Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Chris Philp and Richard Fuller(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp
What I will commit to, as far as the people of Bedfordshire are concerned, is an increase in funding of £10.2 million for next year, 2024-25. That is an extra 6.5% compared with this year. They will also have 1,455 police officers. That is about 200 more than Bedfordshire’s police force has ever had at any time in its history.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is not unusual to hear from two Bedfordshire MPs when it comes to the police funding formula, because this goes all the way back to the last Labour Government, but there is a cross-party view in Bedfordshire that our police force is underfunded. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet all Bedfordshire MPs so that we can press the case for increases in funding for Bedfordshire Police?
Chris Philp
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these issues. As I say, Bedfordshire Police will receive an extra £10.2 million next year—an increase of about 6.5%—which I am sure will be welcome up and down the county, but I am of course happy to meet my hon. Friend whenever he would like.
Draft Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (Extraction of Information from Electronic Devices) (Amendment of Schedule 3) Regulations 2023
Debate between Chris Philp and Richard Fuller(1 year, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Draft, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (Extraction of information from electronic devices) (Amendment of Schedule 3) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. In recent years, the extraction of information from electronic devices has become a pivotal part of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting crime. With around 90% of all crime having a digital element, digital forensics has become crucial in criminal investigations.
For that reason, the Home Office led on the introduction of the extraction of information powers in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which came into force in November last year. Those powers established a statutory basis for extracting information from electronic devices, ensuring that information is extracted only for specific purposes, when necessary and proportionate, and where relevant to a reasonable line of inquiry.
In relation to victims and witnesses, there were various specific safeguards to ensure that information is extracted only once an individual has volunteered their device and agreed to the extraction of information from it. Additional measures were included to ensure that victims and witnesses are notified in writing of what information is being sought and how it will be used. They are also provided with various rights to refuse permission, if appropriate.
Those powers can be exercised by the authorised persons named in schedule 3 to the Act. The schedule is divided into three parts, which set out the different purposes for which authorised persons may exercise the powers. It is crucial that only authorised persons can extract information for the purposes set out in the schedule.
Those listed under part 1 of the schedule can exercise these powers for the purposes set out in section 37 of the Act, which concerns the investigation of crime, and for the purposes set out in section 41, which concerns an investigation or inquest into a person’s death. Those listed under part 2 may extract information only for the purposes of section 37. Part 3 lists the authorised persons who can extract the information only for the specific purpose under section 37(1), which is preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting a crime.
The draft regulations set out the requirement to move the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Military Police and the Royal Air Force Police from part 2 of schedule 3 to part 1 of schedule 3. That means that those forces can extract information not just for the purposes of section 37, but also for the purposes of section 41—supporting an investigation or inquest into a person’s death. I am sure the Committee would agree that, where a person has died in unexplained circumstances, it is crucial that the various military police forces are able to investigate the death as thoroughly as their civilian equivalents. That is what these simple regulations aim to provide for.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister has given a very clear exposition, but it does prompt a question as to why those police forces were not given the powers in the original legislation passed in 2022 and why there is a need for the change now.
Chris Philp
In answer to my hon. Friend, I am afraid that I do not recall the details of the debates at the time. I am not convinced that I was a Minister at the time this went through the Bill Committee, although I may have been—in fact, I may have been a Ministry of Justice Minister, and a Home Office Minister may have taken this through the Committee.
Immigration Detention: Victims of Trafficking
Debate between Chris Philp and Richard Fuller(3 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray; I think for the first time, but I am confident not for the last.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) for raising the matter in this afternoon’s debate. As he said, we will have the pleasure of discussing it twice in two days. He is an assiduous campaigner on these issues and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss them with him today, and, I am sure, on future occasions as well.
As a starting point, it is important to understand that the United Kingdom’s commitment to looking after victims or even potential victims of modern slavery is resolute. We enacted the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which has some very substantial protections for victims of modern slavery. We launched a modern slavery strategy back in 2014 and we are assiduous as a country in upholding our obligations under the ECAT treaty—the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings—to which my hon. Friend referred. Indeed, many more modern slavery claims are made and accepted in the UK than in comparable European countries; I think that we had around 10,000 last year, which was many times higher than in countries such as France and Germany. I think our record on identifying and protecting victims of modern slavery is second to none across Europe, which we can all be extremely proud of.
However, we should also be clear that someone being recognised as a victim of modern slavery does not and should not automatically result in their being given immigration status in the UK, or in their being exempted from immigration proceedings. There are protections granted by the modern slavery provisions. My hon. Friend mentioned the reflection and recovery period, which is 45 days. Of course, if there is a recovery need that can only be met by the person remaining, that is obviously respected as well. However, it does not follow that every single potential victim of modern slavery should be exempted from immigration proceedings or indeed from detention.
Therefore, it is very important that we have a proper way of weighing up the various considerations that come before decision makers: on the one hand, there are questions of vulnerability, or potential vulnerability; and on the other hand, there is the need to operate a proper immigration system. That is an important balance to strike. Both those things are important; we are not minimising the importance of either one of them.
It is worth observing that the reasonable grounds threshold for a modern slavery decision is, by design, extremely low. At the moment, it is set out as “suspects but cannot prove”, which is an extremely low threshold. We are looking to make adjustments to that, as set out in the policy statement a few weeks ago, consistent, of course, with our ECAT treaty obligations. However, once the reasonable grounds decision is made, that does not mean that the person involved is a victim of modern slavery. It means that there are reasons to suspect, but without proof, that they might be a victim of modern slavery, which is extremely important to bear in mind.
There has been some evidence recently—I am talking about the last 12 months in particular—that for some cohorts in particular, including some foreign national offenders, it appears that modern slavery claims are increasingly being used as a means of disrupting immigration proceedings. We need to be mindful of that, and mindful that we should do everything to protect genuine victims of modern slavery, many of whom will have suffered appalling trauma and mistreatment. It is in the spirit of achieving that balance that the changes we are discussing today and will discuss again tomorrow are being made.
The change that my hon. Friend outlined so eloquently, enshrined in the statutory instrument laid on 25 February this year and coming into force, if passed, in a few weeks’ time, to make the release decision in relation to people with a positive reasonable grounds decision if they might be a victim of modern slavery is inside the ambit of the existing adults at risk policy. That is not to say that their potential vulnerability will be ignored, but the issue will be considered in the round and a balancing exercise will be performed, as it is with other forms of vulnerability in the existing scope of the adults at risk policy to make sure that everything is being properly accounted for in the round.
Having done that exercise, release decisions might, and in many cases will, still be made. An adults at risk policy, as my hon. Friend said, was introduced in 2016. It has had time to bed in and is being continuously improved upon, but it has a well-defined grading scale—level 1, level 2, level 3—and the more serious the evidence of vulnerability or potential harm, some of which my hon. Friend laid out in his speech, the higher the balancing factors have to be in order not to release.
Viewing the matter in the round and considering everything is an appropriate thing to do. It is a balancing exercise that we are trying to achieve. The caseworker guidance that will be published in due course will address the specific situation of potential victims of modern slavery. My hon. Friend laid out some of the unique circumstances associated with them, and the caseworker guidance will take into account the particular vulnerabilities that my hon. Friend drew attention to in his speech.
I hope that gives some reassurance about the approach that will be taken. The detention decision making process will of course include an assessment of the individual’s recovery needs. That will ensure that detention is maintained where the balancing criteria are met, and also where those needs can be provided from within detention. If those needs cannot be met from within detention, that would obviously argue very strongly and persuasively, probably decisively, in favour of a release decision being made.
It is also worth saying by way of context—I know my hon. Friend has a wider interest in detention; we have discussed it on many occasions—that detention is used sparingly. At any one time, 95% of people who might be eligible for detention are in fact in the community. The numbers being detained are relatively small by historical standards. If I take the figure from 31 December 2019, before coronavirus, because coronavirus has caused the number to go down even further, there were 1,637 people in immigration detention, which is a pretty small number when we measure that against the number of people who probably do not have the right to be in the country.
The 1,637 number approximately halved in the two-year period preceding. From 30 September 2017 to 31 December 2019, the number of people in immigration detention roughly halved. The vast majority of people—we have debated this previously—are in detention for relatively short periods of time. Some 74% are detained for 28 days or less, so detention is not being used on a widespread, indiscriminate basis, but it is an essential component of running a proper immigration system. Where someone does not have the right to be here, or where they have committed a serious criminal offence and they are a foreign national, it is right that we take steps to remove them. Without having immigration detention available, it is extremely difficult to do that, so it is an important thing to be able to do.
As I have set out, we accept that modern slavery is a truly despicable crime. We take our responsibility to identify victims very seriously. We also take our responsibilities in using immigration detention very seriously as well. Our focus as we take forward these changes will be to make sure that the right balance is struck and that potential victims with genuine vulnerabilities are protected. We are determined not only to protect those vulnerable individuals, but to bring the perpetrators of modern slavery to justice. It is in that spirit that we have introduced the changes that will be debated in the main Chamber tomorrow.
Richard Fuller
I have a very small point. Will the Minister respond to specific questions that I asked and commit to reply in writing?
Immigration Rules: Supported Accommodation
Debate between Chris Philp and Richard Fuller(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Philp
Glasgow does accommodate a large number of asylum seekers. We work very closely with Glasgow City Council and the Communities and Local Government Secretary in the Scottish Government on that topic. Glasgow is the only Scottish authority to receive asylum seekers. It would ease the pressure on Glasgow, and indeed across the United Kingdom, if other Scottish local authorities were able to accommodate asylum seekers as well. In terms of the type of accommodation provided, the inadmissible cohort, although inadmissible, will be entitled to accommodation, as I have said, and the support that goes with that. We will make sure that the support they receive fully complies with all our legal and moral obligations.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for asking this question. The vast immigration detention estate, in all its forms, is a standing indictment of our failed immigration system, which, as the Minister knows, every day carries with it a risk. He is right to focus on reform, although I would say that the goal is not so much to be fast and furious as to be fair and accurate.
My question relates to the security of some of the barracks accommodation and other accommodation that is being provided. There have been some reports of asylum seekers leaving these estates and not coming back. What inquiries has the Minister undertaken, and what reassurance can he give to communities where these sites are located?
Chris Philp
The size of the immigration detention estate has actually shrunk considerably over the past five or six years. I think I am right in saying that it has reduced in size by, very approximately, 50%. Detention is used sparingly and only as a necessary precursor to removal. On the accommodation for people seeking asylum, this is not detention. The people are not detained and are free to come and go as they choose, but obviously those operating the sites keep a very careful eye on them. For example, there is a process of signing in and signing out, and if people are not back on the site by 10 pm each evening, then inquiries are made. Although the people in the centres are not detained, very careful measures are taken to understand their whereabouts to make sure that nothing untoward happens in the local communities. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that as reassurance, but I would be happy to discuss these issues further, particularly in the Yarl’s Wood context, if he would like to do that.