the state to provide the level of support that was needed, so it seems odd that the new clause will undermine the Government’s pilot.
Not only is it discriminatory to remove support from young people leaving care on the basis of their immigration status, but in order for migrant care leavers to enter adulthood successfully it is vital that they can access a care plan under the 1989 Act. They are very young adults who often have no one else to turn to. The Government’s changes will remove all possible support usually provided to care leavers—including a personal adviser, a pathway plan and funding for education or training—other than, as the Minister confirmed, basic accommodation and financial assistance for certain groups.
It is not clear from the new clause whether it is envisaged that local authorities or the Home Office will be responsible for providing the support set out in proposed new paragraph 10B. Although I oppose the changes as a whole, at the very least local authorities should be responsible for providing support if the Government are not, and that should be stated in the Bill.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
We have spoken at length about the complexities of immigration law. In introducing yet another Immigration Bill, the Government had the opportunity to simplify some areas of the law. In areas such as appeals, the Government have, to their shame, done so by removing the right of appeal from the majority and proposing that the few who retain it might have to exercise it from outwith the country.
Some of the strongest arguments in the whole debate have been about the support we give to migrants and refused asylum seekers, particularly the children involved in such situations. The Government’s proposals on support for 18-year-old care leavers and destitute families with children in new clause 17 and new schedule 3 are nothing short of a dog’s breakfast, and are potentially dangerous. Either by accident or design, we could very well see support removed from the most vulnerable groups.
Under the existing system, Home Office support is provided under two relatively—I stress: relatively—broad provisions, namely sections 4 and 95. We will now have heavily caveated and more complicated support available across four provisions, including new paragraphs 10A and 10B of new schedule 3. The new clause and new schedule will sow confusion at a local authority level, and dangerous gaps in support can and will occur.
The changes relating to section 17 of the Children Act 1989 will prevent local authorities from providing accommodation and support where there are
“reasonable grounds for believing that support will be provided”.
That will prevent local authorities from supporting families on the basis that they might receive support in future, even though they are not currently receiving any support. It could prevent a local authority from providing emergency support if a family are destitute and have been unable to access immediate support from the Home Office. It will also prevent local authorities from providing support to families who in principle would be entitled to support under new paragraph 10A but are not receiving it in practice.
I am sure the Minister is well aware of the case of child EG, a one-year-old who died in 2012, followed two days later by his mother, when they were left in limbo between two different types of support. It is people like that who might be affected by the Government’s proposals. On the topic of vulnerability, there cannot be many more vulnerable people than young adults who have just turned 18 and have spent long periods of their childhood in care. Indeed, as has been alluded to, the Minister for Children and Families described them as “highly vulnerable” when calling for more support as part of a leaving care strategy as recently as July this year. It seems that our commitment to providing more care for this vulnerable group depends on where they were born or have come from.
The Minister for Children and Families is not alone. The Joint Committee on Human Rights also stated that unaccompanied migrant children must be properly supported in the transition to adulthood and receive bespoke and comprehensive plans that focus on educational goals, reintegration and rehabilitation. That includes planning for possible return to their country of origin and the provision of support to young people leaving care whose appeal rights are exhausted. The Joint Committee also stated that it would be difficult to reconcile the removal of support from young people leaving care on the basis of their immigration status, rather than on assessment of need, with the non-discrimination provisions of the UN convention on the rights of the child. Article 2 of the convention requires that states respect and ensure the rights of each child in their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind.
During the evidence sessions, we heard time and again from expert witnesses that the proposals in the Bill run counter to the provisions and principles in the Children Act 1989 and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. The hon. Member for North Dorset mused that it might be easier just to amend the 1989 Act, much to the dismay of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North-east. The Government may not have gone that far, but they are trying to make changes to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 that will have a similar effect. Be in no doubt: the Scottish National party will be voting against these retrograde proposals.
James Brokenshire
As the hon. and learned Gentleman has already highlighted, support is provided to a child within the meaning of the Children Act. The point we are making is that when someone becomes an adult who is appeal rights exhausted, it is appropriate for the state to seek the removal of that adult from the UK in those circumstances. We are making an in-principle point about facilitating the removal of those with no rights to be here. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be suggesting that because someone came to this country as an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child, they have an enhanced right to remain in this country. We are saying that that is not correct. We should of course work with the Home Office to see that someone returns in those circumstances and that they are assisted to do so. Fundamentally, the provisions in the Children Act are designed for those who are likely to stay in the UK. Therefore it is our judgment that they should not apply and that is why we are bringing forward these provisions.
To the hon. Member for Rotherham I would add that we have consulted the Department for Education closely in the preparation of these provisions. The schedule therefore reflects a whole of Government view, rather than just a Home Office view.
Sarah Champion
May I have a brief clarification from the Minister? My understanding is that, if the child or young person is in a care home, the Minister is absolutely right—the age of 18 is the cut-off. If a child or young person is in foster care, I thought we had changed it so that the age at which they stop receiving support is now 21. Would that apply to an unaccompanied asylum seeker, or will they be discriminated against?
James Brokenshire
The point is that there is no discrimination. As I have already indicated, we are talking about children and the support provided under the Children Act. When someone turns 18, they are an adult and therefore we judge it is appropriate that the new provisions should apply. I think that the hon. Lady was highlighting the staying put duty in respect of foster parents. We are saying that, at the point at which someone becomes an adult, they should be leaving the UK and not staying put within the UK. Obviously, we have a strong desire to work with local authorities and with the young people themselves to support them in their departure from the UK.
I want to address the point about gaps made by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, which was also made in the briefing from the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association that I am sure hon. Members have received. We do not agree with the analysis that is given. Indeed, we think that the provisions in the new schedule will assist, because we can see that support is being provided. We are simplifying the basis on which the principal need of families without immigration status can be met by local authorities. That need is for accommodation and subsistence support to prevent destitution, as is clearly shown by the study I have highlighted and previously referred to. In respect of family groups, we are clear that section 17 of the Children Act will remain the basis on which local authorities will meet any other social care needs beyond destitution—that is, what they consider to be necessary to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child pending resolution of a family’s immigration status or their departure from the UK. I intervened on the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras on that point.
The individual case that the hon. and learned Gentleman highlighted involved moving to DWP benefits rather than asylum support. As has been flagged previously, there have been delays in respect of some of the provisions. The Immigration Act and schedule 3 provisions we are discussing are about simplifying the process, so that there are not those laborious human rights assessments that replicate a number of other assessments in the system. The intention is to close some of the gaps, rather than extend them. That is why we take a different view from the analysis articulated by the hon. and learned Gentleman and set out in the ILPA briefing notes. We can see a difference of principle in the Committee this morning on the appropriateness of continuing Children Act provisions beyond the age of 18. Our judgment is that at that stage people should be leaving the UK rather than staying, and therefore we are talking about two distinct mechanisms and two distinct means. I hope that the Committee will be minded to incorporate the new clause into the Bill.
Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Sarah Champion
On a point of order, Mr Owen. May I have clarity on when amendment 70 will be considered?
The Chair
When we come to clause 54, amendment 221 can be moved formally at that point. That will be followed by amendment 70. Ms Champion, are you happy with that?
Sarah Champion
Happy? I am delighted.
Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53
Regulations
Amendments made: 37, in clause 53, page 44, line 15, after “State” insert
‘or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’.
Part 7 of the Bill currently requires the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to prepare a code of practice in respect of the English language requirement for public sector workers. The code comes into force in accordance with regulations. This amendment and amendments 38 and 39 ensure that clause 53 applies to regulations made by either the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster under Part 7.
Amendment 245, in clause 53, page 44, line 23, at end insert
‘() regulations under section (Private hire vehicles etc)(2),’.
This amendment provides for regulations making provision regarding taxis and private hire vehicles in Scotland and Northern Ireland to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Amendment 38, in clause 53, page 44, line 39, after “State” insert
‘or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 37.
Amendment 39, in clause 53, page 44, line 42, after “State” insert
‘or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’.—(James Brokenshire.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 37.
Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Commencement
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Champion Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karen Bradley
It is clearly important that we tackle gang violence and look at the exploitation within gang culture, which sees very vulnerable young people exploited and forced into gangs. I will of course be working with all to ensure that there is appropriate support for combating that.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The British crime survey shows an 87% rise in the reporting of rapes between October 2012 and March 2015. Sexual violence investigations need specialist expertise and supervision to ensure that cases are handled correctly and prosecutions are brought. What assurances can the Minister give that the proposed police cuts will not impact on the training and supervision of officers working on sexual violence cases?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady, who has significant experience and expertise in this area, will know that the increased recording of violence against women and girls is good news, because it means that more victims are prepared to come forward. I am very impressed by the work that I have seen police forces doing across the country to ensure that victims come forward and receive the right specialist and multi-agency support that they need.