Hillsborough Families Report: National Police Response

Debate between Nigel Evans and Chris Philp

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

As I said earlier, several things have been done in the last few years to address the issues that have been raised—not comprehensively and not everything—but they include the professional standards for duty of co-operation; the pathology review; consulting on retaining documents, which is another recommendation; the consultation on the independent public advocate, and the removal of means-testing for exceptional case funding for bereaved families and inquests. All those things have been done.

The IPA is a Ministry of Justice lead. I cannot speak for that Department, but I can say that it is working actively on it.

The position on the delay is as I explained earlier. Between 2017 and May 2021, there were ongoing legal proceedings, as the hon. Lady just said. For the past 18 to 21 months, that has not been the case, and we need to get on quickly and bring forward the full Government response. I will make sure that that happens.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Because of the nature of the urgent question, I am giving a bit more latitude on the length of questions, but please help me by trying to focus as quickly as possible on the question in hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Closure for victims’ families through openness is critical. The bishop’s report was an important part of that, as were the various inquiries that happened in the aftermath; we will respond in full. There were, I think, 25 points of learning, some of which address the issues that the hon. Gentleman has quite rightly spoken about. When we respond in full to the bishop’s report, those issues will be addressed.

In closing, I repeat that I want to see this happen as quickly as possible. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made very clear the House’s expectation that it will happen as quickly as possible. I will make sure that it is my duty to ensure that it does.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank Ian Byrne for his urgent question, all those who have taken part and the Minister for responding for over 50 minutes.

Crime and Neighbourhood Policing

Debate between Nigel Evans and Chris Philp

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I have very little time. I do apologise, but I must make some progress.

There is clearly more work to be done in relation to serious sexual offences. In the year to June 2022, there were 1,371 prosecutions for rape. The number rose by 15% year on year, but it is still low. More work needs to be done, which is why, by June this year, Operation Soteria will be rolled out across the country.

Let me now respond to the question about police attendance in cases of domestic violence, because it was an important question and it was asked two or three times. According to the authorised professional practice of the College of Policing, police officers should attend every incident of domestic violence unless there is a personal safety reason—to do with the victim—why they should not do so. In some cases it may be more appropriate to deal with the offence confidentially, outside the domestic setting, but that is what the authorised professional practice already says.

There is a great deal of work under way on efficiency. We are working on reforming the Home Office counting rules and the incident reporting rules to remove bureaucratic burdens from the police so that they can be busy chasing criminals rather than filling in excessive paperwork, and I congratulate Chief Constable Rowley on the fantastic work he is doing in that regard. We are also working with our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care on ensuring that the NHS and ambulance services do more to alleviate mental health pressures on policing, and I thank Sir Stephen House for the work he is leading in that area.

Questions about police misconduct were asked by the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) and others. Next month the College of Policing will set out an expanded set of statutory guidance on vetting. We are checking police officers against the national police database, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services is checking up on the 43 recommendations that it made a couple of months ago, and the Home Office is reviewing the police dismissal procedure to ensure that officers who do commit misconduct can be dismissed more quickly. The hon. Member for Newport West asked about the speed of IOPC investigations. Speaking frankly, I must say that that does concern me, and it is an issue I will be raising with the IOPC.

Let me finally turn to the absurd and extraordinary claim that somehow Labour purports to be the party of law and order. If we look at Labour’s record in office around the country, we will see the truth. We can look at Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, closing police stations and presiding over an 11% increase in knife crime year on year. We can look at the west midlands, where the Labour police and crime commissioner, despite having received a 10% real-terms increase in funding in 2015, is proposing to close 20 police stations. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), talks about antisocial behaviour. We both come from Croydon. She has got a cheek: it was a Labour council in Croydon—a bankrupt Labour council—that scrapped the graffiti cleaning team. Goodness me! And, only a few months ago, we saw Labour Members vote against keeping rapists in prison for longer.

There is only one party of law and order, there is only one party delivering record police numbers and there is only one party that has cut crime by 50% in the last 12 years, and it is the Conservative party.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Just to inform the House, I will first put the question on the Opposition’s main motion. If that falls, the question on the amendment will be put.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

English Football League Governance: Derby County FC

Debate between Nigel Evans and Chris Philp

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady is right. It is a difficult situation to suffer a 21-point penalty. Back in 2010, my team, Crystal Palace, had a 10-point penalty and avoided relegation on the final day of the season. I hope—demand, really—that Derby County continue and survive. I hope they continue fighting on. I know they will show the spirit required to get every single point they can as they fight not for survival as a club, but for survival in the Championship. I wish them every bit of good luck in doing that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for coming off the subs bench to take the urgent question. I do not know who, when asked whether football was a matter of life and death, said it was more important than that—[Hon. Members: “Bill Shankly.”] Shankly, there we are. I think today’s urgent question proved that admirably.

Racism in Cricket

Debate between Nigel Evans and Chris Philp

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her point of order. As I said at the beginning, I am covering today’s debate for the sports Minister, and the hon. Lady is quite right to say that it is a commitment—a clear and affirmed one. The Department is currently working on ways to implement it as quickly as possible. I will make sure that my colleagues the sports Minister and the Secretary of State deliver this commitment as expeditiously as they possibly can.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Well, that was speedily done, was it not? Thank you very much, Minister, for responding to the urgent question today. May I ask Members who are leaving to do so in a covid-friendly way? Appropriately enough, we are moving on to a statement by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on the covid-19 update.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Chris Philp

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

Where somebody claims to be, or says they are, under 18, if there is any doubt, there is already a system—and in future there will be a better and more rigorous system—for properly assessing someone’s actual age. There are risks in both directions. If we wrongly assess someone to be over 18 there is a risk, but equally there are risks in the other direction, and it is time those risks were recognised.

On modern slavery, I pay tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). The Bill will ensure that we identify genuine victims of modern slavery and avoid unmeritorious claims that are designed to delay removal or deportation. Where someone is a genuine victim, we will ensure that they are properly looked after. This policy will make it clear for the first time in legislation that confirmed victims with recovery needs stemming from their exploitation will be entitled to a grant of leave, where that is necessary to assist them in their recovery, or to assist a prosecution. We hope that by encouraging people to bring their claims upfront in one go, asylum claims and matters involving modern slavery and human rights will be identified early and properly, and that we avoid some of the abuses that we have unfortunately seen all too often.

Some Members raised questions about detention, claiming that it was indefinite. That is not the case. We do not have indefinite detention, and 75% of people spend less than a month in detention prior to removal. The Hardial Singh case law principles mean that someone cannot be detained if there is no reasonable prospect of removal. There are frequent opportunities to apply for immigration bail, in addition to the protections afforded by article 5 of the ECHR. On the Dubs amendment that we have seen in the past, we prefer to prioritise, not people who are in safe European countries, but those who are in dangerous places.

The public expect us to look after those in genuine need. We will do so, but the public also expect us to protect our borders from illegal immigration and to promptly remove those with no right to be here. The Bill delivers those objectives. When the Labour party votes against it in a few minutes, it is voting against border control, and against removing dangerous foreign criminals who pose a threat to our constituents. The Labour party may not be prepared to protect our borders, but the Government are. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am anticipating two votes. Even though we have relaxed the regulations, I still urge Members to show due caution in giving safe distancing to their colleagues.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Chris Philp

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Lords amendments 2 to 17.

Lords amendment 18, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (e) in lieu.

Lords amendments 19 to 77.

[Chris Philp]

We had a very constructive debate on the Bill when it passed through the House last year, and I am delighted to speak to it again this evening.

Lords amendment 18, in the name of Lord Anderson of Ipswich, proposes a new upper time limit of four years for the duration of a terrorism prevention and investigation measure. The Bill as originally drafted sought to remove the current two-year limit and instead enable a TPIM to be renewed annually for as long as necessary. Having carefully considered the amendment tabled by Lord Anderson and consulted with him, the Government, in disagreeing with the amendment, have tabled amendments (a) to (e) in lieu, which set a five-year limit instead of a four-year limit.

I am given to understand that the noble Lord Anderson is content with that, and we believe that it represents a reasonable compromise between a desire to set a reasonable limit on the maximum duration of TPIMs and protecting our fellow citizens. We heard evidence from Assistant Chief Constable Tim Jacques during the passage of the Bill that occasions have arisen when there has been a cliff edge and people have posed a risk to the public after the expiry of a TPIM. The Government believe that a five-year hard time limit is, ultimately, a reasonable compromise.

Of course, TPIMs are reviewable on an ongoing basis. They are reviewed and renewed, and if somebody ceases to be a threat, the TPIM will be discontinued. Under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, there is not only an ability to have regular review hearings under section 9 but a right to appeal to the courts under section 16 for people wishing to challenge a decision for their TPIM notice to be extended. Given Lord Anderson’s agreement that five years rather than four is reasonable, I hope that the House will consent to our proposed amendments (a) to (e) in lieu.

Lords amendment 17 was a concession made in the Lords, and the Government will therefore support it. It elevates the burden of proof required before imposing a TPIM from reasonable suspicion, as originally proposed in the Bill, up to reasonable belief, which is a slightly higher standard of proof. Again, I hope the House will agree that this represents a reasonable compromise between this House and the upper House. The Government believe that with that slightly higher standard of proof, we can still keep our fellow citizens safe, and we feel that Lords amendment 17 strikes the right balance. We will therefore be supporting it, and it is backed up by Lords amendment 19, which creates an ongoing annual review by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation of the use of TPIMs, commencing for the first time next year.

I do not want to detain the House long with the other amendments, because there are a total of 77 and I do not wish to go through all of them one by one. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] I can hear that there is enthusiasm for that, but I am going to disappoint the audience by not going through each one individually. I will just say that a number of them relate to the devolved Administrations. In particular, we have removed the polygraph clauses from Scotland and Northern Ireland, because the legislative power already exists there, should those Administrations wish to use it. We have also made some technical changes concerned with single terming in Scottish law, and some technical amendments that are consequent on the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

In summary and conclusion—always a popular phrase—I think we have now arrived at a good set of measures, which will protect the public while also respecting and protecting fundamental rights. I therefore commend these amendments to the House.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Minister, and I will not detain the House long or speak to each of the 77 amendments. However, there are some issues that I want to raise. I will start by thanking the Minister; I know we had a robust exchange today across the Dispatch Box, and I am sure we will have many more, but his conduct in speaking to and informing me over the course of not just this weekend, but the passage of the Bill, has been exemplary. I want to acknowledge that.

Clearly, we also want to thank those across counter-terrorism, policing and the security services and all their partners who selflessly put themselves in harm’s way to advance the effort to keep people safe. Following the horrific events of Fishmongers’ Hall, Streatham, Reading, and the Manchester Arena attack and others like it, I think that everyone across this Chamber acknowledged that there was a clear need for a change, both in legislation and approach. These Lords amendments, and particularly those that the Government have accepted, speak to the heart of that, and it is why we welcomed and supported this Bill in principle all along. It has returned to us from the other place in better shape, and I am pleased to see that some of the proposals that we made in Committee have influenced it.

However, even as amended, it is arguable whether any of what the Government have brought forward in the Bill would have had a significant role in preventing any of those attacks. I do not think there are many new tools here, if any, that the Government did not already have at their disposal. Since the passage of the Bill began, we learned that the perpetrator of the Fishmongers’ Hall attack was deemed a high-risk, category A prisoner before his release, and that there was intelligence suggesting he might be planning an attack. We know that the perpetrator of the Reading attack had been released from prison only two weeks previously, following a 17-month sentence for affray and assault, raising concerns about the influence and consequences of radicalisation in prisons, and that the ongoing inquiry into the Manchester Arena attack has already identified some serious questions about how terrorist suspects are monitored, as well as aspects of security around major events. We know that the number of offenders on licence for terrorism-related convictions recalled to prisons is steadily rising for 2020; up to just June of that year, it had doubled from what it was a decade before. That is why it was surprising for me to find out that the Government do not have any idea how many terrorist suspects are rearrested following their release after previously being arrested or charged.

On the specifics of the amendments, particularly Lords amendment 17, Lords amendment 18 and amendments (a) to (e) in lieu, the Government initially rejected our call for a review of so-called lone wolf terrorists last summer. We have since learned that they have, in fact, conducted one, but they are not willing to share the results or make clear the impact or actions that have come out of it. I have asked for a briefing on it and have not heard back. I do not think that is in keeping with my experience of my relationship with the Minister and his colleagues, and I hope that we can find a way to resolve that. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that it is a different Minister. He is right, but it is the same Department, and I trust that now and again they cross each other’s paths and liaise on matters relating to the Home Department.

We note the announcement in last week’s integrated review that the Government intend to set up a new counter-terrorism operations centre, but there is nothing in this Bill about that, and we have little detail about how it fits into current structures, where it will be based, who it will be accountable to and what it will do. Of course we then have the ongoing review of Prevent. Things move quickly in the sphere of counter-terrorism, and it is important that the police, the security services, their operational colleagues, this House and, above all, the British public have confidence that the Government are adapting to emerging threats and, indeed, pre-empting them. Tough talk is fine, but we need to see it matched with tough action.

In Committee, we tabled amendments that would, for example, have led to additional judicial oversight and an even higher burden of proof, and compelled the publication of an exit strategy for TPIMs. I think I argued rightly that it is not in the interests of anyone to allow individuals to remain on TPIMs indefinitely, not least in terms of bringing them to justice.

On the issue of the burden of proof, we want TPIMs to be robust but flexible. That is why we struggle to see the logic in lowering the standard of proof, whether from a procedural, administrative or operational perspective, because no prior TPIM request had been rejected at that threshold, proving that it was no impediment. That is why we tabled an amendment that would have raised the standard of proof, like the Government are proposing now some nine months later, to try to find a middle way on “reasonable and probable grounds”. The provisions before us now effectively retain that higher standard, and of course we welcome that.

We acknowledge the work of colleagues in the other place on Lords amendment 18 and the amendments in lieu in the Minister’s name. We welcome the fact that the Government have responded to our concerns and those raised by hon. Members across this House and, indeed, those in the other place, accepting the general principle of Lord Anderson’s amendment but making the limit of a TPIM notice five years rather than four. We accept that; it is a good concession. As I said before, however, we will endeavour to monitor its workings and impact as we move forward.

Again, we acknowledge the Government’s response to issues raised about the use of the polygraph. That is welcome too, and I appreciate the Minister’s engagement on that with the official Opposition and colleagues from other parts of the UK.

Finally, we welcome Lords amendment 19. We believe that the framework around TPIMs will undoubtedly be improved and enhanced by the input of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

We will always be uncompromising in tackling terrorism and, in that spirit, willing to compromise and work constructively with the Government. That has been our approach throughout the Bill’s passage, and it is good to see that, in large part, the Government have listened to our concerns. However, I raise those questions, particularly because, as the Minister will be aware, this is a fast-changing environment and we need to be responsive. Getting that right is of the gravest importance for us all. Alongside scrutinising and, as appropriate and without apology, criticising the Government, I will always commit to working together where we can in this endeavour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am afraid we have not been able to establish the link with Jim Shannon, so we will go straight to the Minister.

[Chris Philp]

I think I can say with some confidence that we will hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on another occasion, which I look forward to very much.

May I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks, and I think the thanks of the whole House, to the security services and the police, who do so much to keep us safe in what are often very difficult and dangerous circumstances? I also thank the shadow Minister, the Front Bench spokesmen for the Scottish National party and the other parties, and the Chair of the Justice Committee for the very constructive way in which they have engaged in the passage of the Bill. I will respond briefly to one or two points that were raised.

The shadow Minister was looking for briefing on, I think, lone actors. The Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) would be the Minister to give that briefing. Obviously, he has had some health problems recently, but I hope that, through his private office, we can get that arranged as soon as he is back to his regular duties.

One or two questions were asked by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) about the five-year time period. I would emphasise that there are very few TPIMs in use. At the time we took evidence last year there were only six in use. Moreover, the subject has a right of appeal, as I said, under section 16 of the TPIM Act, so there are protections in place.

The hon. Gentleman also posed a question about evidence on the need for five years, rather than four years. As the shadow Minister will recall, we took evidence from assistant Chief Constable Tim Jacques, who said that there is a risk if the TPIM is terminated too early and somebody slips out. It takes time then to re-gather evidence to reimpose a new TPIM. He mentioned two examples: one where it took 12 months and another where it took 16 months. We are very keen to avoid that sort of situation, so I think there is good evidence.

Let me conclude by saying that the Bill is a very important measure. It constitutes decisive action to keep our fellow citizens safe from the scourge of terrorism. We saw in Streatham, at Fishmongers’ Hall and elsewhere how much of a threat former terrorist prisoners can pose on release. The Bill is designed to protect the public from those risks. I commend it to the House.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 17 agreed to.

Lords amendment 18 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (e) made in lieu of Lords amendment 18.

Lords amendments 19 to 77 agreed to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will now suspend for three minutes.

Immigration Rules: Supported Accommodation

Debate between Nigel Evans and Chris Philp

Wednesday 16th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The Government have been extremely clear that the rules on rough sleeping to which the hon. Lady refers only apply where the person concerned has persistently refused offers of help and support, and are engaging in persistent antisocial behaviour. It is expected to be used in an extremely small number of circumstances. Of course everybody will be offered help and support to get off the streets. The Government have invested about £700 million this year alone in helping people to get off the streets and into accommodation. She mentions Lewisham’s desire to assist. One way in which the London Borough of Lewisham can certainly assist is by taking on some unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who are arriving in Kent. I look forward to hearing from her and from the leader of her authority as to exactly how many of those children they propose to take in over Christmas.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to questions for approaching an hour. We are now going to suspend for three minutes for the sanitisation of the Dispatch Boxes, and the safe exit and arrival of Members of Parliament.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Chris Philp

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am terribly sorry, but we have to move on now.

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

Many hon. Members today have reminded the House that our first duty as Members of Parliament is public protection. The very moving contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), and the story of her friend, Louise, who was caught up in the terrible terrorist atrocity of 7 July 2005, very powerfully reminds us of that. On that awful day, 52 members of the public were murdered and 784 were injured.

We have heard powerful testimony from other Members who have had personal, first-hand experience of terrorism, including the hon. Members for North Down (Stephen Farry) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whose family members suffered at the hands of terrorist murders. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) said that in her professional career prior to coming to this place, she had first-hand experience of the victims of terrorism. That testimony should remind us how important our duty is. By taking this Bill through Report stage, we are discharging that duty to our constituents.

It is worth pausing to say how constructive the discussion on this issue has been, on a cross-party basis, on the Floor of the House here today and previously at Second Reading and in Committee. It is an example of this House and our political system working at its best. Members from all sides of the House can be very proud of the way we have conducted the debate on this extremely important Bill.

Let me turn now to some of the comments raised by colleagues this afternoon, starting of course with my opposite number, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who gave a characteristically detailed speech opening the proceedings. He started by commenting on new clause 1 on the probation service, which stands in his name and those of his hon. Friends.

Let me just take the opportunity to reassure him and other Members, once again, that probation service resources were significantly increased in the spending review last September. Moreover, earlier this year, counter-terrorism police resources were increased by £90 million and we are in the process of doubling counter-terrorist specialist probation officers, in addition to those very large numbers who have been given special training.

In addition, we are deepening multi-agency public protection arrangements. We are also establishing a counter-terrorism step-up programme, so I believe our work in the probation sphere is something all of us can take great confidence in.

Criminal Law

Debate between Nigel Evans and Chris Philp

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 14 October 2019, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this we shall consider the following motion:

That the draft Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (Consequential Amendment) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 14 October 2019, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

[Chris Philp]

It has been 47 days since the general election, and these measures deliver on a crucial manifesto commitment. Taken together, they will ensure that the most serious violent and sexual offenders spend two thirds of their sentence in jail, rather than half their sentence, as is currently the case. By making this change, we both protect the public and ensure that justice is better done. We protect the public because while someone is in prison they cannot commit any further offences, and we will be increasing the length of time they spend in prison. Secondly, this change will build public confidence in the justice system in general and the sentencing regime in particular.