Drug Crime

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Mr Pritchard. I thank my neighbour, the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), for securing this debate. He and I share a passion for tackling all of West Yorkshire’s problems. We regularly share a space in Westminster Hall; today is no different, so I thank him again for securing this important debate.

I suspect there is not a single constituency, as we have already started to hear, that is not affected by drugs and the misery that they inflict on individuals and communities. I am afraid to say that Halifax is no different. There seems to be an increasing audacity among those involved in the supply and dealing of drugs. Our inboxes and postbags are increasingly made up of concerned residents who witness drug deals in their areas and on their streets. Even in reporting those incidents to the police, as we have already heard, they feel powerless to take a meaningful stand and see it properly gripped.

I pay tribute to my local neighbourhood policing teams, as it is those officers who are at the forefront of the work to identify and address drugs activity. The pressures on neighbourhood policing teams is enormous, as the ability to get ahead of community issues is constantly compromised by having their resources diverted into response policing and responding to 999 calls, all ultimately a consequence of having fewer officers because of austerity, as hon. Members have pointed out.

In some districts of West Yorkshire, the demands on response and safeguarding teams are such that NPTs routinely operate with around 50% vacancies and abstractions in the numbers that they need—abstractions being the back-filling of roles in predominantly response policing on an almost constant basis, which inevitably compromises their capabilities. Neighbourhood policing is specialist and vital. It is the neighbourhood policing teams who primarily do the legwork on intelligence gathering and executing warrants relating to drugs.

In Calderdale, which covers just two constituencies—my Halifax constituency and the neighbouring Calder Valley—in the last two weeks alone there have been 23 instances of offences involving the possession of drugs, as well as eight instances of drugs trafficking. In the same two weeks, officers have uncovered four cannabis farms, taking the total up to seven cannabis farms dismantled by police in the last 31 days in just those two constituencies.

I normally joke in debates like this that the situation in Calderdale is not quite as bad as Sally Wainwright’s gripping “Happy Valley” would have us believe, but, worryingly, the stats speak for themselves. Only well-resourced NPTs with officers dedicated to this work, with protected time and defined and ring-fenced roles, allow us to get ahead in communities and get a grip of drug-related crime. If the Minister tells me that the resourcing of teams is an operational decision, I will make the point once again that it is the reduction in officer numbers, which we are still a long way off restoring, that has forced these difficult compromises for chief officers, setting back community-based policing.

Another massively aggravating issue in Calderdale, as I am sure is the case elsewhere, is fly-tipping, but in the context of this debate the fly-tipping of waste from cannabis grows. The dumping of bags of soil and clay pebbles in quiet rural lanes, as has happened in Northowram recently, is infuriating. It is evidence of crime upon crime—first the illegal grow, then the reckless dumping of waste, with councils being left to sort out the mess. I urge the Minister to consider all the ways that we can properly tackle this particular issue, including any and all forensics opportunities from this type of criminality.

I had the opportunity to visit the West Yorkshire violence reduction unit’s knife crime exhibition at the Royal Armouries in Leeds at the weekend. The work of the violence reduction unit has established that illegal drugs use and supply are significantly linked to violence in West Yorkshire, with schools commenting during a VRU survey that drugs had

“become the norm in many groups of young people, appear to be easy to obtain, and users are very young, for example in Year 7 making them around 11 years old”.

The targeted initiatives undertaken by the VRU are some of the best practice in the country. The At the Sharp End exhibition at the Royal Armouries showcases the work of Operation Jemlock, who I had the opportunity to spend a night shift with, and who have made over 6,000 arrests and confiscated over 1,000 weapons over the last two and a half years. I urge anyone to go and have a look at some of the weapons they have taken off our streets in West Yorkshire. It is truly terrifying stuff, and is all too often linked to drugs crime. Figures released by West Yorkshire police regarding the number of under-25s who have been involved in possession and/or use of knives or other sharp objects in the 12 months up to February 2022 reveal that police recorded 22 incidents in Calderdale. These included two 13-year-olds and one child aged just 10 in possession of a weapon. That is why the work of the violence reduction unit is so effective and essential; long may that funding continue.

Let me turn to the scourge of drug driving. Earlier this month I wrote to the Home Secretary regarding the freedom of information request I submitted to police forces, following roads policing officers around the country raising frustrations about delays in forensics meaning that drug drivers are getting away with their crimes. As the Minister knows, when an individual is arrested on suspicion of drug driving, usually having failed a roadside drug test and tested positive for cannabis or cocaine, the law requires that the police submit a confirmatory blood test in order for a suspect to be charged. As drug driving is a summary offence, if it takes longer than six months for forensic analysis to be undertaken on that blood sample, the police are unable to charge an individual.

I sent a freedom of information request to every police force in England and Wales, and data from those FOIs showed that in the past three years, at least 62 prosecutions of suspected drug drivers have collapsed due to forensic labs failing to turn around tests in the required six-month window. What is really concerning is that 21 police forces—nearly half—either failed to respond to the FOI or gave incomplete data, so we know that this is just a snapshot of a much bigger problem. Police have caught and arrested drug drivers, but broader criminal justice failures mean that those drug drivers get away with their crimes and are free to continue putting lives at risk on our roads.

In answer to a written parliamentary question on this issue from February, the Government suggested that this relates to pressures in the system, stating:

“between January and September 2021, there were some delays in drug drive testing due to Covid related pressures on forensic services. Toxicology supply has now significantly increased, and all backlogs have been cleared. Some cases could not be charged during this period, but none of these involved serious injury or death.”

Although it is reasonable to say that the pandemic strained forensic services, it is wrong to argue that this is the sole factor behind slow drug driving test turnaround times, as our research covers the past three years and suggests that there are long-term, systemic problems in getting drug drivers off our roads. I am still waiting to a response to my letter asking how the Government plan to address these ongoing pressures, and ensure that drug drivers are not at large and able to reoffend, putting lives at risk on our highways.

I place on record my thanks to Calderdale’s outstanding neighbourhood policing team inspectors, Ben Doughty and James Graham, and the sergeants, police constables and police community support officers in their teams, as well as PC Craig Nicholls from the Police Federation for sharing his insights and those of his members in preparation for today’s very important speech.

Computer Misuse Act 1990

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. As others have done, I will start by paying tribute to and thanking the hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) for securing today’s important debate and for his ongoing and important role in highlighting some of the issues in this policy space.

Like others, I will start with some humility about the limits of my technical capabilities in this space, while very much recognising that the comments of those who have some background in it have been particularly insightful —I include your comments in that, Sir Mark.

We often describe debates in Westminster Hall as timely, but as the UK faces a threat unlike any other in recent history, and just one day after reports broke that Downing Street itself may have been may have been targeted using Pegasus hacking software, which can turn smartphones into remote listening devices, a renewed focus on the Computer Misuse Act could not be more urgent.

As others have mentioned, the 1990 Act was the first major legislative attempt to tackle cyber-crime and criminalise hacking. The Act strengthened the protection of personal data held by organisations by making it a crime for individuals to gain unauthorised access to that data or to modify it without the necessary permission. Undoubtedly, it was a significant landmark, but given the rate and complexity of technological advance, the Act is long overdue for reform. While it has been amended by more recent legislation, at 30 years old, its contemporary relevance continues to wane.

This policy area moves at such a pace that legislation could be rendered out of date in the time between a new law being drafted and securing Royal Assent, so laws governing this space would require almost constant consideration and review. That is where the statutory guidance plays an important role, as some areas of this must be particularly dynamic. However, with the Act at 30-plus, and without a significant overhaul, we are now woefully ill-equipped as a country to ensure that we are meeting as robustly as is required the cyber challenges that we face.

In 2020, an estimated 99.99% of total cyber-crime and roughly 99% of reported computer misuse offences went unpunished. That is despite the fact that we know that cyber-crime is significantly under-reported. Coupled with that, there were only 45 prosecutions in 2020 for computer misuse offences. In total, there were 43 convictions, with the average custodial sentence being 15.7 months, and the average fine just £1,203. While there are several reasons for low prosecution rates for cyber-crime—such as jurisdiction, with a great deal of this type of crime being committed abroad—the CMA, with its confusing framework and ambiguous, outdated terminology, presents a further challenge.

I recently met the CyberUp organisation—others have already paid tribute to its work—which was set up in 2020 to campaign for reform of the CMA. It is a broad coalition of supportive bodies from within the cyber-security industry, including the larger cyber consultancies and the cyber industry trade body, techUK, and has the backing of the Confederation of British Industry. Others have cited similar arguments, such as the Criminal Law Reform Now Network, which was launched in 2007 and comprises leading academics, practitioners and legal experts in the field. In its 2020 report, it concluded that the CMA is “crying out for reform”.

Speaking last year at the National Cyber Security Centre, the Home Secretary announced a welcome formal review of the CMA. The result of the call for information was clear, with 66% of respondents saying that they had concerns over the current protections in the Act for legitimate cyber-activity. I understand that the outcome of the review is expected to be published early this summer, so as with others who have spoken today my first question is, can the Minister confirm when we can expect the next step of that review? I would be grateful if he could update Members about that. Given that there is no reference to reform of the CMA in the Government’s new national cyber strategy, which was published late last year, many people hope that the review will comprehensively address the areas discussed today and provide a clear position on how we move forward.

As the hon. Member for Bridgend has mentioned, reviewing the CMA in the light of Russia’s abhorrent invasion of Ukraine is of even greater importance in order to ensure that our cyber-defence is fit for purpose. As outlined in the 2020 Russia report conducted by the Intelligence and Security Committee,

“Russia’s cyber capability, when combined with its willingness to deploy it in a malicious capacity, is a matter of grave concern, and poses an immediate and urgent threat to our national security.”

During evidence provided to the Committee, the NCA explained:

“The Computer Misuse Act…is very outdated legislation. It was designed for a time when we all didn’t carry six phones and computers and let alone have criminals who do the same.”

It would therefore seem more than sensible for the Government to accept the report’s recommendation that the CMA

“should be updated to reflect modern use of personal electronic devices”,

alongside the report’s other recommendations.

A Government report published just last month and conducted by the UK, the US and other allies exposed the historic malign cyber-activity of Russia’s Federal Security Service, including a long list of cyber-operations targeting the UK energy sector, US aviation and a Russian dissident in the UK, who was targeted using sophisticated hacking and spear phishing. Given the historic and increased cyber-threat level, we must consider the concerns of cyber-security professionals who make a strong case that the CMA, in its current form, prevents them from being able to robustly test security systems using some of the most effective methods available to them.

Last month, the former chief executive officer of the UK National Cyber Security Centre warned that our current system

“lacks nuance in protecting people who inevitably have to look into bad things to protect against them.”

That argument is further supported by the recent findings of a survey conducted by CyberUp and techUK, which found that 93% of cyber-security professionals believe that

“the Computer Misuse Act did not represent a piece of legislation that was fit for this century”

and 91% of cyber-security businesses felt that

“they had been put at a competitive disadvantage relative to other countries with better legal regimes.”

If we do not have a system that our security professionals have confidence in, we do not allow them to robustly defend our security to the best of their abilities.

Having discussed the necessary reasons for reform, it is important to consider what legislative reform would look like and the possible alternatives available to us. One reform, advocated by CyberUp and the Criminal Law Reform Now Network, would introduce a statutory defence to the CMA, using a principles-based framework that would allow cyber-security professionals to defend activities performed in the public interest. I recognise the diverse purposes for interrogating cyber-security, which were raised by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), and the requirement to ensure that we find the balance in introducing a defence. When an individual is able to demonstrate clearly that they acted to prevent crime or to protect a system or that no personal profit or gains were made, it would seem reasonable and appropriate for that to be recognised in new legislation.

If I have understood the French approach correctly, article 40 of the criminal procedure code allows for a person who is acting in good faith and who acts solely in the national interest by notifying the appropriate body about an existing vulnerability related to the relevant system. That may be a comparison we can look at in order to see how we can best update our legislation.

If we are to ensure that we can protect ourselves from evolving cyber-threats, such as those revealed at the very heart of Government today, the Computer Misuse Act must be reformed as a priority to acknowledge the changes in our technological landscape. When the CMA was drafted, the majority of people did not even have access to a computer, but now we all carry that capacity with us in our pockets. Times have changed, and so must the legislation.

I would be grateful for an outline of the Government’s response to the revelations of spyware in Downing Street, and for confirmation that a comprehensive and urgent investigation is under way, as well as for an update on whether any upcoming legislation on countering hostile state actors will operate in this online space and when we might see more detail about those proposals.

Being able to combat threats from hostile cyber-actors in the current geopolitical environment is an essential requirement, and it is our role as legislators to ensure that that is possible. We need the very brightest and best working in the UK cyber-security space; those professionals must have the ability to do their jobs as well as they can if they are to deliver the protections that our country urgently needs.

Support for Black Victims of Domestic Abuse

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to follow a moving contribution by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott); she shared some of her lived experience that will stay with us and motivate us to go further and do more. I thank her for sharing her contribution.

As others have done, I thank the Petitions Committee for securing this incredibly important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), who opened the debate with an incredibly powerful contribution in which she made several serious points about practical measures that could, and should, be adopted almost immediately. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips); given her tireless work in this area, she would certainly be here were it not for a sudden family bereavement. I am sure all Members join me in sending her our condolences. I spoke to her ahead of the debate, and she spoke incredibly highly of Sistah Space.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead said, Valerie Forde was a mother, a daughter and a black woman. Six weeks before being brutally killed, Valerie reported her ex-partner’s threats to her life to the police. The threat was deprioritised and reported as a threat to property rather than to her life. On 31 March, Valerie and her baby daughter were killed at the hands of her ex-partner. The eighth anniversary of this tragic, heartbreaking loss is this week.

This debate is about support and protection for black women experiencing domestic abuse. At the moment, society is failing victims. We have heard many shaming facts and the harrowing lived experience of survivors. To paint a brief, troubling landscape, and to echo the words of others, we know there are numerous intersecting inequalities that black and minoritised women face that result in a higher risk of experiencing violence against women and girls. Black women face significantly higher barriers to reporting abuse and accessing protection, refuge and support. Research shows that black and migrant women experience higher rates of domestic-abuse-related homicide, and 50% of victims experience abuse from multiple perpetrators.

Others have shared these statistics, but at the height of the covid pandemic, when domestic abuse services were inundated with calls for help, the charity Refuge found black women were 14% less likely to be referred to their services for support by police than white survivors of domestic abuse. That is despite black women being 3% more likely to report abuse to the police than their white counterparts. Black and minoritised women are more likely to report inappropriate professional responses from statutory and voluntary agencies, including responses based on cultural, ethnic and religious stereotypes. A 2020 report from the organisation Imkaan said of the police:

“Black Caribbean women in particular said the responses were sluggish and stereotypically cast them as aggressive rather than ‘victims that needed help.’”

There are things that we can and must do, including, as Valerie’s law asks, improving the training of institutions and professionals who work with survivors of domestic and sexual abuse with African and Caribbean heritage. The Labour party released the “Ending Violence Against Women and Girls” Green Paper last year, which stated that we would ensure

“Training on the experiences of violence and abuse faced by Black, Asian, minority ethnic, LGBT+, disabled and migrant women. Labour would ensure that police and RASSO units training recognises the intersectionality of prejudices and discrimination, and additional barriers to accessing support and protection, that contributes to these victim’s experiences of violence against women and girls.”

All victims of domestic abuse or sexual violence need to be protected and supported. Institutions whose job it is to provide that care, support and protection need to be trained in such a way that they deliver it, taking into account the specific needs and experiences of all groups. It is as simple as that.

We need processes in place to ensure that victims and survivors are protected from the conscious or unconscious bias that we know exists in society. We must ensure a system that provides access to support and protection; victims and survivors cannot carry that burden themselves. Victims should not have to navigate ignorance, cultural bias or overt racism to access basic rights. The responsibility for safety must lie with those who are meant to protect us: those in the criminal justice system. Effective cultural competency training can support that.

In response to the petition, the Government have claimed that it is not necessary to mandate training because

“Current training on domestic abuse should include recognising the specific needs of victims due to their ethnicity or cultural background”,

but the lived experiences of women and girls are telling us otherwise. It is imperative that we listen to Sistah Space—I am so pleased that its representatives have been able to join us—and all supporters of Valerie’s law on what needs to change. We support the call to make cultural competency training mandatory for Government-run institutions involved in supporting African and Caribbean-heritage survivors of domestic and sexual abuse.

Valerie’s law and Sistah Space have driven today’s debate, but there is much more to be done to better protect and support black women who suffer domestic and sexual abuse. To truly protect and support all women, we must ensure we tackle the significantly higher barriers to accessing refuge and support that black women face. We must support and expand the by and for services available that provide for black and minoritised women’s specific experiences and needs. Importantly, by and for expert services are trusted by the women they support, due to their understanding of intersectionality. Minoritised women’s experiences of abuse and violence often intersect with race, immigration status, age and poverty. Those multiple discriminations often mean that the trauma experienced by victims is complex, and only specialist practitioners with experience and understanding can provide the right support. However, over the past decade, 50% of such specialist refuges have been forced to close, or have been taken over by a larger provider due to a lack of funding. According to 2018 data, there are fewer than 30 specialist by and for black and minoritised women’s refuges left in the whole of the UK.

As others have said, the situation is even more perilous for victims with no recourse to public funds. Just 5% of refuge spaces listed in 2019 were accessible to women with “no recourse to public funds” status. If a victim cannot access safety and support, what happens then? Black and minoritised survivors, who are disproportionately unable to access refuge, sometimes end up having to make the unthinkable choice between homelessness and remaining with their abuser. They also might be forced into exploitative and unsafe private shared housing, or sofa surfing—dangerous options that leave them vulnerable to repeat victimisation. We must ensure ring-fenced sustainable funding for by and for specialist providers. The Labour party’s violence against women and girls green paper commits to that, and so should the Government.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead said, we need to collect more vital data. Statistics and data that allow us to fully investigate and comprehend the relationship between protected characteristics and violence against women and girls are rare. The Femicide Census, which documents the women killed by men each year, tells us that during the period from 2008 to 2018, in 79% of cases in which a woman was murdered by a man, the ethnicity of the victim was not recorded. Also, while the Office for National Statistics provides an analysis of those involved in homicide offences by ethnic appearance, that data is not broken down by gender.

The Femicide Census reports that the lack of meaningful, verified data on ethnicity is an ongoing problem. It hinders proper research and our understanding of risk factors, barriers to support, and the need for specialist services. It states:

“The failure to record and publicise demographic data can also feed stereotypes, prejudice and assumptions. Media tends to over focus on the details of violence against women in certain communities and this in turn both feeds and reflects the existing prejudices and racism across UK society.”

The fact of the matter is that we count what we care about. We must gather better data to fully see and tackle the problem, so that we can truly protect all women.

Before closing, I thank Members for taking part, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), who said that every day we fail to step in and recognise that a woman needs help is a day we leave them at the mercy of their abuser. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) said that the failure to recognise bruises due to the lack of cultural competency was contributing to the failure to fully support women. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) spoke of how Valerie and her daughter lived and were very much loved.

The current failings are clear, and we know that there are changes that we can make to better protect and support black and minoritised victims of domestic abuse. We can save lives, and I urge the Government to act with the urgency that the situation demands.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, I should say that I will need to impose a time limit, which will probably start off at five minutes. Apart from Members who have an amendment down, I will be prioritising those who did not speak in the previous debate.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be responding for Labour to this second group of Lords amendment to the Bill, and I want to start by joining others in paying tribute to those who lost their lives or were injured in, and all those who responded to, the attack on Westminster five years ago today. I pay particular tribute to PC Keith Palmer and thank all those who work so hard to keep us safe every day.

I intend to keep my remarks tightly to the amendments before us, particularly Lords amendments 24 to 27, but I want to start by again expressing regret that modern slavery provisions have been included in a Bill on immigration. Members might remember that on Report I was intervened on only by Conservative MPs seeking to agree with me—which is certainly unusual—that the provisions in the Bill on modern slavery will only take us backwards. If this Bill passes unamended we will identify and protect fewer victims of modern slavery and identify and prosecute fewer perpetrators. That is not only our view: the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner has been fierce in her opposition to a number of the changes, and Caroline Haughey QC, one of the leading legal experts in this area, has said this Bill will

“catastrophically undo all that has been achieved in the 10 years since the first modern slavery prosecution.”

Lords amendment 27 seeks to exempt child victims from the most damaging of the Bill’s provisions and ensure that all decisions are made in their best interests. Throughout the passage of the Bill we have voiced our concerns that the Government fail to recognise that identifying victims of modern slavery or human trafficking is a safeguarding, not an immigration, matter. Last year, 43% of victims referred to the national referral mechanism were children, with 31% of them being British, and the rise in county lines gangs is believed to be one of the biggest drivers of the rise in child referrals.

This amendment must also be considered in light of what is currently happening in Ukraine and the reports by charity and aid agencies on the ground of the heightened risks of children being exploited and trafficked along the Ukrainian border and in neighbouring countries, such is the flow of people away from the Russian bombardment. If the Minister is not minded to strike part 5 from the Bill and work with the sector and us on genuine alternatives, he must protect children from the worst of the changes, which only put barriers between victims and the support and justice they need and deserve.

If the Government are to deliver on their own promise of smashing county lines, they must accept Lords amendment 27. The Government’s own existing statutory guidance states:

“Whatever form it takes, modern slavery and child trafficking is child abuse and relevant child protection procedures…must be followed if modern slavery or trafficking is suspected.”

Under the changes introduced in the Bill a child can access protection only if they disclose details of their trauma against a Home Office-mandated timeline, and can access NRM support only if they have no public order offences in their background. The Government’s own guidance rightly says that a child who has been trafficked must be protected, no ifs, no buts—which means no clause 63, no clause 66 and no clause 67 as a condition of support on recognition as being a victim. As a minimum, in order for the Government just to adhere to their own guidance and protect child victims of trafficking, they must adopt Lords amendment 27 to prevent changes that would leave children more vulnerable to criminals and traffickers.

In Committee, at the 12th sitting, the Minister stressed that the Government’s view was that it would somehow be unfair to establish a system that distinguishes between a child and an adult, and he has repeated that sentiment today. He said in Committee:

“To create a carve-out for one group of individuals would create a two-tiered system based on the age at which exploitation may have taken place”,

and went on to say that it

“would not be appropriate or fair to all victims.”––[Official Report, Nationality and Borders Public Bill Committee, 28 October 2021; c. 484.]

I am afraid that is just absurd: we differentiate between children and adults throughout domestic legislation, recognising the age-related vulnerability of children, and it is the very basis of the Government’s own age assessment proposals in the Bill. Child victims have rights to protection under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, and it is there in the Government’s own guidance. If the Minister is really trying to tell us that the Government do not like creating two-tier systems given what else the Bill does, we are simply not having it. I urge the Government to follow their own guidance, recognise that child victims of trafficking are victims of abuse and adopt Lords amendment 27.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

To maintain the hon. Lady’s record of Conservative interventions that are somewhat supportive, is not what she has just said about that 48% the answer to the question I posed to my hon. Friend the Minister? Under the Bill as presented, the Home Office will be required to intervene in half the cases to make the very difficult judgment whether to exclude or not exclude. Does that not open us up to a huge amount of potential risk?

[Holly Lynch]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful contribution. As we learn more about county lines gangs and their operating model, we see more and more young people and children subject to the worst exploitation by some of the vilest criminal gangs. Those are the children who are referred into the national referral mechanism. They have been encouraged, exploited and forced to commit crimes as part of their exploitation, so if we are to bust those gangs they are the children we need to be looking after and supporting, and we need to support them through the prosecutions of their abusers. That 48% were criminally exploited, so we must ensure that children who have been victims of county lines gangs have protection.

It will drive more people underground and make it significantly harder for the police and authorities to investigate the perpetrators of human trafficking without the trust and support for victims in place. It also sends a clear message to perpetrators of human trafficking that they are free to exploit vulnerable people with a criminal record, knowing they will now be exempt from protection. Clause 62 represents a massive step backwards in our shared ambition to see more traffickers before the courts if it passes unamended.

Lords amendment 26 removes clause 64 and introduces a minimum 12 months leave to remain, and tailored support for all individuals who have been found to be confirmed victims of modern slavery. To demonstrate how difficult it still is to have your migration status resolved upon recognition of your exploitation, data obtained from the Home Office shows that in 2019-20 only 2%, or 17 out of 754, of child victims of modern slavery in the UK were granted discretionary leave to remain. The amendment would ensure that victims are provided with protection, support, security and stability to support their recovery in a way that promotes engagement with police and prosecutors. This proposal has gathered significant cross-party support, and I wish to highlight the work that has been conducted across the House and in the other place, specifically by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and Lord McColl. On the Labour Benches, we strongly support the amendment. Once again, it is frustrating that the Government have failed to listen and to act on the commitments they made in earlier stages of the Bill in this place.

Just last week, the Court of Appeal rejected the Government’s attempt to overturn the High Court ruling last October that granted thousands of victims of human trafficking leave to remain. During the court case, the Government stated that they want to ensure the Government are in keeping with the European convention on action against trafficking in human beings, yet that differs from what the Government have argued in both Houses. That would have a considerable impact, given that 91% of conclusive grounds decisions made in 2021 were positive, which means the Home Office deemed the individuals to be confirmed victims of modern slavery.

In conclusion, the amendments seek only to bring the Bill closer to adhering to the Government’s own guidance and best practice on supporting vulnerable victims of modern slavery and trafficking. There are others, but I have made the case for Lords amendments 24, 25, 26 and 27, all of which would significantly improve the proposed legislation before us. Lords amendment 22 also has our full support. The sector has been unified in its condemnation of the initial measures contained within that section of the Bill and there has been overwhelming evidence in support of the Lords amendments at every stage. The most recent number of referrals to the NRM was 12,727, representing a 20% increase in referrals compared to the previous year—the highest number of referrals since the NRM began. That is a deeply worrying trend and more must be done to tackle this abhorrent crime that continues to see shockingly low prosecution rates.

All sides of the House have worked to end the abhorrent crime that is modern slavery. We should be seeking to build on the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and on our commitments in that legislation. We want to work with the Government, as do the sector and the victims themselves. I therefore strongly urge the Government to think again and accept the Lords amendments.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I will not be very long, because what I am going to speak about is quite narrow and I know others want to speak.

Just before 2015, the Centre for Social Justice produced the report that persuaded the Government, of which I was a member, to be the first in the world to introduce legislation on modern day slavery. I could not have been prouder of this place when the Bill passed. It has been a signal that has gone around the world and others have followed suit. Let me put this issue into context. We should be pushing to make the Modern Slavery Act 2015 even more focused and even better, but my suspicion is that some are looking at it and saying, “This is full of ways to come in illegally through the backdoor.” I must say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I just do not think that that is the case here.

I am speaking to my amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 26. I understand the Government’s concerns with the way it was framed in the other place, but I would rather have debated it at some length to try to ensure it was better written.

The point that I want to make is narrow. My amendment, which I know we cannot vote on, so this is a debating point, would add this key element: those who have got through the NRM, which is difficult enough as it is, are clearly victims of modern slavery and we therefore need to be generous to them. One of their problems, which we have discovered through all sorts of mechanisms, is that they have suffered trauma and real problems, and they are discombobulated and frightened. They therefore find it difficult to co-operate with authority. Many of them have fled authorities that are responsible for the penalties that they have suffered under, so they need more time.

The police say, “We need more time to settle such people so that we can get prosecutions.” We consulted on 12 months and the police were very clear, saying, “If you introduce 12 months as a minimum, we will get many more prosecutions. We will start to round up some of these gangs and we will get on top of this. At the moment, we cannot get individuals to give evidence. They are frightened that they will end up back on the street and that these people will get them.” There is a logic to this change that is in keeping with the aim of the Bill, which is to make sure that those who traffic people are arrested and prosecuted. That is what it is all about.

I have heard some say that there is an increase in the number of people coming into the NRM, which therefore suggests that this change will become a pull factor. First, whether we agree or disagree about the 12 months being a pull factor, relatively, the numbers are absolutely tiny compared with the number of asylum claims. Secondly, the 12 months cannot be a pull factor because there is already a period of time after the NRM anyway. Is the idea that someone is thinking “I will go after the NRM because I am an illegal and I will find a way of delaying that because then I get the extra 12 months.”? That is not the point. The 12 months are there because when someone is through that, they must be a victim of modern slavery. The debate is not about whether people are victims of modern slavery; they are victims of modern slavery. The question is what is the best way to treat them to ensure that they get the best outcome and that, in return, we get the best outcome in terms of prosecutions.

Let me make this point to the Minister—we debated this issue on Third Reading. I think that he and the Government get it, but that they get a certain amount of pushback about whether there is some kind of pull factor. The point about the pull factor has been made so often. It is a bit like “Dr Dolittle” and the “pushmi-pullyu” concept—it depends who people are getting this from and which angle they take.

The truth is that I am not even going to argue about pull factors. I will simply say that the purpose of this amendment, which we cannot vote on tonight, is to enable the Government to debate this issue with me carefully so that in the other place, they will table an amendment that enshrines the 12-month minimum in legislation. The guidance will take forever to come through and, anyway, it is not binding—it is guidance. Somebody who has a bad attitude will not stick to the guidance. They will go for de minimis and I do not want them to do that. De minimis should be 12 months in legislation. If we believe in this, it will be a beacon. We should be proud of what we are doing.

In conclusion, if I could get on bended knee, I would beg my Government—please, please—to think of putting back in in the other place a 12-month minimum after someone has completed the NRM. There are lots of things that I do not particularly like in the Bill, but if we can do that, I will take a self-denying ordinance and support the Government. I will do that just to get the 12 months in because such people deserve the best that we can give them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

A lot of nationality law is in primary legislation, which limits some of the flexibility we have, but we will certainly be happy to consider what we can do to support those who want to take that step to become British citizens.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

On 8 August last year, the Home Office sent a family from Halifax back to Afghanistan on a voluntary return flight. That family felt they had no choice but to apply for the voluntary return scheme, having had their claim for asylum refused the year before. Kabul fell to the Taliban just seven days later, on 15 August. The family have three children—the youngest is just five years old. Can the Minister explain how the Home Office could ever have allowed this to happen? Can he confirm whether this has happened to others? Can he put on record that the five-year re-entry ban, which would ordinarily apply to someone who leaves the country via the voluntary return scheme, will not apply in these appalling circumstances?

[Kevin Foster]

I am obviously interested to hear of the case that the shadow Minister raises, and I would be interested to meet her to discuss it further, particularly if the family is in Afghanistan, as it may not be appropriate to share the details on the Floor of the House. I would be happy to meet her and have a conversation about the circumstances of that case.

Nationality and Borders Bill: LGBTQ+ People

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Sharma.

I start as others have by thanking and paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake). In her typically powerful opening speech, she shared some bleak statistics on the situation around the world, reminded us that the death penalty still exists in 11 countries and that there are regions of the world where homosexuality is equated with witchcraft, and finished with a really powerful sentiment: you cannot flee from who you are. I thank her very much for securing the debate and bringing the Nationality and Borders Bill gang back together—we spent a lot of time together in the Bill Committee—to revisit some of the really important points that we need to continue to push the Government on.

Attempting to build a cross-party consensus on these issues is incredibly important, especially when we are discussing a Bill that has the potential to affect vulnerable people and those at increased risk of harm in a multitude of different ways. The Minister and I both served on the Committee scrutinising the Nationality and Borders Bill, so we are returning to strongly held and familiar differences of opinion on a great deal of the legislation, but I am sure we all agree on just how many members of the LGBTQ+ community continue to face human rights abuses, gender-based violence and threats across the world, which is utterly unacceptable.

As we have heard, about 70 countries still criminalise same-sex relations. Everyone should feel able to live their life openly and safely, and to be proud of who they are. For those who seek sanctuary in the UK, it may be the first time they feel able and safe enough to express themselves and truly embrace their identity without fear of repercussions. In 2020, there were 1,012 asylum applications lodged in the UK where sexual orientation formed part of the basis of the claim, representing 3% of all asylum applications. In 2020, there were 440 grants of asylum or an alternative form of leave to remain to applicants where sexual orientation formed part of the basis of their asylum claim—7% fewer than the previous year. Furthermore, last year, nearly half of appeals relating to LGB asylum applications were granted. We have a moral obligation to get this right, to recognise why LGBTQ+ people might not be safe where they are and to design an asylum system that recognises that with compassion and understanding.

The Government’s own equality impact assessment accepts that there is a risk of indirect discrimination against this group but says it will be mitigated through monitoring. I am sorry, but, as the Minister knows, we have been here before. I cite Napier barracks as the reason why I do not accept that the Government will do the right thing in looking after particularly vulnerable groups of people. The Government ignored public health and fire safety advice and failed to identify vulnerabilities within the cohort accommodated there. I appreciate that that was before the Minister’s time in office, but the Government had to be dragged to every incremental improvement, very slowly made, at Napier and Penally barracks. Rainbow Migration outlined in its written evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee:

“The “Suitability Assessment for Contingency Accommodation” and the “Allocation of accommodation policy” do not mention LGBTQI+ people at all, thereby deeming them suitable to be accommodated in the barracks, despite the issues that arise for LGBTQI+ people in this type of accommodation.”

The Minister’s thinking that we would have any confidence in the Government marking their own homework on looking after vulnerable people in the asylum system and adapting accordingly is, I am afraid, for the birds. That is why we are here.

The part of the Bill that gives me greatest cause for concern, particularly for to LGBTQ+ people, as others have said, is about the principle of late disclosure undermining credibility in both the asylum and modern slavery provisions. When we debated the specific modern slavery measures in the Bill Committee, I and others made the point that the additional barriers to protection and entry into the national referral mechanism contradicted the Home Office’s statutory guidance that that a victim’s early accounts may be affected by the impact of trauma, which can result in delayed disclosure, difficulty recalling facts or symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. These well understood principles must apply to LGBTQ+ people, as acknowledged in the Home Office guidance on sexual orientation in asylum claims. I ask the Minister once again why measures that go against the Home Office’s statutory guidance have been included in the Bill.

The reality and impact of those measures is perhaps best understood when listening to those who have personally experienced our asylum system. Much like the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), who told the story of a young man from Ethiopia, I will share Samir’s story. Samir remembers how hard it was to take the first steps in his asylum process. He had to recount the traumatic things that had happened to him in his home country. He had also never openly discussed the fact he was a gay man before. He said:

“It was the first time talking about my sexuality…just saying aloud the word gay, it was very surreal. I knew that although I was scared, this was my only chance for me to tell my story…and if I didn’t, I knew that my case would be dismissed and they would send me back.”

Samir’s asylum claim was initially rejected, only to be challenged following legal assistance provided to him by Rainbow Migration, which offers free legal advice, and he was eventually granted refugee status. There are a multitude of reasons why someone who is LGBTQ+ might need time and support to disclose their experiences. It is our view that, given the vulnerabilities of those groups and the Government’s own guidance, the clauses will most adversely affect those most in need of protection and undermine our moral and legal obligations.

Before I conclude, I thank and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for his contribution. He made the point that the notion of a good refugee and bad refugee, and the way the Government seek to legislate for that, contravenes international law. He was assisted in making that point with examples from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle).

I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for her typically powerful speech. In a number of cases, a person will have had to hide their identity from their Government, but we ask them to openly share it with ours without that understanding of any difference.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) also made a typically powerful contribution on the difference in the standard of proof, a point also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) for reminding us of the stark consequences if we return somebody to a country that does not recognise their sexuality or gender identity or, quite frankly, does worse than fail to recognise it.

The Minister understands my concerns about the Bill and its potential to detrimentally impact on those most in need of asylum—those who have the hardest stories to tell. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam is therefore quite right to highlight its impact on LGBTQ+ people. The Bill is currently being debated in the House of Lords, and Labour Front Benchers have tabled an amendment that would disapply late disclosure penalties to those who have made a claim on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. I am aware of several other amendments tabled by Baroness Lister, Lord Etherton and others that all seek to deliver similar safeguards. I hope the Minister can say whether the Government are minded to accept any of those proposals.

In many of our previous exchanges, the Minister has cited the provision of further detail in the statutory guidance. Only today, in response to a written question about the timing, the Minister said to me that any statutory guidance

“will be developed in line with usual process, which includes any requirements to consult. The timetable for implementing the guidance will be dependent on the passage of the Nationality and Borders Bill.”

I thank the Minister for that clarity and if he has anything further to add it will be incredibly welcome.

We do not believe assurances that can be provided only in guidance. We need comprehensive measures that introduce necessary safeguards. I hope the Minister has listened to the concerns voiced today and I strongly encourage the Government to adopt the amendments about to be debated in the Lords.

Draft Passenger, Crew and Service Information (Civil Penalties) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 General Committees

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the Minister for his explanation and his warm welcome to me in this post. As this is our first exchange, I will resist the urge to detain him all day with a barrage of questions. The Committee will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to speak for long. The Minister has outlined the purpose of this statutory instrument, so I will not repeat it.

The Opposition agree that this technical change to prevent the powers the Government currently have in relation to passenger, crew and service information from expiring on 31 March, in line with the seven-year sunset clause. The instrument is proportionate, reasonable and in the national interest.

I was reassured by the explanatory notes and the Minister’s statement just now that, to date, no penalties have had to be enforced. I hope that reflects the recognition by all involved that the passenger, crew and service information required is an important part of our efforts to keep this country safe.

In the same policy space, I will write to the Minister asking a series of questions about this week’s news that officers of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary will be redeployed to assist with security on British ferries and other passenger ships. As those questions are outside the scope of the draft regulations before us today, I will follow up in writing.

We will not divide the Committee today, Mr Twigg.

Oral Answers to Questions

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I absolutely disagree with the right hon. Lady’s question. Had she read the new plan for immigration—the policy statement published for the benefit of all Members in March 2021—she would know that this Government are considering all options for outsourcing processing and for removing people with no legal basis to be in our country. I completely recognise that she disagrees with the policies of this Government—[Interruption.] It matters not which countries. We will continue to discuss this with a range of countries, because I, as Home Secretary, and this Government are determined to fix the decades-long problem of a very broken asylum system. Frankly, under successive Labour Governments there were mass failures to remove people with no legal basis to be in the country.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to our dear friend and colleague, Jack Dromey. We very much look forward to the tributes later this month. Especially today, at Home Office questions, we very much miss his kindness, his passion and his wit alongside us on the Front Bench.

We hear that responsibility for ending dangerous crossings of the channel is to be taken away from the Home Office and handed to the MOD, but we have been here before. In 2019 the Government brought in the Navy to patrol the channel, and those patrols ended after just six weeks, having cost £780,000 and without a single boat having been intercepted. Can the Home Secretary explain how today’s proposal will be any different from 2019 and prevent lives from being lost at sea?

[Priti Patel]

Of course I can. I restate what I have said in the House many times about the hybrid approach we need: no one Department can solve this issue in the channel on its own. Let us be crystal clear about this. I originally commissioned the military aid to the civil authorities request that went to the Ministry of Defence very early on, back in 2020. Of course my decision to bring in the MOD is vindication of our need to strengthen our defences in the channel.

This is about a number of things—[Interruption.] I can hear Opposition Members making noise about this issue. However, the reality is that we want to stop illegal crossings. People are dying in the channel and in the Mediterranean. All aspects of pushbacks and turn-backs—of the approach we take in the channel—are operational. This has been tested, there is a basis on which to do it, and individuals are trained. The MOD, maritime policing and Border Force originally came together, and they will continue to work together. This is, first, a global migration issue but, secondly, the British public will support the Government in doing everything possible to protect our borders. That is why a blended approach is absolutely vital.

Asylum Seeker Accommodation: RAF Manston

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has had to say, and I thank the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) for having secured this important urgent question. Tomorrow will be a year to the day that the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) secured an urgent question in this Chamber on the Government’s rule changes, which gave the Home Office the powers to deem asylum claims inadmissible. We described the proposals as unworkable then. Here we are, a year on, and people are becoming trapped in our asylum system by the Home Office, having had their claims deemed inadmissible, but without any functioning agreements in place to move anyone through and out of the system. The Minister has said that 4,561 notices of intent have been served, yet only five people have been returned.

The Minister has said that this site is an attempt to improve the efficiency of the system, so can he explain to the House why the Government passed these inadmissibility rules when the consequences are that thousands of people have endured longer stays in the asylum system than necessary? That is to the detriment of a person’s wellbeing and makes no sense for the Home Office at all. The initial asylum decisions taken by the Home Office have dropped from 28,623 in 2015 to 14,758 now, which is contributing to the backlog. Some 64% of those waiting for a decision on their asylum claims are waiting longer than the six-month target, so the backlogs in processing times are crippling the system. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why progress on the rates of decision making has collapsed.

The Minister says that RAF Manston barracks will be used more as a reception centre than long-term accommodation, but we know that public health and fire safety advice was ignored by the Home Office prior to Napier and Penally barracks opening as asylum accommodation. We have heard once again about how consultation with local agencies has sadly been absent.

Given what we know about the new variant, dormitory-style accommodation must be avoided if we are to protect those accommodated there, staff and the wider community. Can the Minister confirm whether RAF Manston barracks will have an advisory committee? Can he rule out that children will be held there, and can he provide assurances that this is a temporary measure?

Given that this Government have promised the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, why has the scheme still not been established, and why has eligibility for the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme been tightened overnight? I would be incredibly grateful for some insight on that decision.

Finally, in September 2020, the Home Office was by the inspectorate about the inadequate facilities at Tug Haven for dealing with vulnerable people, especially children, who may have experienced dangerous journeys. What assurances can the Minister give us that Manston barracks would be a significant improvement on the current situation?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am very grateful to the shadow Minister for her various questions and of course the assiduous way in which she always goes about these matters. We spent quite a lot of time together debating the Nationality and Borders Bill in the Committee that considered it in great detail. The point that I would make initially is that what we are talking about here is a very considerable number of arrivals. Of course, it is right and proper that we have appropriate and safe facilities in place to process those arrivals in a manner that is fitting and of course has safety at the forefront. We believe that the steps I have set out today are necessary to achieve that and to make sure that we have the capacity, with the ultimate aim of course of stopping these crossings from happening in the first place, which is something that we are continuing to work towards.

On the point about inadmissibility, as I have explained several times in different settings in this House, that is very much about our future policy and where we are hoping to get to. We believe very strongly, and I know that Opposition Members have different views on this, that people should seek asylum or claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach. That is of course the quickest route to safety. The shadow Minister will also know that we are continuing to look at what more we can do on the issue of returns along those inadmissibility lines, and upholding that very long established principle under successive Governments of both sides that people should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach. Those negotiations and discussions are ongoing, as she would expect.

On asylum processing, of course one thing that I very much want to see, as do my ministerial colleagues, is cases decided more quickly. We want to provide sanctuary to those who need it as quickly as possible and to return those with no right to be here without needless delays. That is what our Nationality and Borders Bill and the new plan for immigration are all about. We are getting on: that Bill is passing through the House, and we will operationalise the measures in it as quickly as possible on Royal Assent. I think that is what the British people want to see. It is the right and responsible thing to do, and that underpins the entirety of our policy.

On Napier specifically, we have been responsive. Again, we have set out many times the improvements that have been made to that site. It is right that, for example, when the inspectorates come in, look at these sites and offer recommendations, those are considered properly and thoroughly, and acted on as appropriate. That is why we respond formally to those reports and set out the steps that we intend to take to address any of the issues raised.

On the point about Afghanistan, what I will do—if I may, given that today we are debating the issue of Manston specifically and the triaging facility—is ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Afghan Resettlement to provide an update to the shadow Minister.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Holly Lynch.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

It is a genuine pleasure to follow the powerful contribution from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I will come to the merits of his new clause, but let me start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) not just on the new clause and amendments that she has tabled, but on receiving her damehood at Windsor Castle yesterday. There could be no more fitting tribute in recognition of her services to politics and her community, and I was delighted to see her collect that recognition yesterday.

We have grave concerns about part 5 of the Bill, which would introduce detrimental changes in modern slavery provisions and the national referral mechanism. New clause 3, tabled by my right hon. Friend, has our backing for all the reasons that she outlined. I would struggle to find a more heinous crime than moving another human being across borders, or across the country, in order to force them to have sex and for their abuser to make a profit. Given the utterly depressing rises in this type of criminality and exploitation, my right hon. Friend will have our full support if she is minded to press the new clause to a vote.

Provisions in part 5 will make it harder to identify, safeguard and support victims of modern slavery in securing prosecutions against their abusers. Our new clause 6 will ensure that no child victim of trafficking or modern slavery is denied protection because of those provisions. The new clause follows the many battles that we had in Committee in calling on the Government to hear the pleas of organisations such as The Children’s Society and Every Child Protected Against Trafficking, and those of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton, and to recognise the vulnerability of child victims of trafficking and modern slavery, something that they have failed to do throughout the Bill’s passage so far.

The Government have sought to suggest that a fear of the national referral mechanism being abused warrants the introduction of barriers to accessing it. I remind them that the Home Office’s own statistics show that, of the 10,613 potential victims of modern slavery referred to the NRM last year, 47% were children. There was a 10% increase in the number of child referrals last year, and the single biggest type of exploitation was criminal exploitation. The Home Office’s own publication states:

“For those exploited as children, an increase in the identification of ‘county lines’ cases has partially driven the rise in the number of cases categorised within the ‘criminal exploitation’ category, with 40% of all child referrals for criminal exploitation being flagged as county lines.”

It is clear that children who are the victims of vicious county lines gangs will be among those most detrimentally affected by these changes. Just this week, we heard that the Government were getting tough on county lines gangs, but if they pass these proposals today unamended, child victims trapped by those gangs will be met with unnecessary barriers to both freedom and justice.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Lady is talking about an exceptionally important issue, the trafficking of children. While we in this country probably lead the world in looking after adult victims, we fail our child victims. Do the hon. Lady and her party support a revision of that situation, so we can protect children in the same way that we protect adults?

[Holly Lynch]

As the Minister will recall, we pushed for that time and again in Committee. The Bill makes no distinction between adults and children who are victims of trafficking and slavery. That failure to recognise the age-related vulnerability of a child constitutes a glaring omission, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for seeing what else we can do to press the issue during the Bill’s subsequent stages.

If the Government require any further persuading, the legislation in its current form contravenes their own existing statutory guidance, which states:

“Whatever form it takes, modern slavery and child trafficking is child abuse and relevant child protection procedures must be followed if modern slavery or trafficking is suspected.”

The changes introduced in the Bill mean that a child can only access protection from abuse if they disclose details of their trauma, against a Home Office-mandated timeline, or else have their credibility as a victim discredited, and can only access NRM support if they are not deemed to be a threat to public order as outlined in clause 62. The Government’s own guidance rightly says that a child who has been trafficked must be protected—no ifs, no buts, which means no clause 57, no clause 58 and no clause 62. I urge the Government to rethink all the modern slavery provisions, but as a minimum, in order merely to deliver on their own commitment to the general public this week, to adopt our new clause to prevent changes that would leave children more vulnerable to criminals and traffickers.

I want to make clear our support for independent victim navigators, who have already been mentioned by other Members. New clause 30 seeks to build upon the successful pilot programme launched by Justice and Care in 2018, which has now been extended, with eight victim navigators currently in post in five different police forces. I recently had the opportunity to visit the modern slavery team at West Yorkshire police with Justice and Care to gain a better understanding of the incredibly impressive work undertaken by those navigators in providing vital support to victims to rebuild their lives, which is what then facilitates prosecutions. An interim report has shown that, up to June 2021, the programme has provided strategic advice to 392 modern slavery investigations and given intensive support to 202 victims. Significantly, 89% of the victims supported by those navigators have chosen to engage with police investigations, compared with just 33% nationally, and 120 suspected exploiters have been arrested in cases supported by victim navigators. I know this is something we can all celebrate.