Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

If her Department will introduce a cap on the number of immigrants permitted to enter the UK each year.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. He has long experience of matters such as this in the Home Office and elsewhere. On 1 January, for the first time in decades, the United Kingdom will have full democratic control over our immigration system, giving us power to determine who comes here and for how long. We do not intend to impose a cap, but our points-based system will ensure that only those with the skills our country needs come to the United Kingdom, and it is our expectation that total migration, as a consequence, will reduce.

[Sir John Hayes]

With the post-covid economy facing unprecedented challenges and the prospect of job losses, in the same spirit that the Home Secretary showed in condemning this weekend’s wicked violence, will the Minister look again at the resident labour market test, which means that jobs have to be offered here before they can be filled from abroad? Rebuilding Britain mean backing British workers.

[Chris Philp]

My right hon. Friend is correct that we want to encourage as many people as we can from the UK to take up job opportunities that are available. Our objective, ultimately, is to see a full rate of employment. We have laid out the points-based test that will apply from 1 January next year, ensuring that only people with high skills can come here, but it is up to this House and this Parliament to keep that under review, to ensure that we are striking the right balance in the way he describes.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am grateful for all that the Home Secretary is doing to bring in this new policy, which I hope brings higher wages and higher skills, but does it not also require tougher enforcement against the dreadful people traffickers who are making money out of making a mockery of our laws and undermining all that we stand for?

[Chris Philp]

My right hon. Friend is correct: people trafficking and people smuggling is a shocking offence that causes untold human misery. Last year, Immigration Enforcement made 259 arrests in connection with people smuggling and secured 101 criminal convictions, but I would like to assure him that this is an area where we can, must and will go a great deal further.

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to help protect victims of domestic abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to stop migrants crossing the English Channel illegally.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

I am very glad that this question has arisen. We should be absolutely clear that these crossings of the English channel are extremely dangerous. They are crossing the busiest shipping lines in the world. They are facilitated by criminal gangs who are ruthlessly exploiting vulnerable people. The crossings are also entirely unnecessary because France is a safe country and it has a very well-established and functioning asylum system. We are therefore working with our French counterparts around the clock, sharing intelligence between our National Crime Agency and the French authorities, to stop illegally facilitated crossings and to prevent on-the-beach embarkations.

[Dr Lewis]

That is a very clear answer as far as it goes, but it appears that French patrol boats are escorting these dangerously overloaded inflatables across the channel until they reach English waters—I should say UK waters—whereupon our patrol boats pick up the occupants and ferry them to our shores. I understand that this is because we have to save people who put themselves, and sometimes their families, at serious risk at sea, but how can we remove perverse incentives to behave in such a dangerous fashion?

[Chris Philp]

It is worth emphasising that where boats get into difficulties in French waters—for example, if their engine breaks down—the French will pick them up and take them back to France. We must, as my right hon. Friend says, be mindful of safety of life, but we are reviewing our operational practices in these areas, for the reasons he mentions. Half the attempted crossings are intercepted by the French on the beach. We have so far, since last January, returned 155 people who have crossed and we seek to return many more.

[Sally-Ann Hart]

Migration policy is a core aspect of our national sovereignty. Will my hon. Friend please confirm that the UK will have a fair immigration policy that welcomes people who come to the UK legally, irrespective of nationality or religion, and that we will take back control over illegal immigration?

[Chris Philp]

I entirely agree with the point my hon. Friend makes, and with the similar points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), on this topic. We have a points-based system coming into force shortly. We granted asylum or protection to 20,000 people last year, one of the highest figures in Europe, and we welcomed 3,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, the highest number of any country in Europe. Our legal migration methods are entirely fair. We should therefore be policing illegal migration routes with complete effectiveness, and the Home Secretary and I are determined to do that.

[Giles Watling]

I thank my hon. Friend for his earlier answer, but we know that the migrants, as they cross the channel, sometimes threaten the French navy that they will throw themselves or their children into the sea. That is an appalling act, and we need to get the French navy to step up to the plate and take those people off the boats in international waters. What are we doing now to ensure that this happens?

[Chris Philp]

Discussions are under way between the UK Government and the French Government. Indeed, I am speaking to my opposite number, the French deputy Interior Minister, Monsieur Nunez, on Thursday this week. There is more we are doing as well, including working with the French OCRIEST, the French gendarmes and the Police aux Frontières—the PAF—to ensure that as many of those embarkations are stopped before they even get on to the water. About 50% are stopped before they get on to the water, but we would like that number to be a great deal higher.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

What steps she is taking to help prevent hate crimes against (a) people and (b) places of worship while covid-19 lockdown measures are eased.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of levels of financial support for people in the asylum system during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

I have been making an assessment of this matter in recent weeks, and following publication of the most recent Office for National Statistics data, I can announce to the House today that, with effect from 15 June, the asylum support rate will be increased by 5%, from £37.75 a week up to £39.60 a week. That is about five times higher than the prevailing rate of inflation, which is currently 0.8%.

[Catherine West]

That is rather an ungenerous increase, I have to say, given that the rate can be as low as £37 a day for certain people seeking asylum. However, any increase is something I welcome. Could the Minister tell me whether he could live on under £40 a day?

[Chris Philp]

Well, it is per week: the rate is £39.60 per week. It is calculated by a methodology that is approved by the courts, and it is done with reference to ONS data, based on the incomes of people in the bottom 10% of the population. It is done with reference to figures, by a court-approved method, and that is the right way to fix this thing. I say again that a 5% increase is very substantially higher than inflation.

Sentencing (Pre-Consolidation Amendments) Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

3rd reading & Committee stage & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

The Bill seeks to pave the way for the consolidation of sentencing procedural law in the forthcoming sentencing code. Currently, when passing sentence, a sentencing judge must consider the sentencing law that was applicable at the time of the offence. Given the number of different pieces of sentencing legislation passed over the years, that is often a complicated exercise. When reviewing that area, the Law Commission discovered 1,300 pages of legislation governing sentencing in this country. When it conducted a review in 2012, it discovered that errors were made in sentencing in 36% of cases, we think as a consequence of the extraordinary complexity of having to work out which piece of sentencing law applied at the time of the offence. Therefore, given the concept behind the sentencing code and its essential precursor, the Bill will ensure that a single set of sentencing legislation is applicable at the time of sentence, to which sentencing judges may refer.

The Law Commission was asked to look at this issue in September 2014. After Herculean labours it reported back in late 2018, but as a consequence of various general elections and other constitutional disruption, only in 2020 do we finally enact this Bill. I put on record my thanks to the Law Commissioners for their work, and particularly Professor David Ormerod, QC, for the enormous amount of work he has done in preparing the sentencing code for which this Bill paves the way.

As I understand it there are no amendments to the Bill’s five clauses, but I will briefly speak to each clause—I will be extremely concise. There are two substantive clauses. Clause 1(3) contains a clean sweep provision that removes those historical layers of sentencing law legislation to which I referred, so that when the sentencing code is enacted, which will be soon, sentencing courts will no longer need to refer to the historical versions of sentencing law in place at the time of the offence, and can instead refer to the sentencing code that was in force at the time of sentence.

We are, of course, extremely mindful of the well-established common law right that no offender should be subject to a heavier penalty at the point of sentence than was in force at the time of the offence. That right is enshrined in article 7 of the European convention on human rights, but the common law right long predates that. Therefore, in recognition of that important principle, there are a series of exemptions to ensure that no offender will suffer a heavier penalty than would otherwise have been the case. Those are expressed in clause 1(4) and (5), and in a wider list of exemptions enumerated in schedule 1.

Clause 2, the second substantive clause, essentially makes a series of amendments and modifications to existing sentencing legislation. Those are enumerated in schedule 2, which is quite long, and they essentially correct minor errors, streamlining sentencing procedural law. For example, they change language to avoid inconsistency and update statutory references. Because any consolidation must operate on the current law, we need to make those changes to enable the consolidation to happen in a technically correct way. They are therefore all essentially technical amendments to ensure that legislation works in the way that is intended.

I stress that the provisions of neither clause 1 nor clause 2 make any substantive changes to sentencing law. They do not increase or reduce the penalties for any particular offence; they simply clarify the way that sentencing law is available to judges to use when they pass sentence. It is a procedural simplification. Nothing in the Bill changes the actual level of sentences that are available to the courts to pass down.

Clause 3 is a technical interpretation clause, clarifying what is meant by the various definitions and phrases used in the Bill. Clause 4 provides regulation-making powers in the Bill, if any changes need to be made that are necessary for the implementation of the sentencing code and for no other purpose. Any such statutory instruments would be made by the affirmative procedure.

Finally, clause 5 sets out the commencement provisions. Although, of course, the regulation-making powers will have effect upon gaining Royal Assent, the wider force of the Bill takes effect only when the sentencing code has been passed. The sentencing Bill enacting the code will be before the House relatively shortly.

I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer discussing clauses to which no amendments have been tabled, but I hope that gives the Committee a flavour of the clauses’ operative effect. This is a piece of extremely important legislation that I think the entire legal community will strongly welcome. It is a shame that it could not have been introduced any earlier, but we are doing so today, and it will greatly improve the operation of criminal sentencing in this jurisdiction. I urge the Committee to agree that clauses 1 to 5 stand part of the Bill.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

This is the first piece of legislation that I am leading on as a shadow Justice Minister, and I am sure that it will be the first of many over the coming months, particularly given the Government’s legislative programme and the need for action in so many parts of our justice system. It is very clear to me, and to others, that the Government are facing a series of crises, from the impact of the coronavirus in prisons to the huge backlog of cases in the Courts and Tribunals Service, which had reached over 1 million, months before the pandemic. Much action is clearly needed.

I join the Minister in thanking the Law Commission and others who have been working so diligently on preparing this material. As has already been said, this is a largely technical and uncontroversial Bill and we have tabled no amendments. We agree that we cannot continue with complicated and complex guidance on sentencing, which is resulting in unfair sentences that are causing further problems, such as costs and delays in justice processes. Our current system is in no way perfect, by any measure. A near-dysfunctional mess of mixed legislation and amendments has, over time, led to wrong sentencing decisions resulting in lengthy and costly appeals, adding more and more stress to what is an overburdened justice and court system, as I referred to earlier. There must be a standard approach to provide clarity.

Offenders receiving unlawful sentences is unacceptable. That could mean offenders receiving more lenient sentences than the law says they should receive, or it could mean an excessive prison sentence outside of the guidelines for the particular offence committed. The Minister pointed out earlier that the survey showed that 36% of sentences were seen to be wrong. That is unacceptable in a just judicial system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

I should state at the outset that, before coming to this place, I was a magistrate for 12 years and consequently sentenced a large number of offenders. For some 18 months, I was the magistrate member of the Sentencing Council. While there, I was party to briefings by the Law Commission on the proposed sentencing code that is indirectly the subject of today’s legislation.

The sentencing code is greatly to be welcomed, and thus so is this legislation. It must be right that sentencing law is as clear and straightforward as possible, in the interests of justice for all parties in a case, including, naturally, not only the offender being sentenced, but the victim of the crime, for whom clarity and certainty can be a comfort. It follows that it must be right to take the necessary steps towards achieving that aim by amending existing legislation to facilitate the enactment and operation of the proposed sentencing code. The clean sweep approach covered in clause 1 is a significant step that will help avoid errors and appeals resulting from historic or redundant aspects of legislation being incorrectly reflected in a sentencing exercise. I welcome the improvement that that will bring to initial sentencing decisions and am reassured that the concomitant safeguards against retroactivity will protect human rights.

Although the details of other clauses of this Bill may not seem to merit great discussion in and of themselves, they do form part of a significant and important process to improve a vital element of the criminal justice system. In the interests of brevity, I will reserve any other remarks for Third Reading. However, I ask the Minister to do all he can to ensure that the magistracy is properly trained once these provisions come into place, along with the sentencing code, to ensure that they are able to apply to all correctly and appropriately.

[Chris Philp]

Let me start by also welcoming the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) to his place on the Opposition Front Bench. Like him, I am looking forward to many exchanges in the coming weeks and months as we debate the volume of legislation coming through and other matters connected to our courts system. He mentioned the issue of the case load before the courts. Of course, the outstanding case load before the Crown court prior to coronavirus was significantly lower than it has been in the past, particularly in the 2000s, but we want to get it down even further. Naturally, coronavirus is causing a number of challenges in the courts, but he will know that we are reintroducing jury trials. That commenced on 18 May and they are now operating in seven courts. We intend to expand that as quickly as we safely can; we hope that a number of courts that have been closed will reopen as soon as they are safely able to do so. He will also be aware that we are expediting the roll-out of the cloud video platform, which will allow many, many hearings to take place on the platform which otherwise, owing to social distancing, would not be possible. This probably is not the time to rehearse everything in detail, but let me reassure him that a huge amount of work is being undertaken by the Ministry of Justice and by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to make sure that our courts system functions in the way that we want and that we avoid the accumulation of large backlogs as a result of the coronavirus epidemic.

The hon. Gentleman asked particular questions on the timing of the Sentencing Bill enacting the sentencing code. As I said, we are hoping to bring that forward in this House as soon as we can. I regret to say that I cannot give him a precise time, as it is still subject to agreement by business managers, but we want to bring it forward as quickly as we can. We will also make sure that regardless of the sequencing between that Sentencing Bill and the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill, they technically fit together. I was glad to hear him, in essence, welcoming the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill, which we will be discussing shortly; I hope it is one of those topics where we can approach it across the House in a bi-partisan spirit of co-operation. Matters touching on national security and protecting the public from terrorism are topics where, in general, we are able to work together, and I very much hope that will apply to that Bill as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chairman of the Justice Committee, echoed my thanks to Professor David Ormerod, which I wholeheartedly endorse and repeat. I wish to give my hon. Friend the assurance he requested that the approach he laid out here in terms of clarity, consistency and consolidation is a principle that we would wish to apply in the future.

It is no good doing the consolidation exercise once and simply having a snapshot. We want it to be, as he put it, a living instrument that will be applied into the future so that the consistency and clarity that the Bill and the sentencing code will bring are not frozen in time but rolled forward and applied in the future too. I can therefore give him the assurance that he asked for.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) raised a question following up an intervention, which I recall, from her colleague the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on Second Reading, which happened in a Committee Room a few weeks ago. I think I said that publishing guidelines on common errors that might be avoided was a matter probably best handled by the Judicial College, or possibly the Judicial Office. I will follow up again with them to check in on progress in that area.

In a similar spirit, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), who is of course extremely experienced in this area, as he mentioned, drew attention to the importance of training. Again, once the sentencing code is enacted, the Ministry of Justice will work with the Judicial Office, the Judicial College and of course the Magistrates Leadership Executive to ensure that the training measures are in place so that the judiciary who are using the code are able to do so to best effect.

I thank Members who contributed to the debate for their very constructive and thoughtful comments. Again, I commend clauses 1 to 5 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

Justice

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 4th May 2020 Ministerial Corrections

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

How often are the circumstances set out in amendment 1 under new subsection (1)(a)(i) and (ii) actually likely to occur? A life sentence for photographic offences—is that actually likely to happen often?

[Chris Philp]

… It is worth mentioning, in response to my right hon. Friend’s intervention, that amendment 1 adds into the provisions of this Bill sentences of imprisonment for public protection, which can also be handed down for making indecent images. Clause 2 covers the slightly broader type of sentence—namely, extended determinate sentences, whether they are handed down for manslaughter or the failure to disclose the subject of an indecent image. He is quite right to point out that in cases where there has been a failure to disclose the victim of an indecent image, it is more likely that there will be an extended determinate sentence than a life sentence. Indeed, in the case of Vanessa George, the sentence handed down was an extended determinate sentence, so that would have been caught by clause 2 rather than by clause 1.

[Official Report, 3 March 2020, Vol. 672, c. 786.]

Letter of correction from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp):

Errors have been identified in the response I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne).

The correct statement should have been:

[Chris Philp]

… It is worth mentioning, in response to my right hon. Friend’s intervention, that amendment 1 adds into the provisions of this Bill sentences of imprisonment for public protection, which can also be handed down for making indecent images. Clause 2 covers the slightly broader type of sentence—namely, extended determinate sentences, whether they are handed down for manslaughter or the failure to disclose the subject of an indecent image. He is quite right to point out that in cases where there has been a failure to disclose the victim of an indecent image, there will now be an extended determinate sentence than a life sentence. However, in the case of Vanessa George, the sentence handed down was a sentence of imprisonment for public protection, so that would have been caught by clause 1 rather than by clause 2.

Sentencing Code Volume I: Report

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2020 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

I am today announcing the Government’s final response to the Law Commission’s report on the sentencing code, published on 22 November 2018. The final response can be found at: https://www. gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-to-law-commission-report-on-the-sentencing-code.

In May 2019 the Government issued an interim response which accepted the main recommendation of the report to take forward the Sentencing Bill and the Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill, and committed to consider its 11 secondary recommendations in further detail. Detailed responses to each of those recommendations are set out at the above link.

The Government reiterate their thanks to the Law Commission for the enormous effort that has gone into producing the report and accompanying legislation, and congratulates the Law Commission on an outstanding achievement.

[HCWS210]

Right to Rent Scheme

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2020 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

We welcome the Court of Appeal ruling that the Right to Rent Scheme is lawful and does not breach human rights law.

The Right to Rent Scheme was launched to ensure only those lawfully in the country can access the private rental sector, and to tackle unscrupulous landlords who exploit vulnerable migrants, sometimes in very poor conditions.

In 2016, a requirement was introduced for landlords and lettings agents in England to take reasonable steps to check they are renting only to someone who has a right to do so. This is to help make sure our immigration laws are respected. It is only fair to the many people who come to the UK legally and to British citizens that accommodation is not taken by people who are here illegally.

Right to Rent checks are straightforward and apply equally to everyone seeking accommodation in the private rental sector, including British citizens, and there are penalties for landlords who fail to complete the checks and who are later found to have rented to someone without a right to be in the UK. We have adapted the checks to make it easier for landlords to carry them out during the coronavirus outbreak. Prospective renters are now able to submit scanned documents, rather than originals, to show they have a right to rent.

We have always been absolutely clear that discriminatory treatment on the part of anyone carrying out these checks is unlawful. Furthermore, the Right to Rent legislation provides for codes of practice which sets out what landlords are expected to do and how they can avoid unlawful discrimination.

We are therefore pleased that the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court’s ruling and found that the scheme has a legitimate policy purpose and is compatible with the European convention on human rights.

As the Court noted, it is in the public interest that a coherent immigration policy should not only set out the criteria on which leave to remain is granted, but also discourage unlawful entry or the continued presence of those who have no right to enter or be here.

The Right to Rent Scheme forms an important part of our immigration policy. However, as my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary said in this House, we are carefully reviewing and reflecting on the recommendations in the Lessons Learned review report, including those relating to the compliant environment. We will bring forward a detailed formal response in the next six months, as Wendy Williams recommended.

In the meantime, the provisions passed by this House in 2014 remain in force and a full evaluation of the Right to Rent Scheme is under way. The evaluation includes a call to evidence to tenants, landlords and letting agents; a large mystery shopping exercise; and surveys of landlords. Members of the Right to Rent consultative panel provided input into the design of the evaluation.

The Government are committed to tackling discrimination in all its forms and to having an immigration system which provides control, but which is also fair, humane and fully compliant with the law. The Court of Appeal has found that the Right to Rent Scheme is capable of being operated in a lawful way by landlords in all individual cases. We will continue to work with landlords and lettings agents to ensure that is the case.

[HCWS195]

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

9. If she will take steps to ensure that people entering the UK are screened for covid-19 symptoms.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

We are facing an unprecedented threat from covid-19. In response to that, an enhanced monitoring process was implemented by Public Health England during the containment phase to monitor direct flights and identify any ill passengers from affected countries. However, the UK Government do not intend to introduce port screening measures such as temperature checks, as the scientific advice suggests that they simply do not work.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but can he tell us what steps he is taking to ensure that British citizens returning from high-risk countries are fully aware of the need to self-isolate on their return? Will he also promise that any advice that he gives is shared with the Governments of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies, and also the territories and dependencies? They all need advice, support and help during this very difficult time for our country.

[Chris Philp]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and he raises an extremely good and important point, as always. All aircraft flying into the United Kingdom will have an announcement on the symptoms and what to do if any passengers have those symptoms. In the UK, that has been enforced by a notice to airmen filed with the Civil Aviation Authority. In addition, the Government have made sure there are posters and leaflets containing public health information in all international airports, ports and international train stations. The need to self-isolate when people have those symptoms is critical, and I will take up his suggestion and make sure that is propagated to all the other Administrations to which he referred.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Will the Minister and the Home Secretary pass on huge thanks to the Home Office staff, the Border Force staff and the police, who are working immensely hard on the response to the coronavirus? Given that other countries have mandatory quarantines in place for people arriving and that the Government in this country withdrew on 13 March the previous advice for travellers coming from high-risk countries such as Italy to self-isolate, does the Minister accept that it is hard to understand why there is no guidance on self-isolation on a precautionary basis for travellers coming from high-risk countries? Will he and Home Secretary look at that issue again? Will they also work with the Home Affairs Committee to ensure that they can attend remote meetings to answer our questions during this crisis?

[Chris Philp]

First, may I echo the right hon. Lady’s comments about the fantastic work being done by civil servants and staff of various Executive agencies? As she has said, they are doing an incredible job in very difficult circumstances. On mandatory self-isolation for people returning from high-risk countries, she is right to say that the advice changed. However, let me reassure her by saying that it is under continual and ongoing scientific evaluation. The Home Secretary and I have both asked recently for refreshed scientific advice, and that is being monitored almost daily. If the scientific advice says that the safety of our country requires a further change in policy, we will certainly do that in response.

On the right hon. Lady’s question about enabling remote hearings for her Select Committee, I am sure that civil servants, officials and Ministers at the Home Office will do exactly that if required, to make sure that her Committee can function and discharge its scrutinising responsibilities, regardless of our current circumstances.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

In previous Home Office questions, I have asked for reassurances from the Home Secretary that those who enter or seek to enter illegally from France are immediately returned, but I have not received that absolute reassurance. As we have a pandemic going on, it is even more important that people who seek to enter illegally are first apprehended, and are then returned, tested and, above all, put into isolation. Can the Minister reassure me that that is going on?

[Chris Philp]

Significant resources are being put into protecting the short straits, particularly the crossing in the direction of Dover. Where people make that crossing cladestinely, they are met by the relevant officials, particularly from Border Force and from immigration enforcement. Of course, one of the screening checks now being done relates to their health, to make sure that if they need to be isolated to avoid the disease being transmitted onwards, that happens. On returns, we are currently bound by the Dublin regulations, but once we exit the transition period, we will not be and there will be an opportunity for us to form our own policy in this important area.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Overwhelmingly, people entering the UK in Orkney and Shetland do so because they are coming off cruise ships. That traffic is currently suspended, as a result of the businesses themselves suspending it. Will the Minister reassure me that if these businesses were to try to reinstate cruise ship business before it was safe to do so, steps would be taken to prevent their doing it?

[Chris Philp]

Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman that, as I said previously, the scientific advice is at the forefront of the Government’s thinking and there is no question at all of allowing any unsafe operating practice—by cruise ship operators or anyone else. The Government will not contemplate allowing this business to happen until the scientific advice categorically states that it is safe.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

13. What steps her Department is taking to reduce burglary and theft in crime hotspots.

Sentencing (Pre-Consolidation Amendments) Bill [ Lords ]

Chris Philp Excerpts

Second reading committee & Second reading committee: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th March 2020 General Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I will outline the procedure in Second Reading Committee, as it is an uncommon Committee. This Committee is charged with recommending to the House whether the Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) [Lords] Bill ought or ought not to be read a Second time. The debate in this Committee replaces a Second Reading debate in the House. After this Committee has made its recommendation, the Question on Second Reading in the House will be decided without further debate. The rules governing a Second Reading debate in the House apply in Second Reading Committees, so that in particular Members may speak more than once only by leave of the Committee, or through interventions. I call the Minister to move the motion.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee recommends that the Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

As always, Dame Rosie, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The purpose of the Bill is to make amendments to existing sentencing legislation in order to facilitate the enactment of the Law Commission’s Sentencing Bill, which will consolidate the law governing sentencing procedure in England and Wales into a single Sentencing Code. Although the may be technical in nature, at its heart this legislation is about legal certainty. Hon. Members will agree that the law must be clear and accessible; unfortunately, it has become difficult to say that with any sincerity about the statute governing sentencing procedure. It is well known and understood in the legal community that this body of law has grown incredibly complex and disparate over the years, even for the most experienced practitioners. Sentencing legislation now runs to over 1,300 pages; judges and barristers alike say it is too complicated and needs to be consolidated. Indeed, it is noticeable in the Court of Appeal that quite a large number of appeals against sentences are successful not on the ground that the sentence is too lenient or too harsh, but on the ground that an error in law has been made, owing, we think, to the complexity of sentencing legislation. This Bill and the sentencing code that will follow it are designed to correct that uncertainty.

The sentencing code will bring together all the procedural provisions on which courts need to rely during the sentencing process, including those detailing the general legislative principles of sentencing and the types of sentence a sentencing court may impose. By bringing these provisions into one place and providing them with a coherent structure, the code will assist judges and legal professionals in identifying and applying sentencing procedural law. That will help to reduce the risk of error, appeals and delay in the sentencing process and improve the transparency of the process for the general public.

I cannot stress enough the significance of this to practitioners. The Law Commission was asked in 2014 to undertake a review, and the sentencing code, which has just been introduced in the House of Lords and which directly follows this Bill, was developed by the commission in the following years. The commission published its report in November 2018; it included a draft of this Bill and the separate Sentencing Bill, which will create the sentencing code. The main recommendation in the report was to enact both pieces of legislation, but before the Sentencing Bill can be enacted, technical changes to existing legislation are needed to facilitate the consolidation of sentencing procedure, and this Bill will make the necessary changes.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

I declare an interest: I am one of those barristers who used to practise in the criminal courts and use the sentencing provisions in the statutes the Ministers refers to. I want to put it on the record that this legislation is long overdue and very welcome to judges, barristers and practitioners alike, and I look forward to scrutinising the detail.

[Chris Philp]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend feels that way. As we all know, he has a long and distinguished track record practising in the criminal courts, so he has direct experience of the current complexity. As he says, judges, academics, barristers and many others support the measures in the Bill before the Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is 20 years since I practised criminal law, but it was pretty confusing even then. I am glad it is was not just me who did not understand. I did not realise the scale of the problem until I read in the Library briefing that the survey conducted by the Law Commission found that sentences in 36% of its sample of cases were unlawful, so I agree that this measure is long overdue. Have the Government considered publishing what they regard as common mistakes made? If that is the level of incorrect sentencing that has been going on, there must be many more wrongly decided cases out there.

[Chris Philp]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Witney, the hon. Member for Hammersmith has had a long and distinguished career as a practitioner of of the law, and we are always interested in what he has to say. The idea of identifying common mistakes and drawing them to the judiciary’s attention is a very good one. Perhaps my officials can work with the Judicial College and the Judicial Office to see whether a list of common errors could be compiled and circulated to the judiciary. A couple of studies have been done; the hon. Gentleman referred to one of them, another was done in 2012 looking at Court of Appeal overturns of unlawful sentences, and another by the Criminal Appeal Office in 2018. I am sure we could draw on that work to identify whether there are common themes, and if there are, the idea of drawing them to judges’ attention is an extremely good one. We will investigate the hon. Gentleman’s idea with a view to taking it further.

There are two substantive clauses in the Bill because the Bill does two things. First, clause 1 provides a “clean sweep”. It takes the existing sentencing procedures and ensures that sentences passed are in accordance with the law applicable at the time of the offence. It is not uncommon for sentencing courts to deal with offenders who committed offences several years previously, when a different sentencing regime applied. There are many examples of when this happens, and if the sentencing provisions have changed between the time of the offence and the time of sentencing, it is not immediately clear which provisions apply. As we have heard from two practitioners on this Committee, it is no wonder that barristers and judges are keen on change.

The so-called clean sweep mechanism provided in clause 1 attempts to remedy the anomaly by removing the need for the sentencing court to identify and apply historical versions of sentencing law. Instead it will apply the sentencing law prevailing at the time of sentence rather than at the time of offence. As a result, when an offender is convicted after the start of the new sentencing code, sentencing procedural law as enacted in the code will apply, regardless of when the offence was committed. However, from a common law and human rights point of view—an article 7 point of view—it is important to provide exceptions, to ensure that offenders sentenced under the sentencing code are not subject to a harsher penalty than they would have been had the sentencing law at the time of the offence applied. Although current sentencing law will apply, there is an exception if the minimum sentence or the maximum sentence has increased, to make sure that a harsher penalty is not applied. That respects an important common law principle, as well as an article 7 human right.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Of course, when there is a moving target or a snap change is made, as the clean sweep does—it says, “Stop that. We start here.”—exceptions have to be made. However, we already have 12 categories of exception set out in the Bill. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that we do not have 50 or 100 categories by the time we reach the end of this process, thus building in complexity again? I understand the importance of the points he makes about the Human Rights Act and not doing rough justice under the common law, but if our aim is to put things right, we should keep it simple.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. The aim is to simplify, yet we have these exceptions. A balance has to be struck. We cannot, as responsible legislators, do anything that violates the long-established common law right she refers to, or breaches human rights. We want to keep it as simple as possible. It is worth bearing in mind that sentencing law sets generally the maximum and in some cases the minimum sentences, but it is always up to the independent judiciary to decide exactly what sentence they hand down. I take the hon. Lady’s point about the exceptions, though. I hope we have enunciated those comprehensively, particularly in schedule 1 to the Bill, and that we will not have to add to them as rightly warns against.

The second substantive provision, clause 2, provides for various pre-consolidation amendments, which are listed in schedule 2. They are almost entirely highly technical in nature. They are explained in detail in the explanatory notes, but essentially they tidy up and correct small historical anomalies before the sentencing code is enacted. I will give one example to illustrate:references in schedule 9 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to now repealed petty sessions districts in Northern Ireland are replaced with references to their replacements, administrative court divisions. That is the sort of technical amendment we are making via schedule 2. There is a list in the explanatory notes that we can examine in more detail during the Committee stage of the Bill, if required.

Let me be clear: everything we are doing, both in this Bill and in the sentencing code that will follow, is essentially about clarifying and simplifying. In none of these provisions are we changing substantive sentencing law. It is a simplification exercise. Nothing is being changed in the way that sentencing policy operates. It is simply a clarification exercise, which is supported by the judiciary, barristers and academics. It has been scrutinised at some length in the other place, which has among its Members some very distinguished former judges, and it is the culmination of four or five years’ work by the Law Commission. I thank the commission for the extraordinary work it has done, especially the outgoing criminal law commissioner, David Ormerod, who led the work.

The Bill has one simple purpose: to pave the way for the sentencing code. That code will make the sentencing process easier, quicker and more transparent. The Sentencing Bill, which creates the code, was introduced in the House of Lords on 5 March under the special procedure reserved for Law Commission consolidation Bills. I commend the Bill to the Committee as an important and, some have said, long overdue step to simplify a very complicated area of law.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Rosie. As the Minister set out, this is a largely technical and, as such, uncontroversial Bill to bring to fruition the Law Commission’s four years long project on consolidating sentencing legislation. The Opposition fully support the Government’s intention to conclude the commission’s work and will not oppose the motion. I too take this opportunity to thank the Law Commission for its work drafting the sentencing code, and the many others who fed into the process through the consulation and outreach work.

We all agree that sentencing legislation is overlong, complex and obscure, even to experienced legal professional and judges. It is clear that urgent change is needed. As the Law Commission pointed out, current sentencing legislation, with its sources in numerous places in legislation, runs to well over 1,300 pages and creates immense difficulties in understanding and access the relevant law. It is also widely disparate in the way in which it can be amended, as the Minister described. Some changes can be made by amending previous enactments, others by introducing their own enactments, and there are even some that modify the effects of other enactments without actually amending the wording of the provisions. The way these amendments are brought into force is just as inconsistent.

The Law Commission also highlighted the number of times that Parliament has amended sentencing legislation and the erratic way in which it has done it, which just compounds existing problems with the complexity of sentencing legislation. As the volume of changes and the pace at which they are made increase, it becomes ever more difficult first to locate the law and then to fully understand it. In fact, I think the only people who oppose the Bill are law librarians, who have the knack of identifying sources of legislation in obscure places.

The result of all this can quite simply be described as a near-dysfunctional mess that is a considerable problem for our legal system. It puts burdens on lawyers and judges, results in wrong sentencing decisions that subsequently need to be appealed, and requires additional court hearings which have a knock-on effect of delaying other hearings. That clogs up a system already straining under nearly a decade of cuts to courts and legal services.

Although those from a legal background who have wrestled with sentencing legislation and its many complexities will probably welcome these long overdue measures, the sentencing code offers substantially greater benefits than just making the lives of lawyers easier—although that is also to be commended. Consolidating legislation in a sentencing code could give the public confidence in sentencing procedure. We accept that it is not possible for the legal system to be infallible all the time; that is why the appeals process exists. But when it is found that more than one in three of the cases assessed by the Law Commission in the criminal division of the Court of Appeal in 2012 involved sentences that the court simply should not have made, it is inevitable that public confidence takes a knock.

The public must feel secure in the belief that sentencing decisions are the correct decisions as often as possible. By addressing the immense complexity and inconsistencies with sentencing legislation, the sentencing code can give them that confidence, but if the public are to properly have confidence in sentencing, they must also have confidence in those handing down the sentences, so the Government must not repeat their reckless encouragement of partisan attacks on our independent judiciary.

Although we accept the need for the sentencing code set out by the Law Commission and we support the Government in bringing it to this House, we are concerned about the time that it has taken to reach us—a point raised by the aptly named Lord Judge, a former Lord Chief Justice who expressed disappointment on its slow progress. The Law Commission published its report on the sentencing code project in November 2018 and the draft Bills that they included are innocuous and uncontroversial pieces of legislation. As a consolidating measure, procedures available allow this Bill to be heard in a Second Reading Committee, as we are doing today, with time not needing to be made available in the Main Chamber. Will the Minister tell us what caused the delay in enacting the Law Commission’s sentencing code? How many offenders since November 2018 have handed sentences that were unlawful, too short or too long as a result of the complexities of the current sentencing legislation?

Broadly speaking, however, we support the Government in bringing forward both this Bill and the Sentencing Bill that will fully enact the sentencing code, which is awaiting its Second Reading in the other place. We also support any measures that will simplify our sentencing system and will benefit the legal process, legal professionals, the judiciary, and ultimately, the public. We support this Bill being given a Second Reading.

[Chris Philp]

With the permission of the Committee, Dame Rosie, I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate for his considered support for the Bill. It is very welcome indeed, and I am glad that we can work together in a spirit of co-operation to get it through the House. He mentioned a delay. He is right that the Law Commission report was published in November 2018. In fairness to my predecessors, I should say that 2018 was a rather eventful year in Parliament, with quite a lot going on, including a change of Prime Minister and a general election, along with various other things. As a result, matters progressed through Parliament a little more slowly than they might otherwise have done. The Bill was introduced in May 2019, carried over and then had to be reintroduced after Dissolution. It has suffered from the political turbulence of the past 12 months, but we are here now and want to get it passed as quickly as possible. I am grateful for the Opposition’s support for the Bill and look forward to working with them to get it on to the statute book quickly.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Crown Court (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2020

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Crown Court (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2020.

As always, Ms Buck, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. This order removes the prohibition on recording Crown court proceedings to enable judges’ sentencing remarks in the Crown court to be recorded and broadcast. Currently, the recording and broadcasting of court proceedings is prohibited unless, with the consent of the Lord Chief Justice, an order is made specifying the circumstances in which those prohibitions can be lifted. That has already been done to allow live streaming from the Supreme Court since 2009, and in the civil and criminal divisions of the Court of Appeal.

The order before us extends the exemption from the prohibition—the circumstances under which court proceedings can be filmed—to include the sentencing remarks delivered by a High Court judge or senior circuit judge delivering criminal sentences in the Crown court. Recordings will only be made by broadcasters who have been granted permission in writing by the Lord Chancellor. Media parties have been working in the Court of Appeal since 2013, and we will be taking this next step forward with those experienced broadcasters.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

For many years before I entered Parliament, I prosecuted and defended cases in the magistrates court, Crown court and Court of Appeal. The public want transparency and accountability. Under the current system, not all the remarks are taken into account when a sentence is passed, so people cannot know the mitigating or aggravating features that the judge has taken into account. It is unfair on the judiciary for them to be labelled in the media as having simply given “x” sentence. The order will ensure that it is possible to make clear to the public the full circumstances considered by the judge, to ensure that there is full confidence in our great judiciary and our legal system.

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend puts it extremely well, based on his many years of experience. By broadcasting the full sentencing remarks, we can make sure that sentences are fully understood by the public. It is very easy for the public to hear just a headline sentence, and not to understand or appreciate the reasons why that sentence has been handed down. By broadcasting the remarks in full—they will be available on the internet, and potentially broadcast live—the understanding that my hon. Friend has described can be better achieved. I should add that the decision to extend the filming of the sentencing remarks of senior judges to the Crown court is fully supported by the Lord Chief Justice and follows a trial in eight courts, which in turn followed a debate on this topic in Parliament in 2016.

We have, of course, carefully considered concerns about the potential impact of court broadcasting on victims, witnesses and other vulnerable court users. That is why only the judge’s sentencing remarks will be broadcast. This order does not permit the filming of anything else that goes on in court, whether it be submissions by barristers on either side, victims, witnesses, staff, defendants, jurors or anybody else. Only the sentencing remarks being delivered by the judge can be filmed and then broadcast. To give the Committee further assurance, I should add that the judge in any particular case has complete discretion, and if they choose to not give permission for their sentencing remarks to be broadcast, that judge can withhold their consent. If any media organisation breaches the terms of this order, or breaches the judge’s ruling on the matter, they will of course be in contempt of court.

I mentioned that the filming will be available on the internet. For the largest cases, it may also be broadcast live, but with a time delay to make sure anything unsuitable can be intercepted prior to broadcast. A limited number of specified media companies—the larger ones, such as the BBC, ITV and Sky—will be authorised to do this, and one of them will nominate a film crew to film the sentencing remarks. The cost of doing so will fall entirely on the broadcasters; it will not be borne by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.

In conclusion, this order, which follows a trial and has received the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, will open up our judicial system a little more. It will give the public a better understanding of sentencing remarks and why particular sentences are being handed down, and it is a welcome move to demonstrate openness and transparency in our judicial proceedings. I commend the order to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I would be delighted to answer the three questions that the shadow Minister posed. First, I will deal with the matter of broadcasting only the sentencing remarks. It is true that sentencing remarks cannot adequately cover every detail of a case that might have lasted for several days or even weeks. However, most judges’ sentencing remarks in the more serious cases provide a good summary of the most important facts and, critically, they give a good rationale for why a particular sentence has been handed down. Sometimes I, as the Minister responsible for courts and sentencing, get correspondence from victims or their families asking why a particular sentence was given, because it was, in their view, too lenient. Having the full sentencing remarks available will give the rationale to victims, their families and the wider public, so that they understand why a particular sentence has been handed down. They may, of course, still not agree with the sentence, but at least there will be a fuller explanation than there is now.

I say to hon. Members that if any of their constituents have concerns about sentences being too lenient, there is of course the unduly lenient sentence scheme, whereby, within 28 days of a sentence for a serious offence being handed down, the victim can apply to the Attorney General, who can then refer the case to the Court of Appeal. I think that the sentences in more than 100 cases were increased through that mechanism in the calendar year 2018.

The shadow Minister’s second question related to guidance. There are 103 High Court judges and senior circuit judges whose sentencing remarks might be filmed in the way that I have described, and they will receive full training from the Judicial Office.

The third question was more general: will judges be exposed to public opprobrium if their sentences are considered to be unduly lenient or are unpopular? I will say first that we certainly do not intend to create the kind of media circus that we see surrounding some cases in, for example, the USA. We all remember the famous O. J. Simpson case back in the mid-1990s. I think that by filming just the sentencing remarks, we will avoid the wider media circus that can develop.

In relation to protecting judges’ independence, the Lord Chancellor has of course sworn an oath of office to protect our judicial independence in this country. In fact, last September when a Supreme Court judgment was handed down—the judgment was televised—that was not universally popular in every quarter, the Lord Chancellor did discharge his duty. Whatever he may have thought about the judgment, and whatever we all may have thought about the judgment, he stood up and defended the independent judiciary and the right of those judges to make that judgment independently. The Lord Chancellor and, I am sure, all of us in Parliament will ensure that we defend judicial independence.

I hope that I have answered the questions that have been asked. Once again, I commend the order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Justices of the Peace and Authorised Court and Tribunal Staff (Costs) Regulations 2020

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Justices of the Peace and Authorised Court and Tribunal Staff (Costs) Regulations 2020.

Mr Gray, it is, as always, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I intend to be extremely brief, because these are technical regulations, which form part of the Government’s implementation of the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018. I can confirm that, in accordance with the requirements of that Act, the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, Sir Ernest Ryder, have been consulted, and both have indicated their approval of the regulations.

The regulations are rather technical, but they have the important purpose of underpinning the protection the Act gives authorised court and tribunal officers. It gives them an indemnity against liability for actions they carry out in good faith in the performance of their judicial duties. The regulations specifically outline the procedure to be followed when an order for costs is sought against one of these authorised officers. It is worth mentioning that the Act provides for court officers authorised by the Lord Chief Justice to perform functions that were previously undertaken by a justices’ clerk or an assistant justices’ clerk.

The regulations specify the procedure to be followed when an order for costs is sought against a justices’ clerk. They specify the circumstances in which those costs may be sought and that it is not the justices’ clerk but the Lord Chancellor who will pay those costs—I do not, of course, mean the Lord Chancellor personally, but the Ministry of Justice, although we say it is the Lord Chancellor. The regulations also specify when such a cost order can be made and how the amount to be paid shall be determined. The answer to that latter question is that it is determined by a costs judge—formerly known as a taxing master.

Very simply, therefore, the regulations make provision for the Lord Chancellor to pick up the costs if any cost order is made against a justices’ clerk—now called a court officer—in the discharge of their duties.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The Minister has made clear what this measure does, but it would be interesting to know what prompted its introduction.

[Chris Philp]

Very simply, this measure was first introduced in this form in the Courts Act 2003—of course, the practice predated that, but it was most recently legislated for in 2003, when it applied to justices’ clerks and assistant justices’ clerks. However, in the 2018 Act, those positions were replaced by court-authorised officers, who perform essentially the same function but under a different name. When we say “court-authorised”, it is ultimately the Lord Chief Justice who authorises those officers. This is really a technical change that continues a practice that has been going on for many years. It is really a change of nomenclature more than anything.

[Sir George Howarth]

The Minister is being admirably clear, but I do not think he has completely answered my question. What prompted me to ask was that I am not clear why these provisions were not incorporated in the 2018 Act.

[Chris Philp]

Often when we legislate in this House, some of the more technical matters are not put on the face of the Bill. The Government are given regulation-making power the activate or implement powers at a subsequent time—otherwise the Bill would be enormously long. This is one of the many examples where the technical implication of a measure is done via a statutory instrument—in this case, an affirmative statutory instrument—rather than on the face of the Bill. In fact, we were in this very room just a few days ago implementing a similar measure in relation to alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirements. This is just one of those measures that are activated by an SI, rather than being on the face of the Bill, to keep the Bill a little smaller.

I hope I have outlined the substance of the matter before us. If colleagues have questions, I would be delighted to answer them—

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

In that case, will the Minister allow me before he sits down?

[Chris Philp]

I cannot possibly resist my hon. Friend.

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. These are obviously necessary procedural regulations, but I draw his attention to paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum, which refers to

“provisions in relation to costs in (the very rare) proceedings against justices’ clerks and justices of the peace.”

Could he give us some indication of how frequently these very rare proceedings have taken place, and what the cost to the taxpayer has been?

[Chris Philp]

Yes. Saying “very rare” may be a masterstroke of understatement. We have been unable to find any examples of legal action against justices’ clerks as individuals since 2003. However, each year there have been, on average, about 100 court cases where a decision by justices’ clerks has been challenged, although the justices’ clerk themself has not been named in the action. In those 100 cases a year, as far as we can find, there has not been a single example where a costs order has been made against a justices’ clerk that the Lord Chancellor has had to pick up the tab for. As far as we can tell, the answer is that, since 2003, the cost to the Exchequer has been nothing, but it is important to have the procedures in place, in case the need ever arises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s support in the matter before us. Very briefly, on the question of qualifications—I am sure that this assurance was given two years ago, but I will repeat it—before anyone can be a court officer, the Lord Chief Justice has to give authorisation and must be satisfied that the person is appropriately qualified for the task given to them. I am grateful for the support of the Opposition this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Asylum Decisions (Support for Refugees)

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time in two days, Sir David. No doubt there will be many future occasions as well.

I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) on securing today’s debate and opening it with such a thoughtful but also passionate speech. She has for a long time been a powerful and persuasive campaigner and advocate on these issues. The Government might not always agree completely with everything that she says, but on many occasions we do, and I am grateful to her for raising these issues in Parliament and for doing that in such a well considered and thoughtful manner. Cases are always much more persuasive when presented in the way that she has demonstrated today, and I am grateful to her for raising this important subject in the way she has.

As the spokesman for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), said, I am extremely new in this role. I was appointed to the Home Office, in addition to the Ministry of Justice, only two or three weeks ago, so I am getting rapidly up to speed with these issues, and it has been very useful to hear everything that hon. Members have said today. However, I am a Member of Parliament who represents Croydon, and many hon. Members will know that one of the Home Office’s major centres for handling asylum applications is Lunar House in the London Borough of Croydon. In fact, Croydon has, along with Kent, I think, the highest number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. From my own constituency casework, therefore, I am very familiar with many of the issues that have been raised about asylum in general and UASCs in particular. Croydon was also the first borough to roll out universal credit fully, so I have had a lot of experience as a constituency Member of Parliament of that as well.

Let me talk a bit about asylum in general, before turning to some of the specific points raised today. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bristol West, said that this country has a proud and long history of welcoming refugees to these shores. In particular, when the Syrian crisis occurred four or five years ago, we set up the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, which I think has worked extremely well. We set an ambition, an aim, a target of resettling 20,000 people, mostly from Syria or from camps on the borders of Syria, directly in the UK, and we are, I think, extremely close to reaching the 20,000 level; I expect we will reach it in a matter of a few weeks. That scheme designed to help the most vulnerable people imaginable—people who have suffered terrible atrocities in Syria—has worked very effectively.

In relation to asylum more generally, there were 34,000 claims for asylum last year. The number has been going up for the last few years. Last year we made just under 20,000—19,480—grants of asylum, humanitarian protection or other forms of long-term leave. More than half were for asylum. I think that 20,000 per year is a number that we can point to with pride as a country that wants to look after people who are fleeing persecution. The figure of 34,000—the number of people who claimed asylum last year—is not the highest in Europe, but is one of the highest in Europe; it is certainly in the top four numbers in Europe. The fact that people are coming here in such large numbers, often travelling first through other safe European countries such as France, Germany and Italy, shows quite a high level of confidence among those who choose to come here. That is not to be complacent or to dismiss any of the points raised, which I will come to, but in itself it does show that people seeking refugee status recognise that the UK is somewhere that takes its obligations very seriously indeed. That is why, as I said, they often travel through safe European countries to come here. Clearly, under the Dublin convention, people are supposed to claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach.

In relation to financial support for the asylum-seeking community, the cost of supporting asylum seekers is just under £1 billion—it is about £800 million—a year, and approximately 50,000 people are being supported, so I feel that from a financial perspective, quite a lot is being done to support this vulnerable community. They are vulnerable in the ways that hon. Members very eloquently described.

I hope that those remarks have set the scene for the United Kingdom’s very significant and profound commitment to supporting refugees. I shall turn now to the specific question about the 28 days. I would like to talk a bit about some of the things that we are doing to mitigate the impacts that have been described today and then discuss the 28 days versus 56 days.

I think that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) was Immigration Minister, there was a debate on this topic in which some of these issues were aired. Since then, quite a few practical steps have been taken to try to make things as easy as possible for refugees in the 28-day period following the grant of their status. Let me mention just a couple. First, the 28-day period is not necessarily triggered by the grant of status; it is started only when the biometric residence permit is issued. That is the document needed to establish the status and enable people to apply for benefits and so on without getting unduly delayed by bureaucratic error. I am told that if administrative errors occur, that resets the 28-day period. If hon. Members have encountered any individual cases in which administrative errors that are not the fault of the refugee have occurred and a reset has not happened, I encourage them to write to me with the particulars so that I can look into them. I would be very happy indeed to do that.

We also ensure that the individual’s national insurance number is on the permit, because experience suggests that one of the things that just generally speeds things up is the NI number being clearly displayed in a place where it is easy for people to see.

The question of access to bank accounts was raised by the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and others, and it is clearly essential that refugees have bank accounts, because pretty much everything these days—getting work and everything else—requires a bank account. A lot of work has been done, and is under way as we speak, with banks to speed that up, make things easier and remove some of the barriers that exist, but I undertake to write to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is the City Minister and responsible for financial service regulation, to get an update on where we are with ensuring that bank accounts are available to refugees, who are obviously completely entitled to live here and to work, as we all do, and make sure that that is functioning as it should. I will follow up that specific point.

[Jim Shannon]

I was also one of those who mentioned bank accounts. I am very keen to know that what the Minister is asking for means that there will be feedback for all of us who are here and all the regions of the United Kingdom, because we need to have that provision in Northern Ireland as well.

[Chris Philp]

I will write to the hon. Member for Bristol West about that point on bank accounts. She can disseminate that as she sees fit to other hon. Members who take an interest and I will copy it to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), since he specifically raised that point.

The hon. Member for Strangford and others raised the important issue of English language lessons. As the Scottish National party spokesman said, properly integrating people, particularly into the workforce, is critical. We spoke about universal credit, which I will come on to address. That is clearly an important way of supporting people. Ultimately, for those granted refugee status, as for anyone else, the way out of poverty is through work rather than benefits. Being unable to speak English makes it very difficult to get into the workforce.

English language support is important. Investment in it is about £100 million per year through the adult education budget, which gives the money to various colleges and learning providers. They then decide how to meet the specific needs of their local communities. We have augmented that with an extra £10 million to support refugees who have come through the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, to ensure that they can access additional language training. On top of that, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is investing a further £4.5 million per year to support community-based language provision.

I completely accept the need for English language training. I would rather that we taught people to speak English than endlessly have to translate. Helping people to speak English is the best solution. I will keep that under review. If there is evidence that the level of provision is not adequate, I will happily follow up further.

[Kate Green]

I understand that the MHCLG funding for community-based language provision is due to come to an end and there is currently no news on that funding being renewed, despite our understanding a couple of years ago that the Government intended to renew it. If the Minister can do anything about that with his colleagues in that Department to raise the issue, we would all appreciate it.

[Chris Philp]

I will raise the issue with MHCLG colleagues and seek assurances that this funding line, which has happened in the past, will continue.

[Fleur Anderson]

I want to mention courses in English for speakers of other languages coming with a crèche. That is increasingly crucial the more those courses are provided by colleges and similar providers, instead of community-based providers. We are seeing that provision being cut across the country. Women with children are specifically disadvantaged by the cuts and they are not fair for all.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. As a father of young children, I understand that childcare is important, whether for parents in work or further education, so her point is well made.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) made a related point about language. Notwithstanding my remarks a moment ago that teaching people to speak English is preferable to perpetually translating—for society and the individual concerned—I would like to make it clear that the welcome guide for refugees to England is available in multiple languages: Albanian, Arabic, Chinese, Vietnamese, Kurdish, Farsi, Pashtu, Punjabi, Tigrinya and Urdu. Hopefully, that will be of use to speakers of those languages.

Regarding the 28-day period, we are working with the voluntary sector. Several hon. Members have referred to its excellent work. We are also working with other Departments, as was raised by several hon. Members. We are working with local authority asylum liaison officers in some of the main areas where asylum seekers are being accommodated. That is funded by MHCLG. The role of these liaison officers is to assist newly recognised refugees with move-on arrangements, particularly housing, to ensure that the transition from supported accommodation to wider society happens as smoothly as it can.

Our asylum accommodation providers, the people who provide the supported housing while the claim is being processed, are under a contractual duty, under their contracts with the Home Office, to notify the local authority and their liaison officers of the potential need to provide housing where a person in their accommodation is granted status. We are doing everything we can to try to make that work, between the Home Office-supported accommodation and the local authority’s housing services, supported by the liaison officer, as joined up as possible.

The central question is 28 days versus 56 days. I have read the Red Cross report, to which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) referred. I have it here. There is clearly a financial cost to keeping people in supported accommodation for longer than they are currently kept there. The Red Cross report makes the case that the extra cost in the Home Office estate would be outweighed by savings in local authorities, due to less homelessness support. I will study the report. It has some costings of that equation. I will look at the numbers carefully and make my own assessment as to where that balance lies.

In addition to the purely financial consideration, there are practical capacity considerations. As we know, housing is quite difficult to come by. If we extended from 28 days to 56 days, we would increase the number of people in supported housing by a few thousand. We would then have to find those extra spaces. Even if one could make a compelling financial case—the Red Cross says that case can be made—one must think practically about where those places would come from. That must be borne in mind.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

Will the Minister commit to looking at how much would be contributed financially by tax payments, if asylum seekers were allowed to work after six months, as well as how much the Home Office would save, if it made fewer mistakes and had to pay claims as requested?

[Chris Philp]

Work is not the topic of this debate, and it is more than a financial consideration. We can all agree that we must be quicker at handling asylum claims. Whether they are successful, and we must integrate people into the community, or whether they are unsuccessful, and the person must be removed, doing it quicker is in everybody’s interest. As a matter of priority, as the new Minister, I will find ways of making this process quicker, which would mitigate a lot of the problems we have been discussing.

I have listened carefully to everything that has been said. The points have been made with sincerity and compassion. I will reflect carefully on what I have heard this afternoon. I will look at the case made in the Red Cross report and study those numbers. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol West for securing the debate and for making her case in such a balanced and considered way.