Strategy for International Development

Debate between Sarah Champion and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 6th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion]

I want to begin by thanking all the aid workers around the world, who work in some incredibly dangerous and challenging situations. They do it quietly; they do it because they care about people and want to make a difference.

I also thank all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. I hope that the Minister has listened to the words of former DFID Ministers, former Treasury Ministers and former aid workers with a wealth of experience. This is all about meeting our international obligations to the most vulnerable and the poorest in the world, not in a political way but in a cross-party way, because we care about this. Why do we care? Because in the past two years, another 100 million people have been forced into extreme poverty—by covid, by climate change, by conflict. The majority have been women and girls. All the issues could have been addressed if we had worked internationally with our partners and used our money wisely.

When we talk about the commitment to 0.7%, it is not about the number. It is about the strategy to alleviate poverty around the world and develop low and middle-income countries around the world so that everybody can have a healthy, prosperous, educated future with Governments who are stable and respect human rights. We can achieve that by working together and by working with our partners on the ground.

I urge the Minister to listen to everything that has been said today; to make sure that the taxpayers’ money that the Government have been gifted to look after is spent as wisely as possible so that we can meet our goals and international commitments; and to work with our international partners so that, hopefully, everybody can have a safe future.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

It being 20 seconds before 7 o’clock, I will just talk for 20 seconds and entertain the House, as I am required by Standing Order No. 54 to put the Questions at 7 o’clock. Now we have another five seconds, and who knows what could happen in five seconds in this place today? [Laughter.]

Official Development Assistance and the British Council

Debate between Sarah Champion and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; it is always wonderful to have the last word.

I thank everybody for their passionate contributions to this debate. This is truly a cross-party issue and I hope the Government are listening very clearly to the loud plea that we are making.

This debate is not actually about 0.7%; it is about how we see ourselves and how we present Britain to the world. I am proud that we have a strong history of development in this country and it pains me that, piece by piece, that is crumbling away with the decisions the Government are making. It is not the Government who are facing the repercussions—although one could look at the results of recent by-elections—but the very poorest in the world. We should not be doing this.

We need to provide clarity. We need clarity for the NGOs that have received FCDO funding in the past. Contrary to what the Minister said, they are being told by webinars and by junior Ministers, and they are being given a week to wrap up their projects. Many of the examples are on the public record, so I am more than happy to share them with the Minister, because it is shocking.

This House needs clarity on what the Government’s priorities really are, because we understand the seven priorities but unfortunately the Government keep going against them. As many Members have argued passionately, we need the Government to understand that defence, diplomacy, development and trade are all interlinked, and that weakening development weakens all those things.

I end by saying that there are threats to this country, unfortunately, but a threat such as terrorism is resolved not by bullets but by full tummies and economic potential. That is what concerns me: by weakening development we are weakening this country’s security.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As a former member of the International Development Committee, may I say that it was some of the most valuable work that I have done over my 29 years as a Member of Parliament? I have really enjoyed the debate this evening.

We will have the Dispatch Boxes cleaned during the Adjournment debate to save a bit of time. I know the Minister will not touch the Dispatch Box until then.

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

Sexual Offences Act 2003: Positions of Trust

Debate between Sarah Champion and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]]

It is a huge honour to be here, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for granting this debate about closing the loophole in the law to protect 16 and 17-year-olds from sexual exploitation.

I have been campaigning on this vital issue for years, but I wish we did not have to be here again. The only reason we are here is that the Government have failed time and again to listen to me, to other MPs, to peers, to charities—especially the NSPCC and Thirtyone:eight—and to victims and survivors of sexual exploitation. The Government have failed time and again to close a loophole in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that leaves 16 and 17-year-olds open to sexual abuse. Currently, section 22 of the Act describes a person in a position of trust if they are

“regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge”

of a child. Someone in a position of trust who then has sex with a 16 or 17-year-old in their care is acting unlawfully.

However, this sensible legislation only applies to adults working in a set of professions listed in section 21 of the Act, including teachers, care workers and youth justice staff. This loophole allows adults such as faith leaders or sports coaches—who clearly meet the criteria in section 22, but are not on the list of public sector professions—to be above the law, and therefore to engage in sexual activity with 16 and 17-year-olds in their care with impunity. Given the Government’s claim to be sending out what the Home Secretary’s foreword to her recent “Tackling Child Sexual Abuse strategy” describes as

“a clear message to those who abuse our children”,

I fail to understand why, after years of persistent campaigning by Members across the House, action to protect children from being sexually exploited by adults in positions of trust has not been taken. In the same strategy, the Home Secretary goes on to state that

“if you think you can…abuse positions of trust—think again, you will pay for your crimes”,

but that is not true. Government inaction means that there remain a whole host of adults in positions of trust, from sports coaches to those in faith organisations, who are not covered by the law and who will simply say that the 16 or 17-year-old consented to a sexual relationship with them as their defence. That is if the abuse is ever discovered. The current legislation makes it the child’s responsibility to identify, report and be the witness in court to the abuse. This is totally unrealistic and unjust.

Closing the current loophole would simply make the act of sex with a child in your care a crime. Does the Minister really think that a maths teacher has more influence over a child than their sports coach? The child will see that sports coach every day, and the coach will have the power to make their dreams come true or dash them. Currently, the law does think that the maths teacher has more influence. I was pleased that, in 2019, the Ministry of Justice finally conducted an internal review into the law. Then, in March 2020, after being in post for only a few short weeks, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) stated that it was

“crystal clear…that this is an extremely important issue which requires a clear, considered and decisive response.”

The Minister went on to say that

“we should urgently consider all options, including legislative change, and must be in a position to announce next steps by the end of May.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2020; Vol. 672, c. 303WH.]

That was in March 2020, but as I am here again today, it goes without saying that no announcement was forthcoming. So I ask the Minister, given his May deadline, when exactly the Government will be able to announce the next steps to protect children.

In February 2003, Baroness Blatch highlighted the loophole and called for it to be addressed. The Baroness was the first to raise this concern, but she certainly was not the last. I would like to pay tribute to all those who, over the years, have urged the Government to close this loophole. In particular, I want to recognise the work of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and that of Tanni Grey-Thompson in the other place, both of whom have worked tirelessly to draw attention to predatory sports coaches abusing children in their care.

The Minister is aware that I have previously carried out an inquiry on this topic in my former role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on safeguarding in faith settings. The APPG published its report in 2019. It highlighted that adults holding positions within faith organisations

“will automatically be seen as having authority, power and influence.”

There is a power imbalance, and when combined with the close, regular and intense contact between faith leaders and young people, this creates significant opportunities for grooming and abuse. Young people and their families place significant trust in these leaders, and there is a failure to question potential abusive behaviour or poor safeguarding standards. Many young people and parents assume that legislation prevents faith leaders and workers from engaging in sexual activity with children under their care.

That is the nub of it. If someone leaves their child in the care of a professional, even if the child is over the age of consent, it is completely logical to assume that the law would apply if that professional failed in their duty to safeguard. Sadly, because of Government inaction, parents are making the wrong assumption. The law does not prevent faith leaders, sports coaches, driving instructors, tutors or even police officers from engaging in sexual activity with a 16 or 17-year-old under their supervision. It is important to add that many children will have been groomed by the professional prior to their turning 16, and they will actually believe that they are in a relationship with their abuser.

Let us take the example of Hannah—not her real name—who featured in the NSPCC “Close the loophole” campaign. Hannah swam from a young age and took her training seriously. She admired her coach, Jeff, and would work hard to be given praise by him. When she was 15, Hannah was having a difficult time, and Jeff built up her trust by supporting her. After Hannah turned 16, Jeff started to compliment her, saying she looked nice, or that her clothes looked nice on her. He said she looked beautiful and attractive. Hannah says that she had not heard a man say those kinds of things to her before, and she was unsure how she felt about it, but things progressed to the point where they started having sex. The relationship lasted over a year before a disclosure revealed what had happened. The police questioned Jeff, but no charges were brought, due to Hannah being over 16 and therefore able to consent to sex.  

A Freedom of Information request commissioned by the NSPCC found that between 2014 and 2018, there was a total of 653 recorded cases in which adults in a position of trust had had a sexual relationship with a child of 16 or 17 in their care. What really horrifies me is that those numbers will be just the tip of the iceberg.  As the law stands, it is the child’s word against their abuser—if the offence is ever uncovered— which means that the vast majority of cases will never see the light of day, let alone be investigated or recorded. That is just as the abuser intended. 

The all-party parliamentary group on safeguarding in faith settings, the NSPCC, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, Thirtyone:eight, the Church of England, Sport England, West Midlands police, the Offside Trust, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and even the Home Secretary are all calling on the Government to close this loophole to protect children. What more will it take for the Minister to act?  

Protecting children and young people from harm should be one of society’s top priorities.  It is really is quite simple. The law needs to change so that all adults who hold a position of trust over a child, even if that child is 16 or 17, must be banned from having sex with them.  Over the years of campaigning on this, I have heard the same justifications for doing nothing from a host of different Ministers. 

I suspect that tonight the Minister will highlight that the law around positions of trust offences is complex, and that any reforms should not unduly impinge upon the sexual rights and freedoms of those who are over 16. The Minister may say that a broad new definition of positions of trust could result in the age of consent being raised by stealth.  I appreciate and understand the complexities here, and of course the unintended consequences must be considered.  

I am not here to argue for denying young people age-appropriate rights to agency and self-determination, but we cannot abandon our duty to protect children from abuse when it is clearly happening. Children and young people across the country will soon be returning to school and many will again participate in vital extracurricular activity after an incredibly difficult year.  The Minister has the ability to protect those children from abuse. He has already acknowledged the urgency and pressing nature of this problem, so will he confirm tonight that the Government will once and for all close the loophole in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and make sure that 16 and 17-year-olds are protected from all predatory professionals in a position of trust over them? Minister, I await your answer.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you, Sarah Champion. The Dispatch Box was sanitised while we were off screen.

Covid-19

Debate between Sarah Champion and Nigel Evans

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]]

I thank the people of Rotherham for following the lockdown rules, and for proactively helping the people in our town who are vulnerable; you have shown real community spirit and I am proud to represent you.

Tonight, however, I will speak as Chair of the Select Committee on International Development, as we are currently conducting an inquiry into the impact of the coronavirus pandemic in developing countries. There have been some clear and consistent messages. First, the ability to prevent infections in the global south is simply not there. How is it possible to maintain social distancing in a refugee camp or at a food distribution point? In Bangladesh, for example, 850,000 Rohingya refugees live in just 26 sq km. Secondly, healthcare systems in so many areas have been destroyed, like in Syria or Yemen, or are vastly under-resourced, like in Mali, with its single ventilator for the entire country. Thirdly, the economic impact has been immediate in the global south. This alone is estimated to have undone the development work of the last 30 years.

The consensus in our evidence to date is as follows. The coronavirus pandemic is emerging across the global south, with no country being safe. The outbreak is likely to peak in the next two or three months. The direct challenge of the disease and the seriousness of its effect on children will be exacerbated where there are existing illnesses, other morbidities and poor nutrition, as well as a weak health system and infrastructure. For example, it is estimated that only 51% of health centres in Yemen are fully functional. In north-east Syria, no district can even meet the basic emergency threshold of 10 hospital beds per 10,000 population. In north-east Nigeria, vaccine coverage is only 8% in some areas, and 2.7 million women and children need nutritional support.

The preventive measures that we have adopted in the UK will obviously be challenging, if not impossible, in crowded settlements such as refugee camps. Other illnesses are likely to embed, as existing health services are crowded out or avoided. Traditional vaccine provision, maternal and neonatal health, and basic public health—nutrition and hygiene advice, in particular—will be at risk. Where lockdown is being used as a preventive measure, our evidence makes it clear that the stress that this can impose, alongside the threat of family illness and loss of income, all place disproportionate risk on women and children. Lockdown-related domestic violence has been evidenced everywhere. Child abuse is likely to increase. The Committee received evidence that child marriage and child sexual exploitation, including via the internet, could be used by some to mitigate losses of income from a lockdown economy.

Food security continues to be a major concern, particularly in Africa and the middle east. Public trust and social cohesion are worsening across some countries, with increasing protests against Governments. The threat of successful radicalisation and recruitment by extremist organisations seems inevitable in the face of rising unemployment and deprivation. There have also been reports of very negative sentiments about the role of international NGOs and foreigners in relation to the spread of the disease.

I have welcomed the UK’s response to the emergence of coronavirus in the global south. However, in our evidence, NGOs considered the £20 million allocated by the Department for International Development for them to tackle covid-19 to be insufficient. There is also a consistent message that multilateral organisations are not reactive enough to disburse funds to frontline delivery in these urgent situations. I urge the Government to allow UK NGOs more flexibility in how they already use their existing funding. The UK’s response—totalled at £744 million—is weighted strongly towards the allocation of official development assistance funding for the development of a vaccine, so it is concerning that the Government have yet to enact safeguards or place conditions on the use of the funding to ensure—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am terribly sorry, Sarah, but we have to leave it there.