Arrests and Prison Capacity

Debate between Kevin Foster and Chris Philp

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I may have got worked up, because the allegations being made were, in my view, unfounded and unsupported by the facts. I was simply trying to put across the facts—both the numbers and also the quotes from the relevant policing lead—which flatly contradicted the dystopian picture that the shadow Home Secretary, characteristically, was seeking to paint. To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question, we of course take such matters seriously. The Lord Chancellor is working night and day to increase prison capacity, both by building new prisons expeditiously and by pulling every lever at his disposal to build more capacity within the existing estate. The prisons are pretty full because the police have done a good job at identifying, catching and incarcerating dangerous criminals. A thoughtful approach, of the kind called for by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), has been taken. That is why, with the implementation of the end of custody supervised licence tomorrow, the issues and contingencies provided for in the letter of last week will no longer be required. It was an eight-day period and, thankfully, those contingencies were not in fact required.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is reassuring to hear from the Minister that the contingencies were not required, but also interesting to see that the letter was actually issued. Given his reactions here today to that, what process has he put in place to ensure that he is consulted before any such instructions or suggestions are issued?

[Chris Philp]

As a former Home Office Minister, my hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in this area. The police are operationally independent, but we liaise closely with them and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. I have regular discussions with Gavin Stephens, who chairs the NPCC, and, in relation to this matter, with Chief Constable Rob Nixon, who is the criminal justice lead, and with Deputy Chief Constable Nev Kemp of Surrey, who is the lead for custody. I will take this opportunity to place on the record my thanks to police up and down the country for their careful management over the past seven days, which has ensured that our fellow citizens have been kept safe.

Hillsborough Families Report: National Police Response

Debate between Kevin Foster and Chris Philp

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

As I have said, we are working quickly on the comprehensive response. The hon. Lady says that nothing has happened since 2018, but with great respect I do not think that is entirely accurate. I have referenced the professional standards for policing introduced in 2020, which introduced a duty to co-operate. I have mentioned the pathology review that has happened. I have mentioned the consultation on the independent public advocate, and I can tell her that that is being very actively worked on by the Ministry of Justice as we speak. We have had changes made to the exceptional case funding at inquest, so the means testing has been removed. A lot has been done. But I do accept that a comprehensive Government response is required. Since arriving at the Home Office, I have asked for that to be done as quickly as possible, and it will be.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Anyone who knows the story of Coventry City’s 1987 cup run will know that there was a match at Hillsborough where a near crush took place, making what then happened two years later tragically predictable. The Hillsborough disaster was a tragedy; the lies, smears and cover-ups that followed were an absolute disgrace, worrying echoes of which we saw after the Champions League final last year, so the extended delay in getting this response out just makes it even worse. Will the Minister at least commit today to the principle of the independent public advocate, to ensure that in future, families would be on a level playing field?

[Chris Philp]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and agree with his point about the policing failures at the time. It is right that the police comprehensively apologised yesterday for the police’s behaviour, both at the time and in the years subsequently. As I say, the consultation on the independent public advocate did happen, and it is under active consideration at the moment. I do not want to pre-empt the Ministry of Justice’s work on that, because it is for the Ministry of Justice to publicly respond, but I can tell my hon. Friend and others that they are actively working on it at the moment.

Stalking Protection Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Chris Philp

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 23rd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

On the question raised by our hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill a few moments ago—[Hon. Members: “And Battle.”] Let us not forget Battle. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) asked about funding. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government intend to increase funding to combat violence against women by £100 million between now and 2020? That may go some way to addressing the concern that our hon. Friend has raised.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for yet another very well thought through and incisive intervention. I am obviously encouraged to hear that news, as I am sure Members from across the House will be. We probably should be clear that this law is gender-blind—the victim of stalking could be male or female. I remember a case in Coventry, where a male vicar was targeted by a female stalker. I absolutely welcome the funding, which is a sign of the intention to tackle a problem from which, sadly, too many women suffer. When a relationship is breaking down, or even when it is still going, it can go from love and affection to aggression, control and domination.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Chris Philp

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The fact that the Government have adopted three measures shows that they are not only a Government who listen and adapt, but a Government who have taken more than 100 anti-avoidance and anti-evasion measures since 2010. That is a record the Government can be proud of, although there is always more that can be done. I will come on to one idea later.

The hon. Lady suggested in her very long and at times entertaining speech—perhaps inadvertently entertaining, but it was entertaining—that the Government had not shown leadership in the area of organising international co-operation to combat tax evasion. She also said it was a concern that we are leaving the European Union as we might lose that as a forum in which to combat tax evasion and tax avoidance. The most effective forum is the OECD’s BEPS initiative—the base erosion and profit shifting initiative. The UK Government have been a leader in this area—for example, on action five, which limited the deductibility of interest payments against corporation tax. That is another area where the UK Government have shown genuine global leadership.

[Kevin Foster]

Listening to my hon. Friend’s speech, I can see exactly why the shadow Chancellor rushed to the Chamber to enjoy it. On global co-operation, what does he make of the many treaties we have signed with other jurisdictions, such as Liechtenstein, which have allowed us to get hold of tax information and ensure there cannot be places where British taxpayers hide?

[Chris Philp]

That is an example of one of the many areas where we have taken action. Getting information from that jurisdiction and, I think, Switzerland has helped us to combat people who are not paying the tax they should. The proof of the pudding is ultimately—I can see the flood of hon. Members on to the Opposition Front Bench continuing—in the eating. The fact is that the amount of money collected in corporation tax has gone up from £35 billion to £55 billion.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), who was in his place earlier, shook his head when that point was made and referred to an IFS report, which he said made the point that if corporation tax rates were higher, they would raise more money. I have had the opportunity to look up that report since then. The article was in The Guardian, which is hardly a Conservative or right-wing newspaper—it may be too right wing for the shadow Chancellor, but it is not too right wing for me—and although any amount of money that might be raised in the short term is one thing, it goes on to say the IFS stated that “substantially less” will be raised in the medium term as companies respond by investing less.

The hon. Member for Oxford East asked what the intellectual backing was for suggesting that lowering tax rates increases revenue. That backing comes, of course, in the form of the Laffer curve, named after Professor Arthur Laffer, who made the case very coherently that lowering rates can increase the take—my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) made this point earlier—by encouraging investment and encouraging companies to relocate to a jurisdiction where there are lower rates of tax. That is no theoretical thing—[Interruption.] It is not only a theoretical thing, but a practical thing.

Since the Government introduced lower rates of corporation tax, a number of companies have chosen to take advantage of them by locating into the UK. Most recently, in August this year, Panasonic moved its European headquarters from Amsterdam into the United Kingdom, and clearly, competitive rates of tax were part of that. Back in 2012, when the former Chancellor, George Osborne, set this course, a whole number of companies announced that they were locating back into the UK, including Aon, which located here from the United States, Starbucks, which located its corporate HQ here from the Netherlands, and WPP, which located its corporate HQ here from the USA. More recently, Unilever considered moving its corporate HQ out of the UK to the Netherlands, but there was a huge shareholder revolt and it chose to stay here. Those are practical examples of a competitive tax system in action. That is part of the reason why the tax yield has gone up so considerably.

Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Chris Philp

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 26th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

As always, Mr Speaker, you can incisively see what is happening with my speeches; you have worked out that I was moving towards the end of my remarks. I know that some colleagues will be very disappointed that I am not going to try to break my record for a speech.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend speaks so rarely.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is enjoying this because it is such a rare chance to hear me in the Chamber.

This Bill is very worthwhile, and it is appropriate and proportionate. It has been strengthened in a welcome way in Committee with regard to the provisions on communal areas. I am pleased to support its Third Reading, and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the points raised during the debate.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Chris Philp

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 11th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is right. The vast majority of employers will be considerate and understanding and will look to support their employees. At the end of the day, they will generate a lot of loyalty in an employee that might well be repaid in a positive way at a later date. It is not a burden for an employer to be good to their employees. Reducing staff turnover can actually be a huge boost for a business. Employees can get experience and develop skills and will stay if they feel that the situation is more of a partnership than a “them and us” relationship.

Unfortunately, however, there is still an undoubted need to legislate. The majority of people would not discriminate against others based on their gender, sexual orientation, race or ethnicity, but there are some who would, which is why we have the law and the relevant sanctions in place.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I support my hon. Friend’s case for protecting bereaved employees by ensuring that notice periods operate in a reasonable fashion. However, to ensure that nobody falls through the cracks, does my hon. Friend agree that there may be a case for a more general duty on employers to act reasonably? We may not be able to set out every eventuality in regulations, so a general duty to act reasonably would provide protection for bereaved parents.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend has clearly read my amendment 9, which talks about a “reasonable” notice period. Is written notice reasonable in some circumstances, or would a simple phone call from a trusted close relative be suitable? People react to grief in different ways. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) pointed out that some people might need to take specific days off, but others may want the time immediately. Some people may even want to come into work the next morning, and they will be able to speak to their employer face to face.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) that things should be done on a reasonable basis. As a lawyer, I accept that there can be issues with words such as “reasonable” and “proportionate” and with where exactly we draw the line, but he is right that we do not want to split hairs about whether something is right or wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury touched on the fact that there will be no issues with most employers, but when an employer is looking to get out of doing something, that may lead to issues about how exactly notice was given or whether it absolutely conformed with the regulations. No reasonable employer would do that, but we legislate for those who are anything but reasonable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for making the point that this is about the minimum rather than the maximum. I take on board what he and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton have said. I certainly do not want to endanger these provisions, but I will be interested to hear what the Minister says when he responds to the debate. It would be useful to hear his views about the policy that will be adopted in the civil service. If he wishes to intervene now, I would be happy to let him, but he might find it easier to cover that when makes his speech.

This is an appropriate point for me to move on to amendment 7, which relates to the pay level. It would make it clear in the schedule that the minimum pay level will be statutory parental bereavement pay, rather than contractual pay. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, I hope that most employers will be flexible, but the amendment would make it clearer in the Bill that the minimum is the statutory pay. Of course, if employers wish to pay more—if they wish to treat the period as normal paid leave—they can, but the Bill will set out the minimum.

[Chris Philp]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his extremely detailed and thoughtful speech. Will he confirm my understanding of how the process will work: the statutory pay element would be reimbursable by the taxpayer—the Treasury—but any excess over and above that level that the employer might choose to give would not be reimbursable by the taxpayer?

[Kevin Foster]

I think that my hon. Friend’s interpretation is correct, but perhaps the Minister will cover that when he sums up so that we are absolutely clear about the Treasury’s position. My understanding is that the Bill makes clear the minimum—the statutory pay—but that employers are of course welcome to pay more. As we have heard, most employers—some 90%—are doing the right thing. I should be clear that most employers are already doing exactly what we want them to; we are legislating for the 10% who do not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He made that point earlier and he is right that we need a law that is compassionate yet workable so that we can interpret it in an orderly fashion and implement it for everybody.

The consultation will also look at the definition of a parent. That is needed in today’s society more than ever before, as we have different types of families and family dynamics. Sometimes people have more than one mother and more than one father, and we need to be flexible when defining parents and understanding of the different roles that people play as primary care givers.

Another important area is the self-employed, and I know that we will look at that as part of the Taylor review. I regularly speak in Parliament about making provision for the self-employed because although they are the lifeblood of our economy, they are too often forgotten and missed out from these types of benefits. Self-employed entrepreneurs are driving our economy forward, so it is important that we show just as much compassion and understanding to them.

I hope that this fantastic, modern, forward-thinking Bill will inspire other countries to follow suit. I hope not only that its provisions will set out the minimum that we expect from companies, but that we will revisit the Bill in the future and try to expand and build upon it.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) and to speak in such an important and moving debate. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on piloting this private Member’s Bill through the Commons—I hope it will conclude today—with such skill and deftness, which we have come to expect from him.

I also pay tribute to members of the Bill Committee, who clearly improved the Bill with such diligence and thoroughness. I gather from comments that have been made today that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) served on it, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), for Torbay (Kevin Foster), and for Colchester (Will Quince). I apologise if I have missed any Committee members out—[Interruption.] How could I possibly forget my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who is certainly nothing if not unforgettable. I thank and congratulate those hon. Members for their work, and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay has clearly given this matter extremely careful and diligent thought in tabling so many detailed amendments.

Before speaking to some of those amendments, I observe that the measures are extremely welcome. They strengthen protections and rights. One occasionally hears people claim, particularly as we think about leaving the European Union, that there may be some sort of race to the bottom on regulation and that we somehow plan to have less stringent employment rights in this country than in the rest of Europe. This Bill proves conclusively that that is not the case, and that this Parliament is willing and eager to legislate to strengthen employment rights and the rights that our citizens enjoy in ways that go far beyond anything contemplated by European Union legislation. This Bill is evidence that we are doing more, not less, when it comes to employment rights and other rights.

I turn to the first group of amendments—amendments 1, 2, 12 and 14—tabled by my hon. Friend. Amendment 1 would extend the definition of parents in this context beyond simply biological parents to include people who are acting as the deceased child’s principal guardian. Amendment 2 would include grandparents when they act as the child’s principal guardian. Those amendments are absolutely right in spirit. I am interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that these things need to be in the Bill—these amendments would do that—or whether they can be dealt with in regulations. Whichever approach is adopted, the spirit and thrust of my hon. Friend’s amendments are absolutely right. It is clear that whoever is caring for the child—the biological parent, a grandparent or a foster parent—they have an equally close connection to the child and would suffer the same level of anguish as a biological parent would. I therefore agree very strongly and wholeheartedly with the amendments that my hon. Friend has wisely tabled.

[Kevin Foster]

I appreciate the comments that my hon. Friend has just made about the amendments. Does he agree that we must focus on not ending up with a scenario in which a primary care giver—someone who has been a parent in almost all senses of the word—has no access to leave, while, in theory, an estranged biological parent could suddenly have that access? We must reflect the impact on the person who has been doing the parenting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I can confirm that my hon. Friend’s interpretation is correct. I wanted to make clear what the statutory minimum was, but this is, of course, about a floor and not a ceiling. Employers would be welcome to go further: the amendment would not change that.

[Chris Philp]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his additional clarification. We are in complete agreement.

Speaking of complete agreement, I want to make one more point about the amendments. It relates to amendment 9, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, assisted on this occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. The amendment proposes the introduction of a test of reasonableness in relation to notice periods, to which a number of Members have referred.

Clearly, in circumstances of probably unexpected bereavement, requiring parents to comply with potentially quite prescriptive and very detailed notice periods would not be appropriate. As other Members have said, it would present the risk that a bereaved parent might inadvertently fall foul of one of those notice periods. I think that there is a strong case for a general requirement—either in the Bill, which is the aim of the amendment, or in subsequent regulations—for employers to act reasonably in this context. Such a catch-all would, I think, provide a general level of protection and reassurance for bereaved parents.

I know that other Members want to speak. Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton: I am delighted to be here today to support this excellent Bill.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate. I have been greatly moved by what has been said by Members in all parts of the House. Others may agree that the House is shown at its best when it works on a cross-party basis—when it listens to Members who speak about their individual experiences and who speak with passion and knowledge. I salute all those who have done so today: their speeches have made a great impact on me and, I am sure, on my constituents and the whole country.

We are debating a very important piece of legislation, but perhaps one of its effects will lie outside legislation. As anyone who has experienced bereavement will realise, one of the initial feelings is isolation—the sense that friends or family are not coming to see them or a feeling of distance from their employers. I hope that those who are watching the debate or who read the report later realise how much they are not alone. They are listened to, and many Members on both sides of the House have their interests firmly at heart and are doing everything they can to help.

I warmly welcome the Bill, and I pay tribute—as others have, but it bears repetition—to all those who have argued this case so compassionately and for so long. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) has been one of the leading lights, and he introduced a version of the Bill that sadly did not make it past the general election. The Government have picked the issue up and support the Bill—it was in the Conservative party’s manifesto—and I thank them for doing so. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) has, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, picked up the baton—a nice way to put it. It is important to remember that this is very much a team effort, and several Members supported it in the recent Westminster Hall debate and the baby loss awareness debate some months ago, in which I was deeply honoured to speak. I thank everyone involved enormously, because many people in West Oxfordshire will be feeling grief and loss but be heartened to see that so many people in this House are seeking to help them.

I am also pleased that, while some other countries have similar rights, we will be world leaders in introducing this level of rights and protection. That makes it sound a little too inhuman—it will be a level of reassurance and human compassion that will be world leading. I am proud to be able to make a few brief comments in support of the Bill and on the amendments tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House to attempt to improve the Bill, which is of course to be highly commended.

Amendments 1, 2, 12 and 14 deal with definitions and whether we should be dealing solely with literal parents. I do not think that we should be prescriptive and that only biological parents should be the beneficiaries of assistance under this legislation. Clearly, as we will all know from our constituents, many people can be involved in caring for a child: the biological parents or foster parents, or others who it is difficult to foresee in legislation but who may be deeply involved in a child’s upbringing and be devastated by its loss. We should be as flexible as we can to ensure that people, however they are connected—whether they have a caring responsibility in a formal sense or in more of a moral sense—are equally protected and assisted by this legislation.

We will need some clarity, and the Government are consulting on this and listening carefully. It is a drafting issue and we will have to ensure that the Bill is phrased to provide breadth and width, but also clarity. We must make it clear in passing the legislation that we are seeking to help those who are bereaved having cared for a child and that we do not want to be prescriptive about particular classes of carer.

Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Chris Philp

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I will come to the substance of the Bill in a moment, but I entirely agree that the hon. Gentleman’s brother’s experience—two days!—is clearly well beyond anything that is remotely reasonable and also that reporting should be made easier. We should put some of these facts into the public domain so that people who think they might have been unfairly abused, either in this area or a related one, can report the companies and action can be taken.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech. Does he agree that one way of dealing with this is to have very clear guidance on the existing law about what is an acceptable trial period and what is flagrantly trying to dodge the law and the minimum age, as Mooboo Bubble Tea tried to do in Glasgow?

[Chris Philp]

I will come to that point, but first I want to put two other facts about enforcement on the record. First, HMRC has a team of 400 people working on this. I am very sorry that the brother of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) did not feel able to report the matter to one of those 400 HMRC staff. Secondly, the budget for enforcement was recently doubled from £13 million to £25 million, which I hope gives some confidence that HMRC and the Government are taking this very seriously.

I turn now to the point just raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). There is clearly an issue with enforcement. My understanding of the law is that excessively long unpaid work trials are currently unlawful and should be paid. We have heard three examples in the Chamber today, two from the hon. Member for Glasgow South and the one we heard a moment ago from the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown. All involved periods of work—two days in the last case and periods of two or three days and 40 hours in the other two—that strike me as clearly far in excess of what is reasonable and ought to fail the test of not being excessively long unpaid work trials. I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation that those three examples do indeed contravene existing regulations and that, in his view, had they been reported—I think one or two were—the company would likely have been found against.