Tag: Sarah Dines

The statement made by Sarah Dines, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, on 10 July 2023.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on measures to improve the criminal justice response to rape and sexual violence.

This Government are unswervingly committed to protecting the public and fighting crime. As I am sure Members across the House will agree, few parts of that mission are as important as the ongoing effort to tackle rape and sexual violence. As I heard on my recent visit to Greater Manchester police, these are sickening, destructive crimes that can only have a significant impact on human dignity. They are a betrayal of everything we stand for as a law-abiding society, and they can have profound and lifelong consequences. My thoughts and prayers are with every single victim.

Although we are united in our outrage at these horrific acts, sadly we cannot turn back the clock. What we can do, and what this Government are determined to do, is ensure that the criminal justice system does not add to the suffering and trauma experienced by victims and survivors. On that note, I will update the House on the work being done to drive improvements in the criminal justice response to rape and sexual violence.

Two years ago, in the rape review, the Government set out steps to transform support for victims and to ensure cases are fully investigated and rigorously pursued through the courts. Crucially, we heard that many victims who have reported to the police feel that they are the ones under investigation and do not feel believed. For example, we know that victims have faced digital strip searches, with intrusive requests for access to their mobile phones. Last year, we changed the law to end such distressing and intrusive practices, and to protect victims’ right to privacy where it is necessary. We are introducing new legislation through the Victims and Prisoners Bill so that therapy notes and other personal records are accessed only when necessary and proportionate to an investigation. But we must go further. The investigation of rape must be no different from the investigation of any other crime, with the focus firmly on the suspect.

To support policing to transform its response to rape, the Home Office has already provided over £6 million to Operation Soteria, bringing together more than 50 world-leading academics from across the country, led by Professor Betsy Stanko and Professor Katrin HoL, and frontline officers from 19 police forces, to develop the new national operating model for rape and serious sexual offence investigations. This model, launched today, means that all police forces in England and Wales will now have the tools they can apply to conduct suspect-focused investigations which ensure victims’ needs and rights are central; through the College of Policing, they can access learning to develop their skills and build a comprehensive understanding of the psychology of sexual offending.

Nineteen police forces have participated in the programme, and we have already seen signs of change. All pathfinder forces have seen an increase in the number of cases being referred to the Crown Prosecution Service and a reduction in the average number of days taken for a charge outcome to be assigned. Charge volumes in Avon and Somerset have more than tripled, rising from seven charges to 22 charges in October to December 2022. The Met has seen an 18% reduction in victims withdrawing, with this falling from 743 cases before Soteria to 611 cases in October to December 2022. The charge rate in Durham has increased, rising from 2.6% to 12.6% since that force’s involvement in Operation Soteria. The number of cases being referred to the CPS by West Midlands police has doubled, with it rising 108%, from 26 to 54 cases; and charge volumes in South Wales have increased by 110%, rising from 10 cases before Operation Soteria to 21 cases in October to December 2022.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I are encouraged that all police forces in England and Wales have committed to implementing this new approach. We have already met, or are on track to meet, the ambitious targets set out in the review ahead of schedule: to more than double the number of adult rape cases reaching court by the end of this Parliament; and to return the volumes of cases being referred to the police, charged by the CPS and going to court to at least 2016 levels.

We want to go further and faster, and we are doing exactly that by providing a further £8.5 million to continue to support the police to improve their response to rape. That will be used to establish a new joint unit with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing to oversee and support forces as they implement the model, continuing to draw on academic expertise and oversight. We will continue to roll out a Government-funded uplift in technical capacity and capability to ensure that no adult victim of rape is without a phone for more than 24 hours.

The NPCC and College of Policing have also made significant commitments: 2,000 police investigators will complete specialist training on the investigation of rape and sexual offences by April next year. A new first responder course will be compulsory for all new police recruits from April next year, to ensure that victims of rape get the right support and treatment they need at the time of reporting. We will also consult policing partners on the most effective way those officers can be used, including the effectiveness of dedicated rape and sexual assault investigatory units.

Operation Soteria has shown the importance of scrutiny to drive progress, which is why the Home Secretary has also commissioned His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services to carry out a thematic inspection on forces’ implementation of the Soteria model. I want to be clear: there is further to go and there is no room for complacency. We want victims to have the confidence to report these crimes, knowing they will get the support they need, and that everything possible can and will be done to bring offenders to justice. This Government will work with policing to do everything in our power to ensure that happens, and I commend this statement to the House.

The speech made by Sarah Dines, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 16 January 2023.

It is a pleasure to appear under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing today’s debate, and I thank all other colleagues for their valuable interventions and contributions.

The Government recognise that this is a policy issue of huge importance and high public interest. It is therefore right and proper that there is scrutiny of the matters that we have discussed today. In opening, I would like to clarify the Government’s position on the use of animals in science and make some overall comments on progress in this area.

We all benefit from the use of animals in science. That can be through improved knowledge of how tissues and organs work to help find new treatments for disease and illness; the development and safety testing of medicines before they are trialled and then used in humans; the safety testing of chemicals to protect workers and the environment; veterinary research and medicines to support animal health; and the protection of the natural environment and the preservation of species. When we need medical care, we benefit from medicines and medical technologies that are possible due to knowledge gained from the use of animals in research. We trust those medicines are safe to use because of the rigorous testing requirements, including at times the use of animals.

Emma Hardy

There seem to be an awful lot of presumptions in the opening of the Minister’s speech, including presumption that we all benefit from testing on animals, despite the evidence that many Members have provided. I gave two examples, including a case where animals were used for testing, but when a dose 500 times lower was used on humans, it killed five. I ask the Minister to re-evaluate the assumption that humans always benefit from the testing of products on animals.

Miss Dines

With the greatest respect, the Government are not saying that humans always benefit from animal testing. It is in the nature of testing that it has to be rigorous. Sometimes what is being tested works, and sometimes it does not, but testing can take place only if it is necessary. No one wants unnecessary harm to animals, which is why the Government have the aim of replacing live animals in scientific research and testing with non-animal alternatives wherever possible. Perhaps we can all agree that that is the aim.

Patricia Gibson

Will the Minister give way?

Miss Dines

I will make some progress first. Our approach has two fronts. First, robust regulation will ensure that animals are not used where a non-animal alternative could deliver the benefit sought, and secondly, our strategic aim is to facilitate and promote alternatives to animals in scientific research and testing. I therefore believe that we have a shared aim of fully replacing live animals as soon as possible, where that is safe and scientifically possible.

A number of Departments have a stake in the use of animals in science, including: the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which leads on science, research and innovation, including alternatives to the use of animals; the Department of Health and Social Care, which is responsible for the regulation of medicines; and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is responsible for chemical safety and veterinary medicine regulations. The Home Office does not require or commission the use of animals in science. Instead, we regulate to ensure that all proposals for work are authorised only where there is justified benefit, that animals are used only where there is no alternative, that the minimum number of animals is used, that harm is minimised, and that the animals are appropriately cared for. I reject the narrative suggesting that that is not the case. My colleague Lord Sharpe has ministerial responsibility for this work.

By way of background, the debate on animals in scientific research has at its centre three critical strategic imperatives: first, the delivery of the benefits of the use of animals in scientific research; secondly, the delivery of a rigorous and robust regulatory system; and thirdly, the development of alternatives to the use of live animals in procedures. Taken together, these imperatives drive the Government’s policy on the use of animals in science. I will focus my comments on the issues raised by Members in this interesting debate.

Emma Hardy

Will the Minister give way?

Miss Dines

I will make a little more progress, and then I will, of course, come back. The issues raised include the use of animals in science and its regulation, the commercial breeding of laboratory animals, and the development, promotion and acceptance of non-animal methodologies. To be clear, as was said, the UK has never set out to use animals in science. Instead, we have set out to deliver public safety, world-class health innovations and breakthroughs, and to make life-changing discoveries, from new vaccines and medicines to transplant procedures, anaesthetics and blood transfusions. Indeed, the development of the covid-19 vaccine was possible because of the use of animals in research. The use of animals in science must always be considered in the broader context. Animal research and testing is only ever a small part of a wider programme.

Several hon. Members rose—

Miss Dines

I really must make progress.

In all these instances, the drive has never been to use animals, but to deliver benefits through the justified use of animals. There is significant public concern around the ethical and moral case for the use of animals in science. Animals are expensive to use and difficult to work with, and their use carries a burden of regulation. Animal experimentation is something that people, including this Government, do not like. It is therefore not a matter of choosing to use animals, but of using the best method for the scientific experiment, and ensuring that animals are not used when other methods can give the information needed.

Although much research can be done with non-animal models, there are still purposes for which it is unfortunately essential to use live animals. In many instances, that is because the complexity of whole biological systems cannot be replicated simply using validated non-animal methodologies. However, the Government are committed to looking at alternatives, especially where the safety of humans and animals needs to be ensured—a point that is central to some of the concerns we have heard today. The data from animal testing and research has an important function in the human drug development process, which primarily concerns the safety of new medicines. The use of animals is required by international regulators to assess any adverse effects before clinical trials. Such testing is crucial to protect the safety of participants and the public. If we were to remove the requirement for animal testing, many potential medicines would not progress on to the market, and the risk to humans in clinical trials would be considerably higher.

Under the UK’s regulation pertaining to the use of chemical substances—the REACH regulations, mentioned by Members—industry participants must understand the hazards and risks of the chemicals that they manufacture, place on the market and use. That is to protect human health and the environment from the effects of harmful chemicals. For some chemical hazards, there is no immediate prospect of developing a non-animal alternative test method that could be used as the standard test method across the full range of chemicals. These hazards include reproductive toxicity and bioaccumulation up the food chain in the environment. REACH contains the “last resort” principle for vertebrate animals. That means that an animal study can be carried out only once all other ways of assessing the chemical’s hazard have been exhausted.

The Government are clear that when animals are used in science, they must be protected. The use of animals in science is therefore highly regulated. A licence is required for every establishment, project and individual involved in performing regulated procedures with animals. All establishments are required to have dedicated individuals, including veterinary surgeons, with legal responsibility for the care and welfare of animals, and an ethical review body. Establishments are required to comply with published standards for the care and accommodation of all animals bred, supplied or used for scientific purposes.

Patricia Gibson

Will the Minister give way?

Miss Dines

I apologise to hon. Members for not allowing interventions, but I want to leave time to respond directly to comments made.

We continue to develop our approach to regulation, so that we can continually improve compliance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. We are modernising our approach to ensure that all establishments deliver stronger internal governance systems and processes.

If we are to achieve the benefits of the carefully regulated use of animals in science, there must be a supply of animals bred specifically for that purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington said. Establishments that breed or supply animals for use in science contribute to activities that are critical to protecting human health and to making advances in science. Moreover, they are operating within a regulatory framework, set out under the 1986 Act, which requires an establishment licence and assessment of their compliance with regulation. In the UK, under the Act, establishments that breed animals for use in science are also required to provide care and accommodation to those animals in line with the published code of practice. Adherence to the code of practice and the requirements of the Act are assessed by the regulator as part of its compliance assurance programme.

I recognise the strength of feeling shown today on the subject of breeding animals, particularly dogs. It elicits an emotional response, and I understand that. However, I must be very clear that while we fully uphold people’s right to peaceful protest within the law, recent events at the dog-breeding site that was mentioned have gone beyond peaceful protest, leading to criminal investigations and sanctions. The tactics of protestors have included intimidation, direct action against staff doing their job, and the criminal theft of animals from the site. I confirm that sites are regulated and regularly inspected, so we can assure ourselves that such companies are conducting their work in a manner that complies with the law. It is important that we agree that individuals doing legal business, under an Act of Parliament made in this place, should have the freedom to continue to do that without threat.

The call for a ban on commercial breeders appears mainly focused on the breeding of dogs. It is important to recognise that under the Act no dogs can be authorised for use if the scientific objective can be achieved without using those animals or by using animals of less sentience. The majority of dogs used in science are required for safety testing potential new medicines, in line with international requirements designed to protect human health. Research using dogs has been a step in the development of more than 95% of all chemical medicines approved in the European Union in the last 20 years, including medications for use in treatments for cancer, heart disease, diabetes and specific genetic disorders.

Banning commercial breeding of dogs for scientific purposes could prevent potential new medicines from being tested in Great Britain. If that happened, safety testing work to assure public protection would no doubt have to be offshored to other countries. We cannot guarantee that such testing, or the treatment of animals there, would be carried out to the standard that we expect in the UK. Moreover, having exported that work, we may then be importing it back by means of new medicines. Seeking to close commercial breeders is not the answer. We must continue to address the issue on other fronts.

In supporting and accelerating advances in biomedical science and technologies, the Government are led by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. We seek to reduce the reliance on research and work that involves the use of animals, and to avoid some of the scientific limitations mentioned by hon. Members. Such advances include stem cell research, cell culture systems that mimic the function of human organs, imaging and new computer modelling techniques.

The UK has a world-leading reputation for the delivery of the 3Rs, which are the replacement, reduction and refinement of the use of animals in science. Our framework is replicated internationally. We lead the way in various areas, and I do not accept the characterisation of the framework as defunct, old fashioned or out of date; we are leading on this work. The national centre received core funding of multiple millions of pounds, and the Government are committed to investing appropriately in that centre.

Since it was established, the centre has invested £77 million in research and £27 million in contracts, and it has recently published its new strategy to increase the focus on animal replacement technologies; it also champions high standards in animal research. We are seeking proper funding to move away from the use of animals. The UK contributes significantly to the development and embedding of non-animal methods in chemical testing internationally, for both human and environmental safety, through participation in a number of collaborative research and development programmes. That includes both leading on and supporting projects undertaken with the OECD to introduce internationally harmonised tools and guidance for new approaches.

I will mention briefly the points made so eloquently by the Members who spoke. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) that we must grip the new opportunities to move away from animal use, if we can. We are spending money, and we seek to move forward. To the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), I point out that we regularly commission independent work; the Animals in Science Committee gives valued advice on the development of policy. I can confirm that we have commissioned advice on the rabbit forced swim testing that was mentioned. She may want to look further at that important work for more information.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned that the statistics in this area are not as informative as they should be. We have the most comprehensive system in Europe for the publication of statistics, via the Office for National Statistics. For example, we know that in 2021, the use of dogs decreased by 3%; last year it decreased by 7%. Over the past 10 years, advances have been made. Inspections were mentioned; there are regular inspections. The regulator publishes the number of inspections in its annual report, and we are running a modernisation programme focused on improving those inspections.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned, with eloquence, her desire for improvements in this area. I agree that we are a nation of animal lovers. We believe in high welfare standards. As a nation, we believe in public safety, environmental safety and the protection of animals where possible. That is why the Government’s approach focuses on alternatives that get us away from using animals. Animals will be used only when absolutely necessary. There were many other very useful contributions, which I value and have considered. It would be unfair if I took up all the time, but if there are any specific issues that I have not addressed, I would welcome any letters, to which I will respond when there is more time.

Elliot Colburn

I thank the petitioners who brought us here today, and thank colleagues for their contributions. I gently say to the Government that this is an issue that the Petitions Committee has to keep bringing back, because petitioners feel so strongly about it that they keep asking us to debate it again. It will not go away.

It is nearly 40 years since the regulatory framework was set out in the 1986 Act. While there were admirable ambitions in the Act for reducing animal testing and refinement, the fact that animal testing went up between 2020 and 2021 demonstrates that those ambitions are not being met. Technological advances have since overtaken events. There is inevitability here; we will have to move on this anyway. The USA did in December, and other countries are going in that direction already. International regulatory frameworks are already looking to revise guidance. The assumption that the 3Rs are being met, or that the undertakings on the search for alternative methods are being met, is demonstrably untrue, given the evidence collected by the third sector. The Government are sitting on a piece of work from 2014. I repeat my request for an update from the Home Office on what happened to that piece of work.

Ending animal testing is not just a nice thing to do; animal testing is demonstrably bad for animals, produces bad results and is bad for the economy. There is benefit to humans in massively increasing the amount of research and development we do through non-animal methods. I urge the Government to go away and look at the matter again, update the House on the 2014 consultation results, set up the committee, and move towards the ambition of reducing, and finally eliminating, the use of animals in testing.

The statement made by Sarah Dines, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, in the House of Commons on 10 January 2023.

Since the injustices of Windrush came to light, there has been a concerted effort across the Home Office to right the wrongs suffered by those affected. That work continues, and the Department is making sustained progress on delivering on the recommendations of the Windrush lessons learned review of 2020 and the commitments made in the comprehensive improvement plan of 2020. In her report last year, the independent reviewer Wendy Williams concluded that 21 of her recommendations had been met or partially met. She acknowledged that the scale of the challenge she had set the Department was significant and that change on that scale takes time.

We have made progress in delivering against Wendy Williams’s recommendations. In October 2022, the Home Office established the Office for the Independent Examiner of Complaints, and Moiram Ali was appointed as the independent examiner following a public appointment recruitment process. The Home Office has also held over 200 engagement and outreach events across the country, and the Windrush help teams have attended over 120 one-to-one surgeries to help people apply for documentation.

As of the end of October 2022, the Home Office has paid out or offered £59.58 million of compensation to Windrush victims. The “Serving Diverse Communities: Acting on Our Values” learning package was launched across the Home Office in June 2022, starting with recommendation 24 on learning for senior civil servants and recommendation 29 on diversity and inclusion. The learning package for recommendation 6 on the history of the UK and its relationship with the rest of the world has been designed and is undergoing final review prior to implementation.

I am pleased that the independent reviewer of Windrush progress has concluded that there are several areas in which very good progress has been made, but she rightly holds the Home Office to account for areas and recommendations where sufficient progress has not yet been made. She concludes that there can be “no doubt” that the Department has risen to the “daunting challenge” she set us.

We know there is more to do. Many people suffered terrible injustices at the hands of successive Governments, and the Department will continue working hard to right the wrongs and to deliver a Home Office worthy of every community it serves.

The speech made by Sarah Dines, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Before I move on to substantive matters, I want to say that we are all now aware of possibly tragic news—certainly a major incident—in the channel. The authorities have been responding to the incident and full details will be forthcoming in due course. I understand that the Home Secretary is coming to the House to make a statement, so we will have more information then. It is of course a tragic situation that is evidence of what is happening in relation to the present system, which is why the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister are very keen to resolve the issues that we have in relation to asylum applications and economic migrants.

I thank the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) for securing this debate and all who have contributed today; there have been heartfelt contributions. The UK has a proud history of welcoming and supporting those in need of our protection. We take our responsibilities very seriously and are committed to ensuring that we act in accordance with our international obligations.

Let me touch first on the eloquent points made by the hon. Member for Bury South. I am looking forward to even more eloquent apologies; there were a lot of policy issues on which he was flagrant and boisterous—I think that is the way of describing it—in the Chamber when he sat on the Conservative Benches, and there need to be various apologies to his constituents. It was interesting to read about his speech in The Guardian at 9.17 am, before he had been able to make his apologies, but I am grateful for his explanations today.

I turn to the cost of living. There has been a series of economic shocks. Cost of living issues, which people have raised today, are very much in the mind of the Government. The pandemic has contributed to them, and Russia’s unacceptable invasion of Ukraine has led to global pressures on the rising cost of living. The Government understand that people are worried about the cost of living challenges ahead. That is why decisive action has been taken to support households across the UK. We continue to keep the situation under review and will focus support on the most vulnerable while ensuring that we act in a fiscally responsible way.

We are of course alive to the potential impact of rises in costs in the asylum system. It is important to remember that a full package of support is in place for asylum seekers while their claims are assessed. The Government have a legal obligation to provide support to those asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute, through accommodation and allowances to meet their essential living costs. The pressures exerted on the asylum accommodation system in recent weeks and months have been well documented. Nevertheless, despite those acute challenges, we have managed to continue to provide support where needed.

The level of allowance is reviewed annually to ensure that the amount provided meets the essential needs of asylum seekers. As of the end of September 2022, 100,547 individuals were in receipt of support—46% more than at the end of September 2021. Of those, 95% were in receipt of support in the form of accommodation and subsistence. The remaining 5% were in receipt of subsistence only. Since 6 September, over 100 new hotels, providing over 9,000 additional bed spaces, have been brought into use, and we continue to add to the pipeline of available accommodation.

It is no secret that the UK’s asylum system has come under severe strain. One of the main factors has been the extraordinary and unacceptable number of people crossing the channel with, as we have seen again today, possibly tragic consequences. As I said, around 100,500 individuals are currently on asylum support. That is an unprecedented figure. The cost of accommodating asylum seekers in hotels is more than £5.6 million a day. All of that underlines why change is so badly needed. Getting a grip of the situation has been a priority for the Home Office.

It might be helpful if I set out some of the key rationale informing our asylum seeker right-to-work policy, which has been mentioned. It is important to distinguish between those who need protection and those seeking to come here to work, who can apply for a work visa under the immigration rules. As the hon. Member for Bury South is aware, our current policy allows asylum seekers to work in the UK if their claim has been outstanding for 12 months through no fault of their own. Those permitted to work are, as we know, restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list, which is focused for a good reason. It is based on expert advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee.

As part of reforms to our economic migration routes, we have set up cutting-edge skilled labour migration routes. To protect those routes and enforce our approach, we operate the compliant environment, which among other things serves to deter people who might otherwise undercut the rules from working illegally. Our asylum seeker right-to-work policy does not operate in isolation; it is a constituent part of a wider whole. We must ensure that it supports our objectives elsewhere in the immigration system and does not undercut it. That is why the policy is designed as it is. It is primarily intended to protect the resident labour market by prioritising access to employment for British citizens and others lawfully resident in the UK.

Rachael Maskell

The Minister is reeling off the Government’s current policy, which clearly is failing catastrophically, and then highlighting shortages in the labour market. We know that there is so much need in the labour market because of the lack of supply of skills, so will she admit that what she is reading out is simply failing? It is time that the Government got a grip of this and had a real reform of their policy, to enable asylum seekers to work.

Miss Dines

It is certainly not phoney, but it is time that the Government got a grip. We cannot go back to the situation alluded to by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), when the Home Affairs Committee reported—I think in 2011— that over half a million legacy cases had been left by the Labour Government. We certainly should not get anywhere near that, so the Government are indeed getting a grip.

Stephen Kinnock

Will the Minister give way?

Miss Dines

If it is a point of clarification, I will gladly take it.

Stephen Kinnock

When Labour left Government in 2010, 6,000 asylum cases had been outstanding for more than six months. It is really important to correct the record on that.

Miss Dines

I was referring to the findings of the Home Affairs Committee, which heard the evidence at the time. However, I will make some progress.

Relaxing our policy could enable people to access the very same jobs for which we, with very good reason, require a visa application process. That would make a mockery of the whole system and would simply not be right. I should be clear that, where reasons for coming to the UK include family or economic considerations, applications should be made via the relevant route, not by undercutting the system, which is simply not fair to everybody else. Either the new points-based immigration system or our various family reunion routes should be used. We must guard against creating an environment that encourages individuals to come to the UK to claim asylum inappropriately in order to circumvent economic controls. Equally, the Government have a firm position that individuals should claim asylum in the first safe place they come to.

Tim Farron rose—

Claudia Webbe rose—

Miss Dines

Let me finish this point. I remember the hon. Member for Bury South talking about the shopping trolley. He explained that economic migrants were using their shopping trolley to go through various safe countries. We must remember, as the tragedy today shows us, that France, for example, is a safe country.

Tim Farron

The Minister is talking about people coming through the established routes, but there are hardly any. Unless someone is from Ukraine, or among the tiny number of people from Syria or the tinier number of people from Afghanistan, there is no way of getting to this country safely without doing what the Government now decide is—but what, under international law, most definitely is not—illegal. What will the Minister do to establish safe routes from the region? What about working in north Africa, or indeed with our partners elsewhere in Europe, so that we do not have tragedies such as the one that we learned of today?

Miss Dines

To answer that point, there are many safe routes—countries where, internationally, there are agreements for taking various people—to come to this country to claim sanctuary. I am proud of the Government’s history of welcoming and supporting those in need. We need to focus protection on those who need it most, not on illegal migrants.

Carol Monaghan

Will the Minister give way?

Miss Dines

I must make a bit of progress to allow for closing comments.

We cannot readily dismiss the risk that removing restrictions would actually increase asylum intake, reducing our capacity to take decisions and support refugees. Let me take this opportunity to make it clear that I acknowledge the hon. Members’ concerns. In particular, I am aware of the debate about the best way to look at the right to work.

The comments made by the Opposition spokesperson about productivity were on point. The Prime Minister has committed to triple the productivity of case workers to abolish the backlog of asylum decisions by the end of next year. The Government are committed to ensuring that asylum claims are considered without unnecessary delay, to ensure that individuals who need protection are granted asylum as soon as possible. We are pursuing a programme of transformation and business improvement initiatives that will speed up the decision-making process.

I will briefly mention one or two comments made by hon. Members in interventions. The mental health of people is extremely important to the Government; indeed, as the Minister for Safeguarding I find that some important and cogent arguments have been made. There is, of course, voluntary work. It is important that people get out of the unfortunate situations they are living in and that they live, breathe fresh air and do voluntary work. They do not necessarily have to be paid financially. We must protect the integrity of the whole system.

On the points about Manston, as of yesterday, there were five people staying there. The figures are not quite the same as those given by the Opposition spokesperson.

Many points were made about the Lift the Ban campaign. The Government’s view is that, as with its early reports, its most recent report was unduly and overly optimistic about the amount that might be saved by changes in the system. When cases such as the seven-year-old case mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) are raised, it is important to recognise that they are likely to have an extremely complicated legal history. After 12 months, people can work, so there is no reason not to be working for seven years and blaming the system for that.

I will conclude to give the hon. Member for Bury South a few moments to sum up, if he pleases. I am sorry that it is only a minute.

The speech made by Sarah Dines, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, in the House of Commons on 9 December 2022.

I rise with some trepidation, as this is my first debate of this sort in this role, but what a pleasure it is to do so with what I hope will be cross-Chamber and cross-party agreement on this serious issue. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for being here on a Friday to discuss this serious Bill. In particular, I thank and pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). Members who are here will have heard the real passion and conviction with which he presented his arguments in introducing the Bill. That interest has been inspired by not only his own deep-felt thoughts of what is right, but by hearing individual accounts from constituents, including women who are here today. I am grateful to him for his dedication. One thing I can say is that society is changing for the good in this space, and this Bill will make things better. Things such as intentional kerb-crawling are not going to be acceptable.

I also wish to thank the other Members who will be speaking today and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who has already spoken. I know that many have campaigned compassionately and passionately for a long time to introduce this legislation, and I would mention Members who are not here but who have been working hard on this issue, such as the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). Of course, we will be hearing from many other Members shortly.

I pay tribute, too, to the many charities that have worked assiduously for change, such as Plan International UK and Our Streets Now. My ministerial predecessors and I have been in receipt of many letters from hon. Members on behalf of constituents who support the campaign. I know that the efforts of Our Streets Now, in particular, are inspired by the real world experiences of its two founders and of many other young women.

Public sexual harassment is a terrible crime and, as we all know, it is far too widespread. Recent Office for National Statistics data, based on a survey carried out in January, February and March this year, found that one in two women and, indeed, one in six men felt unsafe walking alone after dark in a quiet street near their home. It is important to state that this legislation is not in any way to be construed as being anti-men, anti-women or anti-anyone. This is pro safety and pro people. It is to protect people who might be targeted because of their sex. We know that, by and large, it is women, but it is also boys and men. This is to protect us all.

I am sure that colleagues from all parts of the House will agree when I say that the ONS data contains shocking findings. Public sexual harassment is not only harmful, but totally unacceptable. Why should a woman, or a young man, have to let their friends know which route they will take home and what time they intend to arrive? Why should a woman have to hold her keys in her fist? It is the most basic responsibility of Government to keep our public places safe. Everyone should be able to walk our streets without fear of violence or harassment. Women, and of course men too, should feel confident, safe and secure when they are out and about in our cities, towns and villages.

There has been much discussion generally about non-legislative actions. These matters are, clearly, of the utmost importance and they are being treated as such by the Government. I am really proud of the many actions that we have taken. For example, we have awarded £125 million through the safer streets and safety of women at night funds to help women and girls feel safer in public places and to make the streets safer for all, whether through additional patrols, extra lighting or more CCTV. I know that the figures and sums of money that we cite seem rather abstract, so let me bring them to life with one example. From the safety of women at night fund, we funded West Yorkshire Combined Authority to launch a train safety campaign to promote access to an online link with safety information for public transport users, such as bus tracking. This means that there is no longer a need for someone unnecessarily to stand at a bus stop alone waiting for a delayed bus. That is just one of many examples of how money can help in this area, rather than just giving a nod to what ought to be.

Stella Creasy

Anybody who lives in London and has to wait for buses that never seem to show up would welcome that, but it is also important to say that it is not the case that, if somebody was at a bus stop that did not have any lighting, or if they went somewhere that was still dark, they are somehow culpable for these crimes. The funding that the Minister has mentioned should be about making sure that everybody is safe. Women in particular should not face any challenge that they went somewhere that was not on the list of places where there was the lighting, for example.

Miss Dines

That is, of course, part of the change that we all want to see. As with most Government strategy now, we will be looking in the future at the perpetrators, not the victims. That is a move forward. Although the hon. Lady’s intervention re-echoes what she said a little earlier, I just want to remind the House that there are a number of great initiatives under way. Just yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet Deputy Chief Constable Maggie Blyth, who, as we know, is the national police lead for violence against women and girls. The Government has confirmed, with, I hope, the support of all parties in the House, that we are adding violence against women and girls to the strategic policing requirement. This is that huge shift from victims to perpetrators, which is only right.

Let me provide some other examples of where money is effectively and properly being targeted on these issues. Our safer streets tool is allowing people to pinpoint on a map places where they felt unsafe. This really helps. We all know how digital innovations can make things far easier and far more focused. More than 23,000 reports have been made using that tool. That is empirical evidence. We very much need to base our legislation on the evidence—not on window dressing or what is thought to work, but on what actually does work. This Government, with Opposition assistance, are moving in the right direction.

In addition to what we are instigating, the College of Policing and the CPS have published new guidance for officers and prosecutors on how to respond to reports of public sexual harassment. I know that Members are concerned about enforceability and getting convictions and the right evidence. We are doing that.

Finally for the moment, I ask everyone to look at the Enough campaign, which has been funded and stretched out over the past few months. This communications campaign is giving bystanders—because we are all in this together, and our focus should not just be on particular people experiencing alarm and distress—the confidence to safely intervene when they see harmful behaviour. It is empowering victims and getting to the root of the perpetrator’s behaviour. We all know that it can start young and then gain in momentum.

Dr Luke Evans

I pay tribute to the Government for their advertising campaign and for giving the public strategies to step in, even if just as a distraction by asking for directions, for example. Breaking the behaviour is so important, and everyone in this place and across the country can try to call it out.

Miss Dines

My hon. Friend is right. The campaign has cut through. We see posters and stickers everywhere, even on vape stores. Those who have a lot to do with young men and women have seen a change in the conversation, with young men in particular saying to their friends, “That’s not okay,” and women saying, “We’re not going to copy men’s banter.” We have seen progress, and the campaign is based on empirical evidence and the money is targeted. It is not about how much money we spend, but about how we spend it. I am glad to see progress in this area.

Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)

On offender behaviour, will my hon. Friend give some attention to the work that is being done in prisons to address perpetrators of sexual violence? The projects that support reduction in reoffending by sexual offenders are varied in their effect, and it is worth the Government paying close attention to the varied effect of those programmes. Some are better than others, but those that are good really do work and should be supported.

Miss Dines

One of the joys of being a relatively new Minister is the feeling that we can have substantive change. I would welcome anyone in the Chamber coming to talk to me about issues that have concerned them for years. I say to those in the Public Gallery as well as to hon. Members that every member of society can change something in this area: you can go to school or university and you can change things.

Alongside the measures we have taken, legislation has a key part to play, and that is why we are here today. As has been well set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells and others, the Bill will provide that if someone commits an offence under existing section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986—namely, the offence of intentionally causing someone harassment, alarm or distress—and does so because of the victim’s sex, they could get a longer sentence of up to two years in prison, rather than six months. That is real change.

The Bill is deliberately not prescriptive about exactly what types of behaviour are covered. We do not want to create a tick-box approach that limits the behaviours that could be prosecuted. The explanatory notes will give Members a good idea of that. Cases will, of course, be dependent on the individual circumstances, but examples might include somebody being followed closely at night, obstructing a person’s passage down the street—otherwise known as cornering them—or making an obscene gesture at someone. The offence targets not lawful behaviour but actions clearly intended to intimidate. I know that the issues of intention and intimidation will be looked at very closely. At this stage, the right way to go, in my respectful view as a lawyer, is that there needs to be intent. The House will, of course, look at all aspects of this good Bill.

Our approach reflects our considered view that all the behaviours are covered by existing offences—though I know that others take a different view—so a wholly new offence that duplicated existing ones would not have positive consequences. We cannot just window dress things and bring in laws for the sake of it. We need to be bespoke and clever about what we are doing, and actually get results. There is a real need to provide a clear offence in law that would help to deter perpetrators and give victims the confidence to report what has happened to them. Many victims do not want the aggressor or the perpetrator just to have a slap on the wrist; they want them to have a real meaningful sentence, which will drive change.

I have mentioned intention, but it is so important. The police and the CPS will need to properly gather the evidence that they need, of course—that is the way the system works—but we are working extremely hard to improve that core part of the criminal justice process. One thing that I would like to say at this point in the debate—I know that hon. Members will say more on it—is that there are always concerns that a person could claim that they had an intention other than harassing the other person. We need to look at particular actions, such as wolf whistling. I would not for one minute say that the state needs to intervene on every piece of language used, but when intention needs to be proved we know what a wolf whistle is when it leads to nefarious motives.

This law will not, I hope, in any way say that a low-level wolf whistle gets someone two years in prison. We need to have a sense of proportion. We cannot demonise any section of society, whether it is men or women. We cannot demonise people, but we can stop perpetrators, whatever their sex is. It is disrespectful to women, and wolf whistling, as we know, extends into other behaviours. We need to look at the overall picture, and Enough’s communication focuses on exactly that.

I confirm the Government’s strong support for this excellent Bill.

Dr Luke Evans

Will the Minister give way?

Miss Dines

Very briefly, as I am on my last paragraph.

Dr Evans

The explanatory notes, under “Territorial extent and application”, say that the Bill extends to England and Wales, and that clause 2 will apply only to England. As the matter is devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland, I wonder whether the Minister is in conversation with the rest of the Union to work out whether a similar piece of legislation is being introduced, or is already in place, there?

Miss Dines

My Department is, of course, in conversation there.

Before we get to other Members who want to add to the debate, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells for introducing the Bill. I look forward to its swift passage through this House and the other place. It is an issue that goes to the heart of what sort of society we want to live in. The idea that in 2022 anyone should be harassed, intimidated or targeted when simply going about their everyday life is scarcely believable, but we know that it is happening, and too often. It is still, by far, too much of a reality for many people. That is why it is high time that we send an unambiguous message that we will do everything in our power to ensure that women, and indeed everyone, can walk on our streets without fear.